<story><title>Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54211450</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>BurningFrog</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;securely dump all spent fuel&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reminder that Coal and oil energy gets to dump &lt;i&gt;their&lt;/i&gt; spent fuel in the atmosphere, and thereby our lungs!&lt;p&gt;The uneven treatment of different energy sources really is fantastic!</text></item><item><author>ComputerGuru</author><text>Nuclear is only so relatively expensive because it’s the only fuel source that’s forced to pay up for all the externalities up front (and I’m not saying that is a bad thing to require). A nuclear plant can’t be built if the money to make it safe (as per  some specification), insure against all health complications while it’s in operation, decommission it, clean up the site, securely dump all spent fuel, and return the site back to “normal” &lt;i&gt;decades later&lt;/i&gt; isn’t put up in escrow from the start: that’s all captured in the price.&lt;p&gt;If we did that for fossil (and other) fuels, you’d bet they would cost more too.</text></item><item><author>Lazare</author><text>Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh.&lt;p&gt;Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear.&lt;p&gt;Does that mean nuclear is just a totally great idea? No; the issue with nuclear is cost. Historically it has been quite expensive, but subsidised in opaque ways. In a zero carbon world, it might make sense for baseline generation even if it&amp;#x27;s expensive; in the world we live in it needs to compete on price. Can it?&lt;p&gt;The debate about nuclear is never ending, and yet at the same time, seemingly never focused on anything relevant. How many times do we need to go through the same cycle? &amp;quot;But what about Chernobyl?&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;But what about deaths due to coal?&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ryathal</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s only about half their waste, the other half gets put into man made ash ponds that eventually become superfund sites, or leak into rivers and cause massive damage.</text></comment>
<story><title>Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54211450</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>BurningFrog</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;securely dump all spent fuel&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reminder that Coal and oil energy gets to dump &lt;i&gt;their&lt;/i&gt; spent fuel in the atmosphere, and thereby our lungs!&lt;p&gt;The uneven treatment of different energy sources really is fantastic!</text></item><item><author>ComputerGuru</author><text>Nuclear is only so relatively expensive because it’s the only fuel source that’s forced to pay up for all the externalities up front (and I’m not saying that is a bad thing to require). A nuclear plant can’t be built if the money to make it safe (as per  some specification), insure against all health complications while it’s in operation, decommission it, clean up the site, securely dump all spent fuel, and return the site back to “normal” &lt;i&gt;decades later&lt;/i&gt; isn’t put up in escrow from the start: that’s all captured in the price.&lt;p&gt;If we did that for fossil (and other) fuels, you’d bet they would cost more too.</text></item><item><author>Lazare</author><text>Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh.&lt;p&gt;Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear.&lt;p&gt;Does that mean nuclear is just a totally great idea? No; the issue with nuclear is cost. Historically it has been quite expensive, but subsidised in opaque ways. In a zero carbon world, it might make sense for baseline generation even if it&amp;#x27;s expensive; in the world we live in it needs to compete on price. Can it?&lt;p&gt;The debate about nuclear is never ending, and yet at the same time, seemingly never focused on anything relevant. How many times do we need to go through the same cycle? &amp;quot;But what about Chernobyl?&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;But what about deaths due to coal?&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Cthulhu_</author><text>And that burnt coal leaves a toxic waste product that also needs to be taken care of safely.</text></comment>