If you count only directly attributable deaths, then the total number is lower for nuclear than wind, if you include the estimated deaths (which are based off the controversial and unproven linear-no-threshold model, so it’s worth taking those results with a large grain of salt) then the total number is higher for nuclear, but the deaths-per-watt number is still significantly lower for nuclear. of course then you look at the deaths-per-watt for coal power, and find it’s many orders of magnitude greater than for nuclear and you wonder why humans are so dumb.
most of the land around Fukushima is safe now. also, consider the damage when the water is lapping around our ankles because we failed to implement workable solutions to climate change (thinking we can solve it all with renewables isn’t workable).
I was going to complain that none of these are able to mill anything, but generating electricity is definition number 2. I have always used the phrase “wind generator”. But I guess few people mill grain by wind anymore.
I also never said I was opposed to nuclear power, but the damage done from poorly designed or maintained nuclear power plants is still significant. Windmills also don’t result in hazardous waste we have to store for a thousand years. There are always trade-offs.
I can only assume that the “Actually ask Youtube a question” strategy was employed in the service of providing material for future disaster-porn videos; not in hope of an answer; the alternative is simply too depressing.
Even if your assertion was correct there remains another 20,000 years (at least) until humans can safely inhabit the land around Chernobyl.
It’s a little ironic that you[quote=“caze, post:26, topic:99887”]
wonder why humans are so dumb.
yet seem comfortable advocating the pursuit of nuclear energy despite the catastrophic consequences of reactor accidents and the fact there remains no workable system of safely disposing of the waste.
Fast breeder reactors happily consume all actinides leaving only fission products which have a maximum half-life of 91 years. They’ll also reduce the amount of waste to 1% of your typical light water reactor.
We lost our interest in them because it was cheaper to mine more uranium than use it efficiently and no one cared about waste for decades.
That said, a single decent sized fast breeder reactor could use existing nuclear waste as power and leave a much smaller and easier to dispose of waste product behind.
That’s the sort of idea that might have stood a fighting chance when the head of the Department of Energy was a nuclear physicist instead of a man who once pledged to eliminate the Department of Energy.