>Coal may kill more people, but it doesn't irradiate the surrounding area for hundreds of years if something goes wrong.

Actually, coal irradiates the surrounding area when it is working properly, and it adds to global warming at the same time, it can do both!

To be clear, the major concern with nuclear disaster is ground water contamination. That is, the reactor melts through and the corium gets into the groundwater, contaminating it with radiation.

After initial evacuation, most of the elements that spread have a relatively short half life and decay quickly. The heavy elements are too heavy to get blown around, but they can irradiate other things (like water) that can get around fairly easily.

Chernobyl was a special case because they actually blew up the reactor, and their graphite moderator caught fire, so you got lots of radioactive smoke. Most plants use water or heavy water as a moderator, so at least it doesn't catch fire in a disaster (the steam cloud isn't that great either, but at least it doesn't stick to stuff).

Anyway, agree with your anti-fragile opinion in terms of the current (ancient) reactor designs. We really need a new design if it is going to be viable over a longer term.

People are advised not to eat too much tuna, because coal polluted the entire ocean with mercury.

The worst nuclear disasters pale in comparison to what we did with fossil fuels.

The problem with this kind of comparison is that nuclear can cause one-time incidents resulting in massive social disruption and economic issues for a period of time. COVID-19 shows that, as a society, the world in general is not prepared for stuff like this; even the initial Chinese quarantines started causing supply chain issues that reverberated around the world.

It is much easier to ask people to reduce tuna consumption, than to relocate 100,000+ people, as happened in Fukushima.

Coal power plants produce hazardous byproducts called "coal ash". [1] The US generates 200 million tons of this highly toxic sludge and most of it just gets dumped in a landfill, contaminating the area for decades. [2] Nuclear is far cleaner, even if the byproduct is radioactive.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_coal_ash

2. https://www.sierraclub.org/wisconsin/coal-ash-pollution

I'm not anti-nuclear, but would you agree that solving the coal waste is an easier problem to solve than the nuclear waste one?

I'm not sure that point is a very strong one.

I wouldn't. Coal ash takes up an enormous amount of space, and it can blow around too. Nuclear waste takes up a relatively small volume.

Interesting. I think the opposite. Just the fact that we've spent tens of billions on Yucca mountain alone to have it go nowhere makes me think differently.

If I was a contractor faced with solving the coal ash problem or the nuclear waste problem, I'd avoid the latter like the plague even if just for the political difficulties, notwithstanding the engineering part of the problem.

The only reason trillions of dollars haven't been spent cleaning up the byproducts of burning fossil fuels is because we just dump it into the environment instead. If the fossil fuel industry were held accountable for the waste, it would be much more expensive than the boondoggle that is Yucca mountain. (Particularly if CO2 emissions are properly considered...)

Good point. Any idea on the costs associated with implementing something like carbon capture?

Best so far is 1 gigajoule per ton of CO2: http://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-engineers-develop-new-way-remov...

Which is pretty much only going to happen if you invest a lot of money into nuclear facilities dedicated to this. 1GJ is about 280 kilowatt-hours.

Yucca mountain is the wrong solution. We can reprocess nuclear fuel waste easily already, reducing this issue by quite a lot. As a policy issue the United States does not, so you end up with much more “spent fuel” than necessary.

Radioactive byproducts (steel and such) are a bigger issue, but hopefully you only see a lot of that when you are actively decommissioning a plant.

As you alluded to, I think it's the policy/political problems that are more difficult to overcome compared to the technical issues. That's the main reason I was assuming it would be easier to solve the coal ash problem

Given the choice; the vast majority of humans prefer to live in cities with population densities that are high. Given the choice & language not being a barrier, I'd prefer to live in Hong Kong at density 6,300 people/sq.km.

I'm not sure that irradiating the surrounding area for hundreds of years is as big a blocker as people believe; the earth is huge and we have a surplus of land in places people don't want to live. Most of the earths surface is already practically uninhabitable for humans and we are doing just fine.

Ironically, the places where it does matter (island nations like Japan) are almost forced in to nuclear because they have no space. They are probably doing more damage long term going back to fossil fuels than Fukushima did.

> Given the choice; the vast majority of humans prefer to live in cities with population densities that are high.

Moving to cities for economic opportunities is not a neutral choice in any sense. I’d question that most people actually prefer crowded cities.

The increased economic opportunity is part of the crowd package. Why don't you think it counts?

In the late 19th and early 20th century, millions of people moved to industrial centers like London, Manchester (U.K.) and Pittsburgh (USA) for work. These cities were extremely polluted, often to the point where you couldn't see the sun during the day. The exact same thing happened over the past few decades in China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London

https://popularpittsburgh.com/darkhistory/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China

It seems pretty absurd to suggest that anyone neutrally "chose" to live in such miserable surroundings. Clearly they moved there for lack of economic opportunities elsewhere.

I'm impressed but also confused that the calim nobody would chose to do something is being supported only with evidence that millions of people chose to do that thing despite exposing themselves to the negative effects you cite.

This is how powerful the draw of cities are. People will happily sacrifice seeing the sun for an opportunity to live and work in a city - if the alternative was living in the country.

And I think it is pretty obvious that between city-no-sun, country and city-sun the ranking is going to be:

1) City-sun

2) City-no-sun

3) Country

By the numbers, nobody chooses to live in the country. Your counterargument is essentially that people have good reasons to live in the city - yeah, that is obvious. That is why they are making the choice that they are. I dunno what this 'neutral choice' concept is but I don't believe it is a real thing. Yeah they move for economic opportunities. That is why sterilising large areas is irrelevant. People have been tested and nobody cares about the environment when the economy is on the line; they are all going to be crammed together in cities.

Prior to the modern age, it was considered more desirable to live in the country.

> By the numbers, nobody chooses to live in the country.

Again, by the contemporary numbers. Contemporary trends cannot be translated into broad sociological statements about human beings. This is basic historical knowledge. In the US alone, the return to cities is a fairly recent phenomenon. Cities were considered undesirable and suburbs were heralded as having a better quality of life as recently as the 90s.

Historically, movement to cities has been driven almost entirely by economics. No one wanted to live in a cramped city slum and there was no "choice" between two equal options, one in the city and one in the country. It was more a choice of continued rural poverty, bordering on starvation, or a polluted, miserable, economically-better existence in a city.

Actually coal plants are a huge emitter of radiation already. The radiation emissions of one coal plant might not compare with one full-blown nuclear plant disaster, but it certainly a noteworthy emission on average.

How much radon is released in natural gas fracking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_and_radio...

If the energy industry had to follow the regulations of the nuclear industry - we'd be back in the stone age. Nuclear is the only way we can reach our co2 targets in time. I think renewables and nuclear need to be implemented at the same time.

Eh, Chernobyl is not that bad. It's basically a wildlife refuge now.

>...Coal may kill more people,

I don't think there can be any doubt about this.