Given all of the data presented here is true, does this change the current conclusion that there are less deaths per TWh for nuclear? Or would the inclusion of the increased cancer rates tip the scales?
> ... deaths per TWh ...
We don't know what the actual death/TWh is for nuclear is yet because there hasn't been "enough" TWh's.
Luckily, we can use the data we have and come up with some intermediate conclusions while more data is collected - rather than sweep it under the rug.
It boggles my mind that we are still burning oil while opposing nuclear because "it's too dangerous."
I am saying that deaths/TWh is NOT a useful metric. It is a ridiculous reductive way of looking at this that assumes a continuous random failure rate.
The same applies for fossil fuels although, as you state, it isn't punctuated with the possibility of an immediate catastrophe like a meltdown but something else entirely-- irreversible climate damage.
Chernobyl would have been illegal to build anywhere else in the world since it was such an inherently dangerous design. It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else. At any rate, when you say "As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are possible." - you need to back that up with something. We've had hundreds of reactors producing hundreds of TWh of electricity per year for decades with less loss of life than any other power source.
It is fair when you're talking about human hubris and what it can lead to. Chernobyl (and other reactors like it) should've, could've, would've done x,y,z, but that disaster did occur, that area is totally uninhabitable, and the people living near there still are affected.
Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. "net less of life" isn't really a good statistic because living things are also affected.
I re-read the parent to your comment looking for the words "inherently safe" in vain. I don't think they are claiming it is inherently safe.
My 2c on it is that yes, it is important to recognize the failures and lessons learned when moving forward. However, we don't bring up the Model T when discussing road safety today. This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built. So, yes we need to think about Chernobyl. No, it isn't fair to directly compare Chernobyl to Gen IV plants.
That is true, but even when Chernobyl was built, no western country would have licensed a commercial reactor without a containment dome. That combined with the RBMK reactor positive void coefficient meant Chernobyl was basically a disaster waiting to happen.
A totalitarian regime built an unsafe reactor that would have been illegal to build anywhere else because it was a very dangerous design - yes I agree they were arrogant idiots. It's certainly not the only example of the Soviet Union not caring the environmental consequences of its actions. It doesn't say much about reactors in other countries.
>...that area is totally uninhabitable, and the people living near there still are affected.
There are areas with very high radioactive background levels, but a couple hundred people live there full time and thousands of people work in the area.
>...Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-.
Who said generating gigawatts of electricity is or will ever be "inherently safe"? Nothing is inherently safe - there are risks when doing anything. All you can do is compare the risks/rewards and try to choose the best alternative. Any other approach is not rational.
When politicians pander to anti-science fears, it can have real consequences. For example, Germany abandoned nuclear power while keeping coal plants running even though the death tolls from burning coal are astronomical compared to nuclear. Coal plants will kill more people this year than nuclear has done over the last 100 years - and that includes the Chernobyl accident and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan!
But, just earlier today was a fancy chart comparing deaths/TWh of each energy source, which I believe used the numbers this particular article is refuting. I was wondering if anyone had a similar chart/data, except using the numbers presented in this particular article.
Opinions are great and all, but there's actual numbers to use which is what I am more interested in.