How are renewables more dangerous?
Though it has to be said that solar/wind and nuclear are all extremely safe, meaning it doesn't really matter that much which of these you use, the overall risk is always going to be very low, and the relative numbers are going to be very sensitive to small changes or variations in analyses.
Hydro is significantly more dangerous, and all the fossil fuels are tremendously more dangerous.
Due to the fact that intermittent renewables usually require fossil backup for that majority of countries that don't have abundant hydro, you have to take that into account.
A 2013 paper by NASA showed that nuclear power had saved around 1.84 million lives by 2011.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html
A 2019 study shows that reduced use of nuclear energy post-Fukushima cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
https://columbia.edu/~mhs119/Kharecha.Sato_Jpn.Ger_post.Fuku...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
Whereas the WHO predicts that there will be no measurable health effects on the general Japanese public from Fukushima, and the majority of negative health consequences were from the unnecessary evacuations.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201...
Radiophobia kills!
Who said that?
What are you talking about? How is a solar panel even on the same safety-shelf with nuclear material??
What are you talking about??
> A 2013 paper by NASA showed that nuclear power had saved around 1.84 million lives by 2011.
Which is again related to the Astroturf tactic of playing nuclear vs. coal and is not related to today's calculations where it is renewables vs. nuclear.
Would you please stop derailing the discussion with this?
Nuclear peaked in the 90 and is being overtaken by renewables in certain countries as well as probably worldwide this year: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...
It is actually renewables which lead to coal being removed from the mix. Not nuclear:
Not "who". "What". And the answer is "the data". The data say that.
Empirically. Completely independent of whether you understand how.
And nuclear did not peak in the 90s. 2024 was a record production year, 2025 was another record production year, the number of states adopting nuclear power is rising, the number of reactors is rising, the number of builds is rising, the rate of the increase in number of builds is rising.
Empirically.
And intermittent renewables are ... intermittent ... and therefore cannot actually completely replace fossil fuels. Which is why almost all industrialized nations are doing nuclear AND renewables.
Only in the renewbro-bubble are nuclear and renewables mutually exclusive.
In the real world they are complementary. Here's the Finnish environment minister:
"If we consider the [consumption] growth figures, the question isn't whether it's wind or nuclear power. We need both," Mykkänen said at a press conference on Tuesday morning.
He added that Finland's newest nuclear reactor, Olkiluoto 3, enabled the expansion of the country's wind power infrastructure. Nuclear power, he said, is needed to counterbalance output fluctuations of wind turbines.
Why don't you link to "the data" then?
> And nuclear did not peak in the 90s. 2024 was a record production year,
I just gave you a source which proves my statement and shows that yours is a lie. Just like everything else you added to it.
> And intermittent renewables are ... intermittent ... and therefore cannot actually completely replace fossil fuels.
Weird how they can't but already do. Must be some kind of magic eh?
> Only in the renewbro-bubble are nuclear and renewables mutually exclusive.
Nope. This is a lie also :)
Nuclear clogs up transmission ways when it's not necessary. This is a fact and happens today.
> Here's the Finnish environment minister:
Why not add the French environment minister also? You can add as many ministers as you want, the world doesn't care. The money goes into renewables and they're the future.
Here is the source again: https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
Your source shows exactly that what I said is the truth, and that you are lying.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...
The highest number for nuclear electricity production are 2024 and 2025, with 2025 being slightly higher than 2024.
1965 25.539724
1966 34.43329
1967 41.006016
1968 52.113163
1969 61.783413
1970 78.87466
1971 109.70418
1972 152.17516
1973 203.90158
1974 266.6001
1975 369.8482
1976 432.67142
1977 538.5478
1978 625.7944
1979 650.8599
1980 711.9242
1981 840.75073
1982 912.17755
1983 1033.8127
1984 1254.5685
1985 1488.9216
1986 1594.7357
1987 1734.7332
1988 1891.2493
1989 1945.0106
1990 2000.596
1991 2096.3098
1992 2112.223
1993 2184.9646
1994 2225.9788
1995 2322.5298
1996 2406.615
1997 2390.0642
1998 2431.1948
1999 2523.7056
2000 2540.46
2001 2613.17
2002 2654.78
2003 2601.05
2004 2719.41
2005 2726.97
2006 2761.59
2007 2703.49
2008 2694.72
2009 2656.76
2010 2725.91
2011 2610.34
2012 2432.22
2013 2448.52
2014 2498.73
2015 2532.93
2016 2571.05
2017 2594.23
2018 2658.7
2019 2754.08
2020 2648.33
2021 2762.44
2022 2639.64
2023 2697.74
2024 2777.11
2025 2811.57
> Nuclear clogs up transmission ways when it's not necessary.
Haven't heard that joke in a long time. Good one!
> Haven't heard that joke in a long time. Good one!
It's not a joke.
It's reality.
It has nothing to do with reality.
It ain't me.
As one example of many see previous post on nuclear production records.
What I wrote is and has been an actual topic of real world politics here.
There is nothing speculative or questionable about it.
Nuclear reactors are not flexible. To keep them in any way financially sane, you have to keep them running as long as possible. Even when the energy they produce is much much more expensive then the one from renewables. This is why they block the grid an renewables had to be turned off.
it happened before we turned off the crap.
So you are lying.