My country is going to commit economic suicide ...

[Mr. Scram]

But you'd have to agree that using fossile fuels have also caused massive dissasters. Think about acid rain and smog.

In 1954 over 10000 people died and 100000 got sick due to smog in London:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
To kill and injure a similar amount of people in one go you'd need a small atomic bomb. There probably isn't any other single weapon which can cause this much damage to a population of a city.

I'm not disagreeing with the dangers of fossil fuels. I don't think I ever have.

[cdev]

The combined impact of air pollution from coal, diesel exhaust, natural gas / methane and emissions of elemental mercury associated with coal on health are astronomical and they impact the weakest among us as well as the strong. Mercury also seems to be building up in many areas in ways we haven't seen before. They all threaten a great many peoples lives and health, as well as human reproduction, and there is no denying it.

But nuclear fission is NOT the 'solution' to that some are portraying it as. It's another can of worms filled with its own potentially world altering problems.

[Kleinstein]

The fuel in most reactor is considered not suitable to create a nuclear explosion, without an extraordinary effort. This criterion is used by the IAEO if material to be safe to be handled by non weapons states.
So it is essentially impossible that this would happen by accident. If there is an obscure TV report claiming such things - the logical thing it to have a good laugh    and ignore those "experts", not matter why they claim they are experts. Jut put them in the same box as those claiming martians are coming next week.

When the initial explosion happened  the fuel elements where still essentially intact. So while it was a significant explosion, that could have also damaged a heavy concrete roof, there was not that much radioactivity coming out. The isotopes found in much of Europe also showed that this where mainly the rather mobile elements, essentially no uranium or plutonium.

With the molten fuel reaching water, there was a danger (not sure for it to happen)  to get another smaller steam-explosion, but now with heavily damaged fuel and thus possibly more radioactive material (especially also the heavy metals). Even if the nuclear reaction would restart, this would be slow and usually limited by the water boiling off, or super hot fuel pushed away. The nice thing about a water moderated reactor is that formation of steam kind of stabilizes the reaction.

The man interviewed was one of the lead experts on site at the time of the disaster. Note that that documentary isn't the only source of the story either. It's been well documented and supported by other surrounding facts. This just happens to be a recording of the actual expert saying it himself.

The man only claimed to be an expert. However for what he is quoted later is big nonsense - so looks like the reporters are experts for fake news.  Common sense and general knowledge (e.g. about what one might learn in school) clearly says it does not make sense what is claimed in the report.  There are so called experts on UFOs too. 

[Mr. Scram]

The man only claimed to be an expert. However for what he is quoted later is big nonsense - so looks like the reporters are experts for fake news.  Common sense and general knowledge (e.g. about what one might learn in school) clearly says it does not make sense what is claimed in the report.  There are so called experts on UFOs too. 

Please, spinning this into fake news or UFO expert territory is silly.

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

[apis]

The biggest nuclear explosion that North Korea has been able to create after several decades is estimated to be 10 kiloton. To say you can create a 2-3 megaton explosion (or kiloton for that matter) by simply dropping some fuel-waste mixed with concrete into water is just plain ridiculous.

At most there could have been a steam buildup in the basement which could possibly have spread more heavily contaminated material around the accident site. But it would not have affected areas far away from Chernobyl. I would guess it might have made the exclusion zone a little more contaminated and made the cleanup around the reactor building more difficult. It was also quite possibly a direct threat to the personnel working at the site after the accident. So of course it would have been important to prevent that from happening. But it wouldn't have made the overall outcome much worse.

Expert > apis. The point is and has been all along that Chernobyl could have easily been a worse disaster and that's what you finally admit in this post. Not wholeheartedly, but it'll have to do. Now can be please be done with this senseless discussion over what's essentially a footnote? It doesn't change the fact that nuclear power has the potential to cause massive disasters one way or another.

To falsely claim that Chearnobyl nearly rendered Europe uninhabitable is not a footnote, it is an outrageous lie and perfect example of the kind of scaremongering the anti nuclear activists engage in.

It's not only my own conclusion. As I said, I even asked a professional published nuclear scientists who is an expert on nuclear weapons and has studied the Chernobyl disaster professionally. There was absolutely no risk of any nuclear explosion according to this expert. I even attached a scientific report that describes the dangers that the melted fuel from Chernobyl poses that you conveniently ignore, it does not mention any explosion risk.

I've said all along it might have been a little bit worse, but not so much that it would significantly affect the the end result.

Nuclear can potentially cause big disasters but so can hydro and coal (and for coal it is not potential, it is guaranteed). The point I have made from the beginning is that nuclear power poses less risk to human health (and the environment) than coal power does (and even hydro). That is easy to verify even by non-experts because the relevant numbers are publicly available today. You only have to make the final synthesis yourself; make a rough calculation of deaths per watt produced for different power sources. Coal power is not "just as bad", or "slightly worse", it is worse by many orders of magnitude.

The man only claimed to be an expert. However for what he is quoted later is big nonsense - so looks like the reporters are experts for fake news.  Common sense and general knowledge (e.g. about what one might learn in school) clearly says it does not make sense what is claimed in the report.  There are so called experts on UFOs too. 

Please, spinning this into fake news or UFO expert territory is silly.

Fake news is what it is. And we don't even know if that comment was translated incorrectly, or if it was taken out of context, or something else. But either way it is obviously BS.

[apis]

The combined impact of air pollution from coal, diesel exhaust, natural gas / methane and emissions of elemental mercury associated with coal on health are astronomical and they impact the weakest among us as well as the strong. Mercury also seems to be building up in many areas in ways we haven't seen before. They all threaten a great many peoples lives and health, as well as human reproduction, and there is no denying it.

But nuclear fission is NOT the 'solution' to that some are portraying it as. It's another can of worms filled with its own potentially world altering problems.

Nuclear isn't without problems, but neither is hydro electric or any other form of electric power source we know of. If you think nuclear shouldn't be part of the solution then you have to explain what should and show that it causes less harm than nuclear. Energy reduction isn't without problems either, if we make food, medicine and healthcare more expensive it also means that people get hurt.

[Kleinstein]

With a  video from a dubious source like youtube one has to be careful - there is quite a lot of click-bait. I would not not consider this video more serious as an article in News of the World or similar papers where you don't expect anything serious. I looked at the video and now very much doubt the translation - much of the scary part is from the narrator anyway, not the expert.

From what I vaguely remember they  feared the extra emissions if the molten core get contact to water - maybe comparable to the fallout of an explosion in the megatons range, though itself only with moderate explosions (more like kg equivalent). A reporter looking for a spectacular headline might get the details wrong in the translation. 

For the Chernobyl disaster itself, thus main cause was a combination of design faults and human error / violation of instructions.  It started with a test to verify the safety systems on the relatively new reactor. The test way delayed by expected urgent need for electricity and than run by an unexperienced crew that should have never done this test. The reactor was also in an unsafe state due to the way it was run at partial load the days before, with lots of xenon poisoning.  Following normally procedures it should have not run at all under these conditions, because it is known to cause instabilities. Only because the fuel was new, they could barely start it by pulling the control rods all the way out - something usually also not allowed.  As an at the time unknown design fault the controls don't work right, when all the way out and initially even accelerated instead of stopping the reaction. This critical combination lead to the power in the reactor to quite fast (within seconds) to rise very high - though only low power operation was expected. This lead to cooling water boiling and due to known design weakness (positive void coefficient) lead to even more power, like 100-1000 times the nominal power. The overheated reactor than blew apart from too much steam pressure and damaged the roof.  After that the exposed hot graphite moderator started burning, which helped to emit even more radioactive particles with the hot fumes over the next days. Much of the radioactivity was still trapped in the melting fuel.

Having relatively new fuel meant that there was quite a lot less radioactivity than normal in an older reactor. So while the accident was bad with the burning graphite, many reactors have a higher radioactive inventory. An older reactor of this type blowing up for what ever reason could have emitted something like 5 times the radioactivity.

[Mr. Scram]

To falsely claim that Chearnobyl nearly rendered Europe uninhabitable is not a footnote, it is an outrageous lie and perfect example of the kind of scaremongering the anti nuclear activists engage in.

It's not only my own conclusion. As I said, I even asked a professional published nuclear scientists who is an expert on nuclear weapons and has studied the Chernobyl disaster professionally. There was absolutely no risk of any nuclear explosion according to this expert. I even attached a scientific report that describes the dangers that the melted fuel from Chernobyl poses that you conveniently ignore, it does not mention any explosion risk.

I've said all along it might have been a little bit worse, but not so much that it would significantly affect the the end result.

Nuclear can potentially cause big disasters but so can hydro and coal (and for coal it is not potential, it is guaranteed). The point I have made from the beginning is that nuclear power poses less risk to human health (and the environment) than coal power does (and even hydro). That is easy to verify even by non-experts because the relevant numbers are publicly available today. You only have to make the final synthesis yourself; make a rough calculation of deaths per watt produced for different power sources. Coal power is not "just as bad", or "slightly worse", it is worse by many orders of magnitude.

Fake news is what it is. And we don't even know if that comment was translated incorrectly, or if it was taken out of context, or something else. But either way it is obviously BS.

It is a footnote in the context of this thread. It's a minor point in a much larger coherent picture. No matter how much information you're given that nuclear power isn't as benign as you suggest, you always manage to do some mental gymnastics to wave it away. That's not how it works. You can't wish a body of evidence and expert testimony away because it doesn't suit your story and it seriously impacts your credibility if you can't acknowledge any of it. A convincing argument is comprised of acknowledging counter arguments and addressing them, not flat out denying them. Calling fake news is the last resort for charlatans. I'm not against nuclear power as such, but if we're not going into it taking it very seriously it's bound to just end in another disaster. This past discussion has shown we're nowhere near mature enough to handle the dangers of nuclear fire responsibly. Waving away dangers means it inevitably blowing up in our face.

Coal power is bad too, yes. I never argued otherwise.

[Mr. Scram]

Nuclear isn't without problems, but neither is hydro electric or any other form of electric power source we know of. If you think nuclear shouldn't be part of the solution then you have to explain what should and show that it causes less harm than nuclear. Energy reduction isn't without problems either, if we make food, medicine and healthcare more expensive it also means that people get hurt.

That's a fallacy. You don't have to provide a way to cross a river if the rickety bridge already there is obviously going to kill us.

[apis]

Having relatively new fuel meant that there was quite a lot less radioactivity than normal in an older reactor. So while the accident was bad with the burning graphite, many reactors have a higher radioactive inventory. An older reactor of this type blowing up for what ever reason could have emitted something like 5 times the radioactivity.

Thankfully, no one is building that kind of reactor anymore. But even if it had been 5 times worse because of old fuel, the conclusion is the same, air pollution kills more people every year.

[Mr. Scram]

Thankfully, no one is building that kind of reactor anymore. But even if it had been 5 times worse because of old fuel, the conclusion is the same, air pollution kills more people every year.

Sources would be good from now on.

[Mr. Scram]

With a  video from a dubious source like youtube one has to be careful - there is quite a lot of click-bait. I would not not consider this video more serious as an article in News of the World or similar papers where you don't expect anything serious. I looked at the video and now very much doubt the translation - much of the scary part is from the narrator anyway, not the expert.

From what I vaguely remember they  feared the extra emissions if the molten core get contact to water - maybe comparable to the fallout of an explosion in the megatons range, though itself only with moderate explosions (more like kg equivalent). A reporter looking for a spectacular headline might get the details wrong in the translation. 

For the Chernobyl disaster itself, thus main cause was a combination of design faults and human error / violation of instructions.  It started with a test to verify the safety systems on the relatively new reactor. The test way delayed by expected urgent need for electricity and than run by an unexperienced crew that should have never done this test. The reactor was also in an unsafe state due to the way it was run at partial load the days before, with lots of xenon poisoning.  Following normally procedures it should have not run at all under these conditions, because it is known to cause instabilities. Only because the fuel was new, they could barely start it by pulling the control rods all the way out - something usually also not allowed.  As an at the time unknown design fault the controls don't work right, when all the way out and initially even accelerated instead of stopping the reaction. This critical combination lead to the power in the reactor to quite fast (within seconds) to rise very high - though only low power operation was expected. This lead to cooling water boiling and due to known design weakness (positive void coefficient) lead to even more power, like 100-1000 times the nominal power. The overheated reactor than blew apart from too much steam pressure and damaged the roof.  After that the exposed hot graphite moderator started burning, which helped to emit even more radioactive particles with the hot fumes over the next days. Much of the radioactivity was still trapped in the melting fuel.

Having relatively new fuel meant that there was quite a lot less radioactivity than normal in an older reactor. So while the accident was bad with the burning graphite, many reactors have a higher radioactive inventory. An older reactor of this type blowing up for what ever reason could have emitted something like 5 times the radioactivity.

It's not a "Youtube video", it's a documentary uploaded to Youtube. The important parts aren't from the narrator, unless you're talking about the voice over translation. Claiming that the whole thing is entirely but internally coherently mistranslated rather than a single number or unit being mistranslated seems mostly grasping at straws. Trying to call everything into question isn't very effective when the separate pieces are internally coherent.

It's probably interesting to note that this documentary is one of the few sources getting the survival of the men that went into the basement right. Most western sources report they perished soon after, but this documentary doesn't.

[Kleinstein]

It is very difficult to judge the dangers of nuclear energy. Some of the dangers are in the far future and thus not easy to know, as we obviously don't have experience with 1000 year old nuclear fuel. The accident probabilities are also open to controversial discussions. It also gets more tricky if breeding reactors are needed, as the supply of uranium is to low for large scale once through nuclear.

Anyway nuclear energy has other reasons why it can't replace coal as a main energy source:
For all we know so far nuclear energy turned out rather expensive and promises of low cost just did not turn out good. Even pro-nuclear calculations put the cost higher than for PV or wind at a reasonable location. Much of the costs are up-front and thus need capital willing to invest in a technology that is likely not economic.

The 2nd issue is that it would take too long to build a large number of reactors - maybe not as long as with fusion, but still more like 50 years. There are just not the facilities to build the classical reactor types in significant numbers and new designs take a long certification and development process.

There is also the political problem that the neighbors also take part of the risk and if in doubt may also have to pay for the disposal if the money hold back was not enough or got lost, e.g. to corrupt politicians or economic trouble. I don't think the US would be happy with Cuba tuning towards nuclear energy. Much of the cover-up  at Chernobyl is currently paid from western Europe and not Russia or the Ukraine.
I won't expect failing states have a good eye on the money laid back to properly dispose the waste or just keep up safety at the intended levels.

[Mr. Scram]

It is very difficult to judge the dangers of nuclear energy. Some of the dangers are in the far future and thus not easy to know, as we obviously don't have experience with 1000 year old nuclear fuel. The accident probabilities are also open to controversial discussions. It also gets more tricky if breeding reactors are needed, as the supply of uranium is to low for large scale once through nuclear.

Anyway nuclear energy has other reasons why it can't replace coal as a main energy source:
For all we know so far nuclear energy turned out rather expensive and promises of low cost just did not turn out good. Even pro-nuclear calculations put the cost higher than for PV or wind at a reasonable location. Much of the costs are up-front and thus need capital willing to invest in a technology that is likely not economic.

The 2nd issue is that it would take too long to build a large number of reactors - maybe not as long as with fusion, but still more like 50 years. There are just not the facilities to build the classical reactor types in significant numbers and new designs take a long certification and development process.

There is also the political problem that the neighbors also take part of the risk and if in doubt may also have to pay for the disposal if the money hold back was not enough or got lost, e.g. to corrupt politicians or economic trouble. I don't think the US would be happy with Cuba tuning towards nuclear energy. Much of the cover-up  at Chernobyl is currently paid from western Europe and not Russia or the Ukraine.
I won't expect failing states have a good eye on the money laid back to properly dispose the waste or just keep up safety at the intended levels.

That's one of my worries too. With appropriate care and respect for the dangers you may be able to handle nuclear power now, but nuclear power is a long term commitment. Just consider the huge political shifts and changes we've seen in the world the past century and it doesn't instil much confidence we'd be able to keep a lid on things for even just 500 years. Relatively recently we've seen many nuclear materials being abandoned in the former USSR.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/asia/a-secret-race-for-abandoned-nuclear-material.html

[Nauris]

On the issue of  RBMK reactors it should be noted that they received numerous safety patches after the Chernobyl accident, have been operated ever since without blowing up and they are considered safe enough that they received 15 year lifetime extension beyond original design lifetime, meaning RBMK reactors will be in commercial operation into 2030.

Also on the cost issue, althought new reactors are too expensive, they also have very long design lifetime of minimum of 60 years typically, which also likely can be extended even longer. I would not be too suprised if the reactors build today are still in operation after 100 years.

[Mr. Scram]

On the issue of  RBMK reactors it should be noted that they received numerous safety patches after the Chernobyl accident, have been operated ever since without blowing up and they are considered safe enough that they received 15 year lifetime extension beyond original design lifetime, meaning RBMK reactors will be in commercial operation into 2030.

Also on the cost issue, althought new reactors are too expensive, they also have very long design lifetime of minimum of 60 years typically, which also likely can be extended even longer. I would not be too suprised if the reactors build today are still in operation after 100 years.

I'd be more inclined to argue the life extensions are a safety issue where money and political interest trump over engineering and design life, rather than proof of how safe things are. As you say investing in new reactors is a massive undertaking, so there's a huge incentive to push the current investment a little further. While retrofitting exists, it's a bit of an issue the life cycle of these reactors are that long. It hampers the acceptance of safety features and new insights.

[apis]

Nuclear isn't without problems, but neither is hydro electric or any other form of electric power source we know of. If you think nuclear shouldn't be part of the solution then you have to explain what should and show that it causes less harm than nuclear. Energy reduction isn't without problems either, if we make food, medicine and healthcare more expensive it also means that people get hurt.

That's a fallacy. You don't have to provide a way to cross a river if the rickety bridge already there is obviously going to kill us.

No it is not. To use your analogy: we have to cross the river some way, even staying at this side of the river is dangerous and there is no safe way of crossing the river. So the question is how we can minimise the damage/risk. All roads are dangerous, life is dangerous.

We know the alternatives to nuclear are also dangerous. Hydro power also causes disasters and have killed more people per watt produced than nuclear has. Hydroelectric power stations damage the ecology of the rivers and waters it is connected to. (Conversely, Chernobyl inadvertently created a flourishing wildlife sanctuary.) So if you say we should use hydro instead of nuclear you are actually making things worse. I'm sure you know what they say about good intentions and the road to hell.

Thankfully, no one is building that kind of reactor anymore. But even if it had been 5 times worse because of old fuel, the conclusion is the same, air pollution kills more people every year.

Sources would be good from now on.

Unlike you I have already provided a ton of sources, I can't help you are ignoring them. These numbers should be well know if you have done any kind of research on this. How about you begin provide your own sources instead (credible scientific ones, not activist youtube clips).

For your convenience I'll post some references one more time (despite that it is easy to google yourself and already been posted).

Here's a study from Sweden about the impact of air-pollution: http://naturvardsverket.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1242584/FULLTEXT01.pdf

"The total number of excess deaths due to air pollution exposure was estimated up to 7600 in 2015." The population of Sweden in 2015 was less than 9.75 million, that means 0.08% die from air pollution every year. Compare that to the estimate of 30'000 total deaths from Chernobyl (globally and for all time) and you should realise that particles from nuclear power plants is a far less problem than particles from fossil fuel burning. For example: the EU had 2015 a population of 508 million, if we extrapolate from the Swedish study we get that about 400'000 die every year in EU because of air pollution. In one year more than 10 times as many people die because of air pollution (in the EU) than died because of the Chernobyl accident! Fossil fuel burning generate about 7 times as much energy in EU as nuclear does, but even if we take that into account we could have one Chernobyl disaster every year and it would still be less harmfull than the air pollution. And that is only looking at the EU, do the same math globally and it becomes even more obvious. There have only been two big civilian nuclear disasters since the first reactors in the 1940s. The track record for nuclear is even better than hydro-electric, the worst hydro dam accident killed over 170'000! You should also take into account that the safety of nuclear reactors have improved greatly since the 1960s, so we can expect future nuclear to be even safer.

Banqiao dam failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

It is easier to find information about Chernobyl than coal power strangely. 30'000 is from the torch report (27'000 to be precise), se for example:
https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated?

It might be worth noting that WHO, IAEA etc usually estimate this number to be much lower, here they write 9'000 for example:
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr20/en/

But it doesn't really matter which number you pick, since either way it's far less than those who die from air pollution every year.

More general information about Chernobyl:
https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/health-effects-chernobyl-accident.cfm
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html#Conclusions

[cdev]

One of the biggest problems we're going to face in the coming years is what I would describe as churning or disaster capitalism. Another is ISDS and its progeny. They are symptoms of a rapid decline in power held by working people and voters, due to a moving of decision making power out of the hands of national leaders (the people who are voted in and out of office) and into the hands of totally unaccountable and unelected "global governance institutions" whose administration and membership is controlled by a few large and powerful countries that all have a huge democracy deficit due to their having been taken over by huge multinational corporations. In whats described as the "trilemma" of globalization, democracy as people expect it has been basically ended except in name only, in whats claimed changes made to ensure the stability of the global financial system and investors.

See How to understand policy trilemmas | World Economic Forum

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/how-to-understand-policy-trilemmas/

But, we never got the memo. So we're unlikely to be able to figure out whats happening with any accuracy until its too late. There is a reason these people are so rich and we're so poor and its that they spend a lot of time on this, even obsess about it,  and for us, its just part of our full lives.

We're out of our league.

We'd be wise to stick to the most boring and safe everything because we live in what is increasingly a captured planet. Any excuse some people we've often mistakenly entrusted with power have to exploit anything they can characterize as an 'emergency' they will grab. They are not like normal people, they have no moral compass. Few people in our normal world are like that but large percentages of people in power are. Wealth in many people is an obsession or addiction. They literally would rather be dead than poor and subject to the same rules as others. They manipulate the system. They see themselves as above the law. And when they screw up, they screw up really really badly and WE ALL PAY THE PRICE, not them. That's guaranteed. They are laughing at us.

Do you understand what I am getting at? the world is going through a dangerous time. We still have trust, a legacy of gentler times. That trust is no longer appropriate.

A big problem we're facing most people don't even know is there. A relentless pressure on countries to sign irreversible or nearly irreversible trade and investment agreements that take policy out of the hands of voters and lock in decisions, even bad decisions, requiring insane amounts of punitive dmages if a country needs to escape them. It can take decades and huge payments from taxpayer funds of alleged 'lost expected profits"

People need to spend some quality time in research to understand whats being done. I'm reluctant to post URLS because frankly the issue is really quite technical and since it seems many people are desperate to have it not be discussed its best to give more general information. ISDS means "investor vs. state dispute settlement" Another term used by some to describe the clauses in these agreements is "trojan horse clauses" another is "indirect expropriation". They make facts like what is safe for a country irrelevant because they frame disputes in simple terms a dispute might hinge on what a company claim they expect but the system is really rigged in the worst way.

Imagine being in a court where you could only be sued by, not sue companies and the only questions the court were allowed to decide were highly technical ones like "did you agree to not change any law or regulation after this date"? Period.

The combined impact of air pollution from coal, diesel exhaust, natural gas / methane and emissions of elemental mercury associated with coal on health are astronomical and they impact the weakest among us as well as the strong. Mercury also seems to be building up in many areas in ways we haven't seen before. They all threaten a great many peoples lives and health, as well as human reproduction, and there is no denying it.

But nuclear fission is NOT the 'solution' to that some are portraying it as. It's another can of worms filled with its own potentially world altering problems.

Nuclear isn't without problems, but neither is hydro electric or any other form of electric power source we know of. If you think nuclear shouldn't be part of the solution then you have to explain what should and show that it causes less harm than nuclear. Energy reduction isn't without problems either, if we make food, medicine and healthcare more expensive it also means that people get hurt.

Maybe you understand me, maybe you don't. I'm just saying we have to go very carefully because the system is so very rigged against the interests of normal people now, and getting more so every day. We no longer have democracy. Any change of any kind will be exploited in ways we are unlikely to understand until years down the line we realize we walked right into a trap.

The smartest thing we could all do is cut our energy usage to the bone rather than make new commitments that cant be reversed. Every possible excuse will be used to steal from the taxpayers of the world. Thats the one thing the oligarchs agree on. They are a clubby little bunch and they are united against us.

Look up the huge number of ISDS cases that have been brought against taxpayers around the world involving energy.

For example, under the Energy Charter Treaty.

If you don't know what ISDS is, maybe you should do some research and learn what I'm trying to explain to you and us. It changes everything.

[Mr. Scram]

As we've discussed before, comparing numbers isn't going to fly. Various sources show the Soviet regime has downplayed the impact of the Chernobyl disaster, which means that comparing nuclear to hydroelectricity isn't so easily done. The same has been happening in the Fukushima incident and various others. Hushing things up seems to be a very common theme which in itself gives reason for pause. Not to mention hydroelectric disasters don't make the lands uninhabitable for generations. Build new dam, pump the rest dry and you're good to go again. There's no such thing with nuclear power. The argument of newer nuclear plants being much safer is also true for hydroelectric dams. The number of deaths in modern parts of the world is nearly zero. The hydroelectric death toll is mostly shaped by a single disaster in what was then a not very sophisticated part of the world.

How sure are we that that many people even died in that dam break? The Wikipedia article references some web article. The same article even states the casualty rate was much lower. "According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died in the province from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine." That's already an order of magnitude lower. If you recalculate the deaths per watt produced that's about the same as solar, wind and nuclear power, but without the risk of blowing your country into oblivion for centuries. Helping yourself out of the frying pan into the nuclear fire isn't making things better. It's just making things different.

[apis]

It is very difficult to judge the dangers of nuclear energy. Some of the dangers are in the far future and thus not easy to know, as we obviously don't have experience with 1000 year old nuclear fuel. The accident probabilities are also open to controversial discussions. It also gets more tricky if breeding reactors are needed, as the supply of uranium is to low for large scale once through nuclear.

It's difficult but it's been studied for over 30 years now, we do have ballpark figures and they are enough to show that nuclear is one of the safest energy sources we know. 1000 year old nuclear fuel is going to be far less dangerous than the fresh fuel, and if buried in deep geological repositories it will not cause any harm to anyone on the surface. (Please don't tell me the earth might be hollow ).

Anyway nuclear energy has other reasons why it can't replace coal as a main energy source:
For all we know so far nuclear energy turned out rather expensive and promises of low cost just did not turn out good. Even pro-nuclear calculations put the cost higher than for PV or wind at a reasonable location. Much of the costs are up-front and thus need capital willing to invest in a technology that is likely not economic.

Much of the reason why nuclear appears to be so expensive is because other energy sources don't pay for all their own costs, while nuclear have been forced to over the years. It is fine that they have do that, but it should be the same for all types of energy.

The 2nd issue is that it would take too long to build a large number of reactors - maybe not as long as with fusion, but still more like 50 years. There are just not the facilities to build the classical reactor types in significant numbers and new designs take a long certification and development process.

I think you are right that nuclear can't replace coal quickly enough, but we should not decommission working nuclear power stations before we have gotten rid of fossil fuels. And we can still replace some percentage of coal power with new nuclear reactors, so we should build as many new nuclear reactors as possible.

There is also the political problem that the neighbors also take part of the risk and if in doubt may also have to pay for the disposal if the money hold back was not enough or got lost, e.g. to corrupt politicians or economic trouble. I don't think the US would be happy with Cuba tuning towards nuclear energy. Much of the cover-up  at Chernobyl is currently paid from western Europe and not Russia or the Ukraine.
I won't expect failing states have a good eye on the money laid back to properly dispose the waste or just keep up safety at the intended levels.

In Sweden at least all nuclear reactors have to pay to a fund that covers future waste disposal for example. It's the same in Finland, and the storage they are currently constructing is much cheaper than what the reactor operators have been forced to pay already.

It is hard to do a full economic analysis as a layman, but people still build nuclear reactors, so it can't be too expensive to be practical at least. If it was possible to replace coal with only solar, then that would be great, but it isn't so we need an alternative, and the only alternative is nuclear. So it doesn't matter if it's a little bit more expensive, we still need it.

EDIT: Additionally, if what you said is true then it makes even less sense for the countries that are responsible to stop using nuclear power while other countries like Russia still continues using their RBMK reactors. China and North Korea isn't going to stop using nuclear just because we do.

[nctnico]

I don't think we can really come to a conclusion here. Basically every choice is bad.

I'm wondering about opinions wether something will actually change in the next 10 years when it comes to CO2 reduction. Climate scientists seem to point out the next 10 years will be crucial to achieve a real change.

Personally I think nothing significant will happen to achieve a significant CO2 reduction and most of the plans put in motion are just window dressing. The negative impact on the world's economy will be too severe when making a radical change in such a short timespan.

[Mr. Scram]

I don't think we can really come to a conclusion here. Basically every choice is bad.

I'm wondering about opinions wether something will actually change in the next 10 years when it comes to CO2 reduction. Climate scientists seem to point out the next 10 years will be crucial to achieve a real change.

Personally I think nothing significant will happen to achieve a significant CO2 reduction and most of the plans put in motion are just window dressing. The negative impact on the world's economy will be too severe when making a radical change in such a short timespan.

Nothing relevant will happen. The countries that would need to be on board won't change a thing, as they have most to lose. We'll start making changes as the world is burning and flooding. Much too late, and barely enough. Like we always do when it comes to serious large scale issues.

[apis]

As we've discussed before, comparing numbers isn't going to fly.

I see, you are going to ignore the facts when they don't suit you.

Various sources show the Soviet regime has downplayed the impact of the Chernobyl disaster, which means that comparing nuclear to hydroelectricity isn't so easily done.

The soviet union collapsed, so we know today what happened. It's been studied for over 30 years. When the science doesn't agree with your gospel you just ignore it apparently.

The same has been happening in the Fukushima incident and various others. Hushing things up seems to be a very common theme which in itself gives reason for pause.

Hushing things up is a common theme that also applies to hydro electric and coal for example. And yes, we don't know the full extent of Fukushima but it's probably not worse than Chernobyl, and for sure not so much worse that it is going to change the fact that nuclear is safer.

The argument of newer nuclear plants being much safer is also true for hydroelectric dams. The number of deaths in modern parts of the world is nearly zero. The hydroelectric death toll is mostly shaped by a single disaster in what was then a not very sophisticated part of the world.

The same can be said about Chernobyl, it was poorly constructed and managed by people who had a poor understanding of the technology. In the modern parts of the world we don't get the same kind of disasters (compare with Three mile island for example). Fukushima was ultimately caused by a tsunami and earthquake, hydro dams are also going to fail if they are hit by record earthquakes or other natural disasters, try googling what will happen if the hoover dam breaks or the three gorges dam in china breaks.

"According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died in the province from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine." That's already an order of magnitude lower. If you recalculate the deaths per watt produced that's about the same as solar, wind and nuclear power, but without the risk of blowing your country into oblivion for centuries.

26000+145000=171000 how is that an order of magnitude lower. I don't understand how you came up with that result.
And "blowing your country into oblivion for centuries" is just more scaremongering. Evacuating Pripyat was expensive but so it is if a hydro dam fails and you have to rebuild everything. If you read the study I posted (why are you asking for sources if you don't plan on reading them?) then you see air pollution is also expensive: "The health impacts from exposure to NO2 and PM2.5 can be conservatively estimated to cause socio-economic costs of ~56 billion Krona in 2015." That's ~6.2 billion USD annually.

Can't help to notice that you never provide any sources of your own.

[Mr. Scram]

I see, you are going to ignore the facts when they don't suit you.

Oh sweet, sweet irony.

[apis]

The irony is that you have only managed to provide a ridiculous claim from an activist you-tube video. While you accuse others for not providing sources and ignoring facts. You have been showered in studies that you just ignore. You are obviously not interested in a honest discussion about this.