What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?

  1. It has been since the 80's when it started to become much more clean than any other form of energy production. Too bad it produced a quantity of waste that could be contained in an isolated place instead of a smoke that goes into the atmosphere and immediately contaminates the environment.

  2. Would be cool if we could overlay this with another chart showing the power output of these to pick which one is best.

  3. And this propably doesnt include the new thorium reactors because everybody is so scared of the word nuclear that nobody is building them

  4. There’s no denying it, but it has a bunch of other problems. We don’t want countries developing nuclear technology for a reason. They’re potential targets for terrorist attack. There’s meltdowns that can make an entire area uninhabitable for degrades. I live walking distance from a pretty large wind farm and multiple solar farms. No worries. No Fukushima happening here, no Chernobyl. I’d be pretty upset if the windmills in my back yard were nuclear reactors. I think people who are super pro nuclear are like the ones who are super pro fracking. It’s awesome as long as it’s not happening where I live.

  5. As much as I like nuclear energy, there’s no point anymore. Solar’s deployment is on an exponential curve now, so that’s the future. And even as much as we all like nuclear, solar is probably the one thing that is better.

  6. We just had solar installed on our house. Had a bunch of contractors up on our roof all day. Maybe someone somewhere fell off a roof? Or got zapped by the electrical. Our system pumps out about 10 kWh at the peak of the day.

  7. People fall off the roof, get too close to overhead power lines, fall through skylights, etc. But for bigger projects you can deal with a lot of power which can be dangerous an unforgiving of mistakes.

  8. That coal impact on health is based on state-of-the-art European power plants. What impact for post soviet era Chinese coal power plants ? Scary…

  9. And that is not even mentioning the impact of coal mining on the landscape. Entire swathes of land, turned into a wasteland unfit for... really anything. You might think you could just flood a coal pit with water and turn it into a lake, but where would you ever get enough water to flood

  10. I knew that nuclear reactors are actually safer than most people think, but you're telling me more people get killed by fucking WIND TURBINES? TF?

  11. Solar panels are the most surprising because you can fall from wind turbines but how tf can a solar panel kill anyone?

  12. From what I’ve heard from people that live near them they’re dangerous as fuck, fires aren’t as rare as one would think, and if a fire happens while someone is repairing it, he’s pretty much dead

  13. The measure in the image is deaths per terawatt hour and wind is above nuclear mostly because nuclear usually generates more energy per powerplant. I don't think I explained it well, but it's more related to having a greater output.

  14. Not only does each windmill have thousands of gallons of poorly contained hydraulic and lubricant fluid that leaks once the things are a couple of years old, but they require constant maintenance and monitoring (preventative maintenance) which means every single windmill you see in a windfarm has to be climbed by a team of mechanics/electricians often.

  15. Hey man, dont make a joke of it. A wind turbine killed my dad. Strangled him in the night after he installed solar panels on his roof. RIP pa

  16. Anyone who has campaigned against nuclear in the UK, take a look. We could have used nuclear for 80% of our electricity since the 80s, just like France did. Instead we burned coal. For no reason other than bad messaging spread by uneducated hippies.

  17. I think that fossil fuel money has encouraged hippies and friends to oppose nuclear energy. There's a

  18. Having been an anti-nuclear conservationist in the US for a while (I now wholeheartedly support nuclear energy and am still a staunch conservationist) I often wonder if it has something to do with the history of nuclear arms. The left is mostly anti-war and nukes are like the pinnacle of awful warfare, so in a way I understand the hesitancy. I think they're just stuck in the Chernobyl mindset and Fukushima didn't help.

  19. Fun fact, energy in southern Ontarios energy is made so much from hydropower that we actually don't call it electricty for the most part, we call it hydro.

  20. Maybe I’m old school, but I strongly feel that the title of this list, and the order of the categories are at odds with one another. “Why the hell would coal be at the top of the safest and cleanest…oh. It’s upside down.”

  21. Ugh yes! This poor representation of the data irritated me so much that I came to see if this (or something like it) would be the first comment.

  22. Also it’s not balanced with use percentage. You can see that coal is 36% of global electricity, but you don’t see how that affects deaths per KWh. I want to see a balanced chart, not just pure numbers in a chart so you have to do your own math to properly understand the subject

  23. I did a report on energy and choose nuclear because I wanted to explain all the misconceptions about it. It is actually really safe, does not harm the environment, plus it is depleting itself naturally so we might as well use it while we have it. Also one power plant can last well over 50 years

  24. Look. I love nuclear as much as the next pro-nuclear guy. But this is really simplistic thinking. No, nuclear is not "it". Nuclear is certainly one resource we absolutely should be deploying en masse to reduce carbon emissions. But it is absolutely not the only thing we should be doing. We should be building solar, and wind, and battery storage as well - and where necessary, we may even need to build gas plants to facilitate the rapid shut down of coal.

  25. But isn't solar even better? Panels are made from sand and the energy from the sun is free !! We should absolutely be using solar in the day and only in the night use nuclear

  26. Not all factors are shown here. Nuclear scores bad on cost/kWh and time to scale. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do nuclear but the focus should be on wind/solar which are the best allround options.

  27. Speaking of soviet and reactors, how do you propose to protect against the very real possibility recently of the Russians blowing up a nuclear power plant in the Ukraine, like they threatened to do?

  28. Nah, renewables. You can spread them wider and pack them denser, even in domestic settings. It's faster, cheaper, cleaner, and carries less risk.

  29. Bad installation/panel falling off roof and hitting someone, the installing roofer falling off, mining accidents, poisoning of miners due to the toxic minerals in solar panels. I reckon these are in the statistic as well.

  30. I've seen it summed up this way: nuclear can be a disaster if everything goes wrong, but coal is a disaster even if everything goes right.

  31. I don't necessarily feel this way but boomers and gen x was raised to be terrified of nuclear war. Then there was Chernobyl, three mile island, and Fukushima.

  32. Sure accidents are rare but when they happen they are devastating and basically impossible to control. Also these studies always leave out the huge waste problem that still hasn't been completely resolved.

  33. Because people are stupid. They are scared of unknown and too lazy to actually learn something about nuclear energy.

  34. Nuclear is just as reliable as fossil fuels, and usually have the capacity to run at higher levels than they do. At this point, if we fully switched to nuclear and other renewable sources, we do not need things like coal and oil to supplement.

  35. And to top it off, the amount of area that nuclear takes up is a small fraction compared to any of the other sources of energy.

  36. Well I for one, would like to see this better account for the cancer that wind power causes. I do believe former President Trump did assert that Windmills cause cancer and we know how correct that man is on so, so very many things... /s

  37. I wish governments would catch on to nuclear power. I get that after Chernobyl, a lot were scared away from it, but that was a one in a million case, and safety with nuclear plants will have improved significantly since then.

  38. Don’t talk about how horriable solar panels are for the environment when they run there life cycle tho wouldn’t want people to realize how bad it actual is for the environment

  39. Do note that nuclear pollution is only with regards to construction, it has no actual emissions from running. What comes out of the cooling towers is steam. Also they can be made modular, a small plant that could be assembled in a factory and shipped out in modules to be assembled on site at around 1/4 the size of a normal reactor. That was one of the recent projects of INL (Idaho National Laboratory), the US government’s main nuclear research lab.

  40. Fun fact! Almost every one has a source of nuclear radiation in it's home! Its called a smoke dedector, sending out alpha radiation. (But dont worry, it's so weak that it doesn't even penetrate a piece of paper)

  41. You'd be overbuilding your nuclear fleet by a lot if you supplied that much energy from nuclear. A diverse generation fleet is best - wind, solar, and storage for load following, and nuclear for baseload, ancillary services, and industry demand. That would be a lot cheaper and just as reliable and clean.

  42. Yeah, all of these conveniently ignore the inputs and the eventual disposal of solar especially. California is just starting to have to deal with disposal. It will be a nightmare. Still better than coal, but unclear about natural gas. But it has less immediate and measurable impact, so we should all jump on that bandwagon.

  43. People are afraid of what they don’t understand. You say nuclear and everyone jumps to “well look what happened in Chernobyl!” Well, that was in the 80s and technology has gotten immensely better and safety has increased dramatically since then, and Fukushima has also caused numerous new safety protocols because of the accident. Nuclear power is very safe but the rare accidents have given it a bad name because they can be more catastrophic than wind or hydropower accidents, but in terms of individual victims, nuclear is by far much safer

  44. Humans always had sense of paranoia with nuclear. In the very first moments of chernobyl disaster news media raported that already 2000 people were killed in the catastrophy, while in reality only 2 people died...

  45. The US DoE told Fukushima and Daichi to move their diesels and build a higher sea wall in the 90s. Daichi did, and was closer to the epicenter of the earthquake, and Fukushima didn’t….

  46. It is extremely expensive, its extremely slow to implement and it does not win contracts to supply the grid without government assistance. The final problem is that the builds in the west are very often beset with delays which means that companies simply lose money on building them - its a very risky investment and even if it goes well, it has an unattractively long payback time.

  47. Tack on power output as a continuation of this chart in a second energy and the only major threat is opportunistic terrorism.

  48. Everyone knows people die in Coal mines and Oil fields? Or Wars over coal and oil in general. I was suprised Natural Gas has such high emissions.

  49. Nuclear is essentially just steam power so that makes sense. The only problem with solar and wind is they don’t factor in at all that getting lithium to make batteries and solar panels polluted the earth drastically and is essentially Blood Diamond type shit. Wind also doesn’t have good results but we don’t have enough wind turbines to say whether it could work in large quantities.

  50. Last several times I checked nuclear is far better than solar in total deaths/kWh. Also 99% sure there have been no official deaths from Fukushima reactors so I’m calling potential bs here.

  51. Nuclear is the cleanest cuz solar only produces %4 of the energy and it emits 5 tonnes of emmisions Meanwhile nuclear with %10 energy production Kills less cuz it produces more power

  52. Does the chart include: manufacturing/construction and disposal costs? Think about all of lithium battery leaching lithium into our drinking water. Soluble lithium is damn hard to get out of water.

  53. Nuclear power needs to return, it's getting cleaner, and as long as people aren't being completely idiotic with it, it's not going to meltdown.

  54. Nuclear is the future. I don't listen to any politician who claims to want clean energy without being in complete and full support of nuclear.

  55. I'm a bit confused by this. I guess I'm a fossil fuel degenerate, because I support more drilling and oil production in the short-term. I also am not terribly fond of Wind and Solar because of the amount of acreage that has to go into them, their reliance on weather, and the cost and methods of disposal of spent material (such as retired wind blades and spent batteries). I think a lot of people are ignoring the long term pollution potential of a lot of the wind and solar energy generation that is getting hyped up right now. However, I also believe that cleaner energy is a noble and worthwhile goal, though I don't believe in wrecking the economy to get there. So I support more drilling and oil production in the short-term, but also government subsidies and research grants to improve and promote cleaner and sustainable energy sources. This rationale has brought me to a conclusion that, at the present moment, nuclear is by far the best option we have for power generation. Modern methods have little waste, safety measures have improved dramatically over the last several decades, and the acreage cost for generation is well below wind and solar. In my mid-30's currently, most people that I know in my area that are near my age have this same opinion. Drill baby, drill... while we get serious about nuclear.

  56. How about bringing a valid argument rather than your Ad Hominem falacy? Even if some person brought up a "But... but" like you did, you would retort with the same stupid argument. You represent nothing more than the hate you pretend to attack.

  57. Tbh I don't trust that natural gas is that clean because the graph only shows CO2 emissions. Doesn't natural gas produce methane as a waste too?

  58. And devastating to the local ecosystem. A flowing river is turned in to a slack-water lake. The entire river, up and downstream, become redefined ecosystems.

  59. Is this accurate at all? I feel like there is pollution in the manufacture of solar panels etc. Or the mining of the materials.

  60. People keep just mentioning Chernobyl but there’s also Fukushima which I hear is still a radioactive toxic place after the flooding. There are probably more instances of nuclear radiation but yes it probably is the best over oil and natural gas. Solar and wind would be amazing and definitely the best.

  61. To clarify what the other person said, no one died from radiation from the Fukushima disaster. People died from the earthquake, tsunami, and evacuation.

  62. So wind isnt including blades timing out and needing to be buried. Or the fact they are made out of resins made from petroleum products. Or the fact the blades are made from would products, which are only available due to petroleum usage?

  63. As long as the water to cool the spent reactor cores keeps pumping we are safe from meltdowns. Raising the water temperature of local water sources by a few degrees can have devastating impact on local ecosystems, so that needs to be planned carefully and the problems with nuclear power should be understood.

  64. Someone tweet this at Rogan and at other anti-nuclear people. Still one of the safest and cleanest ways to produce energy. Just gone through coal lobbyist and other fuckers who've demonized it for no reason. Like can you argue that Tsernobyl was worse than the damn breaking in China? No you fucking can't.

  65. It’s supposed to make nuclear energy look good 😊 still think it’s worth a shot but the problems need to be addressed

  66. Greenhouse gas emissions aren't the only factor in determining how "clean" an energy source is, so this graphic is very much incomplete and essentially worthless.

  67. If im correct, this is once installed and producing. If you take in account the extraction and processing of all the materials, and the impact of the installations on the natural envirorment, then you get water, solar and wind power a lot more contaminating than nuclear.

  68. Hydro power is the way to go. It was another stab in the face for America when we dismantled all our hydro plants.

  69. While yes I do think this rank order is probably correct or close to it, this is clearly not real science. There is soo much discretion that goes into which deaths are counted where. When you see a stat or anything presented as a fact or “science”, you always have to ask yourself “how to did they calculate this?” Some things are very easy to add up and compare while others are very hard. This is somewhere in the middle.

  70. Ngl putting solar on the bette rend of Nuclear does rub me wrong, it will only become safer so the 0.1 more death seems less indicative compared to having 2 less tonnes

  71. I would be in favour of nuclear but the cost is immense, the wind turbines I think require far too much maintenance to be sustainable. I think that hydro power on a smaller scale but more numerous is a viable solution, what do you think?

  72. Most of coal emmisions came from USA and China, and only Europe is so much covered with rivers. For example Saudi Arabia has none. Hydro power is the best but it can only be efficent in nordic countries with high mountains.

  73. I’d be more comfortable with nuclear if we had a better solution for disposing of the waste than just putting it in a barrel and burying it in the ground. Also, while nuclear is safe when best practices are adhered to, we know damn well that a decent chunk of the world will likely not adhere to those best practices. And when nuclear goes wrong, it goes wrong in a big way.

  74. that's why we would need to have different types of reactors established. reactors for generation, reactors for processing, reactors for recycling, etc. France has a system like that and it's why they can meet their climate goals.

  75. Ask the Ukrainians if they think nuclear power is safe. It looks more like a great big bullseye to hold hostage in a war. Way better to figure out solar energy storage than spend the money on something that will be toxic for 20,000 years. And update the grid to DC.

  76. Ok but what about building the wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear plants? How much is that footprint in materials needed?

  77. Why would the least safe be at the top of the list and in green with a title like that? Who made this?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin