Grok estimates that the choice to implement "safety" regulations for nuclear energy in such expensive ways has killed about 840,000 people in the US so far.
Quite suspicious Deaths/TWh numbers for nuclear power are in this grok conversation(Fukushima and Chernobyl). It wouldn't change conclusions much to get more correct ones though. There is famous publication by Hansen in respected ACS journal showing that nuclear power saves lives. As long as 2lies are cemented in public perception (and industry enforce it instead of fighting for truth)- there will be no proper nuclear renaissance (and more people will suffer). When public treats NP like Airline industry, understanding benefits of air travel, and that accidents are probable, very rare and leading to improvements (without escalating costs), we may get reform and should-be prices.
Grok uses the standard Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) reference but then also consideres the Sovacool et al. (2016) reference as valid. Is that where grok gets the "0.07 deaths/TWh (includes Chernobyl: 433 deaths, Fukushima: 2,314 deaths, divided by global nuclear generation of 96,876 TWh from 1965–2021)."? Seems as though the radiophobic panic moves of (especially) elderly folks is being counted.
And then grok concludes with "The nuclear death rate is likely conservative, as it includes rare catastrophic events but may underestimate long-term health impacts or occupational risks." raising doubt of the death rate estimate.
Well, what is worth to emphasize for me is that even with ultraconservative, clearly wrong LNT hypothesis nuclear power is the safest way of generating dispatch-able power, with most compact infrastructure, and fuel supply sustainable and resistant to inflation. And also decoupled from weather.
"The NRC would be judged on its ability to prevent a release. Period." Similarly, the NNSA's job is to prevent anybody from setting off a bomb. So when it comes to the question of what to do with 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium from the START treaties, their insane solution is to bury it. Never mind that it would be cheap and fast and easy to use it to fuel new reactors like Terrapower's Natrium project or Oklo's fast reactors. So such projects that could use it to great advantage are left to delay their startup dates by years for lack of fuel. Hopefully the new head of the NNSA will recognize the situation and reverse that burial plan, thereby hastening the deployment of fast reactors in the US.
Grok estimates that the choice to implement "safety" regulations for nuclear energy in such expensive ways has killed about 840,000 people in the US so far.
Safety first! is a strict lie.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/H38COlrdT1VvfBrjU0rlLv3HE
Quite suspicious Deaths/TWh numbers for nuclear power are in this grok conversation(Fukushima and Chernobyl). It wouldn't change conclusions much to get more correct ones though. There is famous publication by Hansen in respected ACS journal showing that nuclear power saves lives. As long as 2lies are cemented in public perception (and industry enforce it instead of fighting for truth)- there will be no proper nuclear renaissance (and more people will suffer). When public treats NP like Airline industry, understanding benefits of air travel, and that accidents are probable, very rare and leading to improvements (without escalating costs), we may get reform and should-be prices.
Yeah no kidding!
Grok uses the standard Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) reference but then also consideres the Sovacool et al. (2016) reference as valid. Is that where grok gets the "0.07 deaths/TWh (includes Chernobyl: 433 deaths, Fukushima: 2,314 deaths, divided by global nuclear generation of 96,876 TWh from 1965–2021)."? Seems as though the radiophobic panic moves of (especially) elderly folks is being counted.
And then grok concludes with "The nuclear death rate is likely conservative, as it includes rare catastrophic events but may underestimate long-term health impacts or occupational risks." raising doubt of the death rate estimate.
Well, what is worth to emphasize for me is that even with ultraconservative, clearly wrong LNT hypothesis nuclear power is the safest way of generating dispatch-able power, with most compact infrastructure, and fuel supply sustainable and resistant to inflation. And also decoupled from weather.
"The NRC would be judged on its ability to prevent a release. Period." Similarly, the NNSA's job is to prevent anybody from setting off a bomb. So when it comes to the question of what to do with 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium from the START treaties, their insane solution is to bury it. Never mind that it would be cheap and fast and easy to use it to fuel new reactors like Terrapower's Natrium project or Oklo's fast reactors. So such projects that could use it to great advantage are left to delay their startup dates by years for lack of fuel. Hopefully the new head of the NNSA will recognize the situation and reverse that burial plan, thereby hastening the deployment of fast reactors in the US.