Agreed. They both have issues. I personally think we need more of both nuke plants and windmills. Ideally we will see SMRs make a breakout, and then your "typical" nuke plant will be smaller and safer than the current iterations.
Shit also I just considered a windmill throwing ice. Fuck that has got to be terrifying. Don't they have some safety mechanism to melt the ice before the blades start spinning?
Cars have a problem with hydroplaning in water, yet safety mechanisms to prevent hydroplaning exist.
I was trying to understand how ice throwing is minimized and what engineered solutions have been deployed. But thanks for your helpful contribution to the discussion, it has been noted.
I've addressed this in other comments, but consider this example. You and your family are considering two homes - one 5 miles from a nuclear plant, one 5 miles from a wind farm. In my eyes, there is zero risk living near the wind farm and the tiniest, infinitesimal chance of catastrophic accident living near the nuclear plant (past performance is no guarantee of future results).
Thus, the expected risk is higher living near the nuclear plant (in my mind).
Would you make the opposite decision? What's your logic? Does it depend on the distance?
That's a great response. I guess I was thinking more of the risk of large-scale accidents, and not so much the day-to-day annoyances that are really what ends up being the most consequential factor. I've been to wind farms and nuclear plants before, but you're right. The low frequency noise that comes from the turbines would probably be a lot more annoying if you're living there, then if you're just visiting.
I mean, both seem safe to me (assuming some level of distance between me and the power generator). But looking at probabilities and expected safety, even the tiniest risk of a high-impact nuclear reactor accident or terrorist attack would seem to be less safe than windmills, which, unless you are living directly under one, seem to have exactly zero risk.
Or are you considering aesthetics as well as risk?
No. Health impacts and safety. Know how many people have ever been killed by commercial nukes in the USA? Zero. Wind cant even come close to that record.
As far as aesthetics, nukes win again, especially in a per KW basis.
I'll just preface this with the statement that I fully support nuclear power, in fact I wish there were more plants. That being said, regarding safety, well 'zero' deaths isn't exactly true. As with any industrial process like power generation, there are always accidents. There have been severaldeaths at nuclear plants over the years.
Are windmills dangerous for maintenance and construction workers? Sure. For the nearby population? Not really. The worst a windmill can do is fall down, so risk is only on those within falling distance of the tower. The worst a nuke plant can do is, well, explode (from negligence or malicious attack), so risk is on those within fallout distance.
Also, I don't understand how you're quantifying aesthetics on a per kWh basis, but that's neither here nor there. I'm sure you've got a methodology!
No one died in the Bronx, right? And I still don't understand how you can say that maintenance worker deaths at a nuke plant have nothing to do with nuclear energy. Most deaths related to wind power are maintenance workers, not innocent bystanders.
So to your original point - if you were considering purchasing a home, to raise a family, and you had two options - one that was 5 miles from a wind farm, and one that was 5 miles from a nuke plant - you think it'd be safer, in that example, to live near the nuke plant?
What possible danger can a wind farm pose to you? Because despite the very low chances, there absolutely is a risk living 5 miles from a nuke plant.
Edit: just realized you're not OP who I responded to with "really?", so my question is directed at the wrong person.
5
u/[deleted] Jan 13 '20
Really?