"A Rockefeller Foundation study sees nuclear potentially delivering 20% of electricity generation in eight key emerging economies by 2050 - and says that philanthropy can play a "catalytic role" in making it happen."

#Nuclear #News

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/philanthropy-can-help-nuclear-energy-growth-in-emerging-economies

‘Philanthropy can help nuclear energy growth in emerging economies’

A Rockefeller Foundation study sees nuclear potentially delivering 20% of electricity generation in eight key emerging economies by 2050 - and says that philanthropy can play a "catalytic role" in making it happen.  ;

World Nuclear News

@collectifission

Your post about nuclear power appeared in my feed unfortunately right after this post, a reminder of the dangers of nuclear power:

https://sfba.social/@hanse_mina@mastodon.social/115670676268507191

SFBA.social

@johnlogic @hanse_mina Yeah, this has been an ongoing story since the NSC was attacked by a Russian drone back in February. It seems that the hole can't be repaired and the whole things needs to be rebuilt. This is surely a setback.

But to me it highlights the dangers of war.

@collectifission @hanse_mina

This highlights the need for government that is stable, strong, and trustworthy as a prerequisite for having safe nuclear power.

So far, France has done a decent job.

Not so much in Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island.

@johnlogic @hanse_mina Two things here:

1. Should a bunker buster strike a dam, it could kill many thousands of people. Should we therefore stop using hydropower?

2. Of the three incidents you mentions, people only died from radiological effects at Chornobyl, and even then we're talking dozens of people.

While the failure of the NSC would be a setback, no one would die from it.Meanwhile, fossil fuels kill a "Chornobyl of people" every five minutes or so, due to air pollution. It is high time we stop using different measuring sticks when it comes to nuclear and kill fossil fuels already.

@collectifission

Your claim that the Chernobyl disaster killed only "dozens of people" is flawed.

There seems to be consensus that about 30 were killed immediately or in the immediate aftermath, but "long-term death estimates range from up to 4,000 ... with figures as high as 60,000".

That's 5000 "dozens".

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia

@johnlogic Read the sources. The 4000 number comes from the UN from the early 2000s and describes a *model* of people expected to die between 1986 and 2065. Why this period? Because it is one human lifetime and the biggest impact was expected from thyroid cancer, which affected young children the most.

Thing is, since then the model didn't pan out. There was no higher rate of thyroid cancer observed. It dwindled into statistical irrelevancy. The 4000 number is therefore no longer used by the UN.

I'm not familiar with a 60k estimate by reputable sources.

But let's say 60,000 people would indeed die between 1986 and 2065. Fossil kills around 8 million people a year [1]. This is where I got the "a Chornobyl every five minutes" statement from btw.

I don't want this to be a pissing contest. Fact is that nuclear is among the safest energy sources known to mankind [2]. Your original statement that we need "a reminder of the dangers of nuclear power" is what I replied to. I hope you understand why this is a highly problematic statement.

[1] https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Deaths from fossil fuel emissions higher than previously thought

Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018