7 ms·

How are nimby crowds insane? Accidents may happen. And did happen in the past in that same place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident https

How are nimby crowds insane? Accidents may happen. And did happen in the past in that same place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

brookst 2y ago
If only safety was a matter of system design and operational practices, not geographic location.
unglaublich 2y ago
Because the alternative, fossil fuel generation, is much, much more polluting and deadly.
- Nullabillity 2y ago
  Another alternative would be to not build the datacenter...
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    In this specific case? Sure. But power needs are increasing whether this datacenter is built or not, so the discussion regarding nuclear has to happen in some context regardless.
alright2565 2y ago
Coal plants have killed a minimum of 500k people over the past 20 years[1]. It's not an accident in that case, it's known and planned for (or at least easily predicted enough that it should have been). But when a few hundred people, or really just 0 people[2] die in one place at one time, people lose their minds. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-power-plants-deaths-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-pow... [2]: An inter-agency analysis concluded that the accident did not raise radioactivity far enough above background levels to cause even one additional cancer death among the people in the area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
- Y-bar 2y ago
  I’m not the person you responded to, but have an honest question here since we are specifically talking about NIMBYism: How much less of NIMBY is there against coal power plants? For example are there examples of people rejecting NPP in their vicinity while accepting CPP?
  - elil17 2y ago
    How is that a valid comparison though? Fighting against a coal plant makes sense, fighting against a nuclear plant doesn't - that's the key difference.
    - Y-bar 2y ago
      The context of the discussion is Not In My Backyard-protests and blocking of plants. Are the people protesting one in their “backyard” not protesting the other?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    They get a fairer run than nuclear - it is conceivable that a coal plant gets built and is allowed to run. However I imagine the US followed the same broad trends as everyone else in the 90s and started restricting infrastructure construction for environmental reasons so it is probably quite challenging to get a plant built. There is a reason all the growth is happening in Asia. Their focus is on improving their wealth and material standard of living.
  - organsnyder 2y ago
    The worse impacts of coal plants disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities that don't have the resources to be effective NIMBYs. Coal also has a much wider low-level impact: for instance, it's not safe to consume more than small amounts of fish from the great lakes because of mercury levels, largely due to coal power plants.
  - wickedsight 2y ago
    Germany has been closing tons of nuclear power plants because of protests. They've recently also moved an entire town and a highway to make space for digging up more coal. I'm not really answering your question, but it does seem like nuclear NIMBYs are more effective than other ones.
weberer 2y ago
Its crazy how this resulted in 0 deaths, yet it pretty much halted nuclear power production for good in the US.
elil17 2y ago
It's insane because killing people is the modus operandi of fossil fuel power - and I'm not even talking about climate change. People often die on oil fields and in mines, toxic waste from coal plants leaches into our water supply, and ash enters our air and causes asthma and heart problems. Coal alone has killed about 460,000 Americans in the 21st century: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-power-plants-deaths-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-pow... Nuclear power plants, in contrast, very rarely have issues: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
1970-01-01 2y ago
Accidents will happen daily. Those accidents are extremely well controlled. You are providing an excellent example by jumping to that insane NIMBY conclusion. I think MS can successfully bulldozer these extremely weak arguments about catastrophic accidents better than I could. Stay tuned.
himinlomax 2y ago
Nobody died at TMI. Nobody died at Fukushima (from the nuclear incident that is, 10000 died because of the Tsunami) Hundreds of people died at Chernobyl. Those are all the major accidents at production nuclear power plant that have ever occured. There are no others. There is just one that was deadly, and it is about as representative of the safety of nuclear power as flying in a 1920s' plane compared to a state of the art Airbus.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- satiric 2y ago
  No one died at Fukushima... They did have to evacuate over 150,000 people though. I'm not sure we should be normalizing that.
  - nzjrs 2y ago
    'have to' is a contested point here.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    That's still pretty much a freak incident and insignificant compared to the direct damage (i.e. even if we exclude CO2) burning fossil fuels (especially coal is causing)
mpweiher 2y ago
What were the effects of the TMI accident, in your opinion?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hulitu 2y ago
> How are nimby crowds insane? Accidents may happen. And did happen in the past in that same place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident That would not be a problem. FAANG controls the OSs and the media. /s

brookst 2y ago

If only safety was a matter of system design and operational practices, not geographic location.

unglaublich 2y ago

Because the alternative, fossil fuel generation, is much, much more polluting and deadly.

Nullabillity 2y ago
Another alternative would be to not build the datacenter...
- ziddoap 2y ago
  In this specific case? Sure. But power needs are increasing whether this datacenter is built or not, so the discussion regarding nuclear has to happen in some context regardless.

alright2565 2y ago

Coal plants have killed a minimum of 500k people over the past 20 years[1]. It's not an accident in that case, it's known and planned for (or at least easily predicted enough that it should have been). But when a few hundred people, or really just 0 people[2] die in one place at one time, people lose their minds. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-power-plants-deaths-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-pow... [2]: An inter-agency analysis concluded that the accident did not raise radioactivity far enough above background levels to cause even one additional cancer death among the people in the area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Y-bar 2y ago
I’m not the person you responded to, but have an honest question here since we are specifically talking about NIMBYism: How much less of NIMBY is there against coal power plants? For example are there examples of people rejecting NPP in their vicinity while accepting CPP?
- elil17 2y ago
  How is that a valid comparison though? Fighting against a coal plant makes sense, fighting against a nuclear plant doesn't - that's the key difference.
  - Y-bar 2y ago
    The context of the discussion is Not In My Backyard-protests and blocking of plants. Are the people protesting one in their “backyard” not protesting the other?
- roenxi 2y ago
  They get a fairer run than nuclear - it is conceivable that a coal plant gets built and is allowed to run. However I imagine the US followed the same broad trends as everyone else in the 90s and started restricting infrastructure construction for environmental reasons so it is probably quite challenging to get a plant built. There is a reason all the growth is happening in Asia. Their focus is on improving their wealth and material standard of living.
- organsnyder 2y ago
  The worse impacts of coal plants disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities that don't have the resources to be effective NIMBYs. Coal also has a much wider low-level impact: for instance, it's not safe to consume more than small amounts of fish from the great lakes because of mercury levels, largely due to coal power plants.
- wickedsight 2y ago
  Germany has been closing tons of nuclear power plants because of protests. They've recently also moved an entire town and a highway to make space for digging up more coal. I'm not really answering your question, but it does seem like nuclear NIMBYs are more effective than other ones.

weberer 2y ago

Its crazy how this resulted in 0 deaths, yet it pretty much halted nuclear power production for good in the US.

elil17 2y ago

It's insane because killing people is the modus operandi of fossil fuel power - and I'm not even talking about climate change. People often die on oil fields and in mines, toxic waste from coal plants leaches into our water supply, and ash enters our air and causes asthma and heart problems. Coal alone has killed about 460,000 Americans in the 21st century: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-power-plants-deaths-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-pow... Nuclear power plants, in contrast, very rarely have issues: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

1970-01-01 2y ago

Accidents will happen daily. Those accidents are extremely well controlled. You are providing an excellent example by jumping to that insane NIMBY conclusion. I think MS can successfully bulldozer these extremely weak arguments about catastrophic accidents better than I could. Stay tuned.

himinlomax 2y ago

Nobody died at TMI. Nobody died at Fukushima (from the nuclear incident that is, 10000 died because of the Tsunami) Hundreds of people died at Chernobyl. Those are all the major accidents at production nuclear power plant that have ever occured. There are no others. There is just one that was deadly, and it is about as representative of the safety of nuclear power as flying in a 1920s' plane compared to a state of the art Airbus.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
satiric 2y ago
No one died at Fukushima... They did have to evacuate over 150,000 people though. I'm not sure we should be normalizing that.
- nzjrs 2y ago
  'have to' is a contested point here.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  That's still pretty much a freak incident and insignificant compared to the direct damage (i.e. even if we exclude CO2) burning fossil fuels (especially coal is causing)

mpweiher 2y ago

What were the effects of the TMI accident, in your opinion?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hulitu 2y ago

> How are nimby crowds insane? Accidents may happen. And did happen in the past in that same place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident That would not be a problem. FAANG controls the OSs and the media. /s