Slashdot Mirror

Environmentalists beg to differ.

an hydro dam is a dangerous thing: more dangerous than a nuclear plant looking at history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

a coal plant is a dangerous thing but it's a sort of low level constant danger.
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm

drilling a hole for gas or geothermal is a dangerous thing
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Locals_Block_Work_At_Indonesian_Mud_Volcano_999.html

etc etc
Every energy source has dangers and problems.
So it makes sense to simply pick the ones which kill the fewest people overall.

only greenpeace claims 1 million and that appears to come from nothing but their imagination.

the world health organisation which actually did research on the matter rather than pulling random big numbers our of their arse claims about 4000 .

"I'm sure it was about 100,000 at least."

based on?
what?
did you just kinda decide that's what it had to be or just kinda average out a few of the claims you heard?

"People care about the "RISK". The risk if a plant goes rogue, melts or explodes"

that's exactly what I was talking about. the RISK.

If a chemical plant producing solvents for solar pannels leaks we could have another Bhopal only worse.

If a dam collapses above a big city hundreds of thousands could die. that that's not just a posibility: that ones has actually happened.

In practice the RISK from nuclear is less than from it's competitors, in part because most of them guarantee a steady death toll.

"It is irrelevant that *so far* it has not happend. It is irrelevant that over the last 100 years died X people to coal and Y People should be far more afraid of hydro dams given that individual dam collapses ... "

sorry but that's insane. "lets just ignore reality and history and instead go with my gut feeling."

And what had happend if there would have been a nuclear power plant and not a simple dam?

what?
That doesn't make any sense at all but the realistic answer is: probably nothing, the towns wouldn't have been washed away.

If you would care to read up the stuff other people link here regarding uranium pollution from coal you would realize: no one ever has died to any pollution coming from coal.

do you own shares in a coal plant or something? work in the marketing department?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm

Coal kills a lot of people every year.

"If you would apply the same logic you apply to coal mining also to uranium mining you would realize: oh my god, thousands of people died to uranium mining."

most uranium mining in the first world is done with in-sitiu leaching, no mining shafts, they just pump baking soda into the ground and the uranium dissolves into it and they can pump it back up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_leach

And the volumes of ore are tiny in comparison to coal so even in the developing world there's far less deaths because there's far fewer working in uranium mining and vastly fewer deaths.

Please, this is a trivial request: when you feel the urge to make things up just google it first, find a source, cite it.

"Do you really think falling down from a framework during painting has anything to do with the technology involved how the power is generated?"

yes.
yes I do.
it would be dishonest to do otherwise.
it would be deluding myself to do otherwise.
Because those people are exactly as dead as if they got a lethal dose of radiation or suffocated on the fumes in a facility producing solar panels.

As long as I also count similar deaths in other forms of power generation it only makes the comparison more fair and accurate.

most western civilization coal plants are "clean" the don't have any toxic exhaust at all.

repeat after me:
"There is no such thing as clean coal"
"'Clean coal' is a myth"
"'Clean coal' is a marketing and PR scam"
"Coal is the dirtiest, worst source of energy, even in the western world"
"Coal plants emit a horiffic quantity of poisonous metals into the air"

1. Coal plants emitted 44.7 tons of mercury in 2008.
2. Coal causes 30,000 deaths every year
3. Coal shortens another 24,000 lives a year.
4. Coal pollution has increased 16% since 1992.
5. Coal emits 25% of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Google, it is your friend. Logic, you can learn it. Math, it has power, doesn't follow politics and can free your mind. Quit being a tool and open your damn mind already.

according to environmental group ACEEE.org, an EV1 car is no more clean than a Prius or Civic Hybrid.

Citation needed. The EV1 was last produced in 1999. The Civic Hybrid was introduced in 2003; the Prius, while introduced in Japan in 1997, didn't get released to the world until 2001. So at the very least, any such comparison could not be between cars of the same model year using the same-generation technologies.

ACEEE's 1999 ratings put electric vehicles in 6 of the top 7 slots (a CNG Civic is 4th), with the GM EV-1 in first with a score of 57. The Prius isn't on the list, probably since it was not available in the U.S.

You act as if requiring the license for the landscaper is a bad thing. It isn't.

Yes it is! Requiring a license for most any type of business is bad. All that should matter is if a person can do it, and if someone can't word will get out. Also if they are paid but don't do the job then they can be sued.

The homeowner with that chemical will at most damage his own yard, and he's going to use fairly small quantities of the chemical. The landscaper has the potential to damage MUCH larger areas, and will likely use MUCH larger amounts of the chemical.

I think you have things mixed up. A pro will know how much is needed whereas a homeowner won't. While directions will be on the package most homeowners will not read them. Hell, many can't even use their dvd player right because they don't read the manual. Also you're wrong if you think a home owner can only cause harm to his/her own home, pollution knows no artificial border, line on a map.

And he's going to be using it to make a PROFIT, not deal with his own small weed problem. Why shouldn't he have to have a license to do that?

So, you want to require a license to make a profit? Ho about we reuire licenses to program as well? Or how about just write or read? What of breathing?

It's insane not to require one

No, it's insane to require one!!!

And a dry cleaner is the same sort of situation. The chemicals they use, in the quantity they use them, can cause real damage

Green drycleaning, which uses nontoxic, unpolluting, and safe supplies, is getting popular.

And they're not just using them to clean their own clothes, they're using them to make a profit. They should have to have a license

How about requiring a license to work? How about to live?

Although it is safe in normal operation, things can always go wrong, and they do. Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident could wipe out populations and make huge areas uninhanitable for decades.

While I agree with the latter part of your argument, the former part is incorrect. The worst nuclear accident in history (Chernobyl) failed to "wipe out" even the population of the local city. A total of 56 people have died to date, with an expected final death rate of 4,000 due to Chernobyl-related illnesses. There were about 1,800 documented cases of Thyroid cancer from the event. FAQ/Findings

Current radiation levels are actually lower than the natural background levels for areas like Norway. However, the higher content of radioisotopes in the soil makes it unwise to live there. Despite this, many residents have moved back into the area.

The Chernobyl event is quite comparable to the 5-day, 1952 London incident where 3,000 people died from coal pollution.

The radiation released by coal is not that significant, and blends into background levels.

It's not the radiation you should be concerned about. It's breathing the radioisotopes into your lungs and blood stream. Once there, the radioisotopes have a chance to do the MOST damage by hitting the soft tissues with direct doses of radiation. Normally your skin provides a great deal of protection, but large internal doses tend to circumvent that protection.

But the way it's handled is what makes nuclear power so dangerous, and that's the reason so many people oppose it.

The way it's handled is what makes coal so dangerous. That's the reason why so many people should be opposed to it.

From the University of Michigan: "Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning."

I think the results are clear. Coal is FAR more dangerous than nuclear.

> Yet it has displaced more people than any other power source.

As opposed to coal which "displaces" 30,000 people into their graves each year for just the US alone?

As a former contributor to Greenpeace, in my "youthful days", I would agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that the environmental movement is primarily responsible for propagating irrational fear of nuclear power. The depth of their irrationality on the subject was made plain to me by their active opposition to the small radioisotope thermal power sources on deep space missions such as Galileo and Cassini. The most extreme environmentalists made claims like "millions would die" in the case of an accident. They seem to fear anything nuclear as the superstitious fear demons, and their fear spreads as a contagion. Of course, the Russians didn't help much with their miserly approach to safeguards; the very word "Chernobyl" entered the lexicon as a synonym for something like "hot radioactive wasteland".

Beyond the particular elements of Jimmy Carter's energy policies, what I admire about him most was he was the last President to take on a clear public leadership role in favor of energy independence. Carter's 1977 address to the nation on his National Energy Plan was unprecedented. Carter did much to open Federal Lands for oil and natural gas exploration and production. Like you, tjstork, I suspect that in the 1970's Carter would have supported drilling in the ANWR, if that had been an issue at the time. However, he is on record now as being opposed, due to global warming concerns (which I share). Although, as you point out, the Three Mile Island disaster was a major setback, I think the political symbolism of Ronald Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House marked the end to Carter's dream of energy independence for our country.

Interestingly, supplemental solar power was restored to the White House 23 years after it was first removed. In a world where the Future Shock-wave rolled over us long ago, 23 years is a long, long time. As it is with the environmentalists, so it is with the Lords of Industry; neither can be counted on to be rational players. A laissez-faire approach to markets cannot lead to an ultimate solution to our energy woes. Ultimately, Adam Smith's metaphorical "Invisible Hand" comes to grasp the throat of the common man. I believe more in the wisdom first explored by John Maynard Keynes, that the government's intervention in the market can be beneficial, not only to protect the public from the excesses of an unfettered market, but also to provide a guiding hand in rational long-term policy. Had we continued in the spirit of Jimmy Carter 23 years ago, striving towards national energy independence, then the guiding hand of government could have been gentle. Tax incentives, increased research funding for energy alternatives, small business initiatives, and reliable government support for pilot programs that promised future economic returns would have brought us far beyond where we are today. But now, 23 years later, even the basic task of maintaining a sufficient and affordable future energy supply is more akin in magnitude to President Kennedy's 1961 challenge to put a man on the moon, and can only be envisioned if we roll back the disastrous and irresponsible fiscal policies implemented by the current administration in the last five years.

The anonymous coward - while rude - said exactly what I was thinking only much more concisely. There's no truth to your claim here

Not only that, but there is a lot of energy lost in moving the electricity from the plant to your car, and then also in storage in the batteries. It is much more efficient to create the energy in the car, when you need it. So, you are actually burning MORE fossils per mile with an electric car than with a standard internal combustion engine.

Absolute nonsense. Electrical transmission loss is 6-7%. Modern gas-fired plants are 50% efficient. Diesel engines are 35% efficient for a hybrid (and even worse for a conventional car). Even with these rough figures you should see how nonsensical your claim is.

Detailed figures here. It's generally accepted that electrical vehicles use ONE HALF the fossil fuels of conventional vehicles for the same distance travelled. This is all before you get into the cost argument: an EVs running costs are ONE THIRD of an ICE.

Could this be the beginning of the end for our dependence on oil?

I didn't have the time to read all the posts here, and I'm sure what I have to say has already been said...

That aside. Whats the benefit of changing our dependance from one natural resource, to another natural resource? I can't see how thats a good thing, perhaps in the short term. But in the long term it will just land us in the same situation we'll be finding ourselves in with oil in however many years worth the current experts tell us are left.

While it's great to find a new energy source, unless it's a renewable resource, Here's some links, then we really need to keep looking.