Slashdot Mirror


Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes

MTorrice writes "NASA researchers have compared nuclear power to fossil fuel energy sources in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution-related deaths. Using nuclear power in place of coal and gas power has prevented some 1.8 million deaths globally over the past four decades and could save millions of more lives in coming decades, concludes their study. The pair also found that nuclear energy prevents emissions of huge quantities of greenhouse gases. These estimates help make the case that policymakers should continue to rely on and expand nuclear power in place of fossil fuels to mitigate climate change, the authors say."

11 of 599 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Long term? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    How about like the french. We reprocess what we can, and bury what we can't. Safe and Effective.

  2. Re:So? by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 4, Informative

    Definitely fewer than hydro I guess: check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  3. Old news by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nuclear power has the lowest deaths per TWh of any form of energy -- and that includes things like Chernobyl and Fukushima, the latter of which had a curious focus given that far, far, far more people were injured, displaced, or killed by the actual tsunami as opposed to any radiation events, now or in the future.

    Direct deaths from fossil fuel sources -- including even naturally occurring radiation from conventional fossil fuel energy sources -- far outstrip any deaths that have ever occurred, or even will occur with even the most extreme statistical projections, from any nuclear power source, including accidents. That's right: there are more deaths from "radiation" from the byproducts of fossil fuel sources than there are from nuclear power, including accidents and waste.

    This is what we should be worried about:

    "Outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010, nearly 40 percent of the global total, according to a new summary of data from a scientific study on leading causes of death worldwide. Figured another way, the researchers said, China's toll from pollution was the loss of 25 million healthy years of life from the population."

    There is a reason China has 30 nuclear plants under construction, while the US just approved its first new plant in 30 years.

  4. Re:So? by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because it's the only other technology that supplies any appreciable percentage of global base load.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  5. Re:So? by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hydro is abismal, it destroys millions of acres of land with flooding and disrupts the river ecosystem. Migratory freshwater fish all around the world are rapidly facing extinction because of hydro power.

    Geothermal is not infinitely renewable, heat sources can be and are being depleted, and there is evidence that it can cause earthquakes.

    Solar thermal is great if you have the right environment for it, but outside the southwest, nuclear is still the better option.

    We need more nuclear and more solar power.

  6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I believe you meant "fusion". Sunlight and wind don't have a ton of energy density per m^3. We will certainly still have a use for massive amounts of power in 50-100 years.

    If we're playing this game, the only way solar and wind are "good" are that they have less of an environmental impact than coal, etc. They're not impact-free.

  7. Re:So? by RandomFactor · · Score: 4, Informative

    To clarify the above poster...

    Things with a 'Short' half life...Decay away. They are not a long term issue (depending on decay products)

    Things with half lives of a few years or decades are nasty - they last long enough and put out enough radiation to be a problem.

    Things with a long half lives approach natural background radiation levels and don't really have a significant biological impact.

    Treating something with a 250k year halflife as if it was a dangerous short-mid term radioactive is terribly expensive and has no benefit.

    --
    --- Mercutio was right.
  8. Re:So? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nuclear power could be a lot cleaner and less dangerous if we stopped using those old-fashioned bomb-making reactors, too.

    --
    No sig today...
  9. Re:Long term? by TheSync · · Score: 4, Informative

    In mid April [2012], after a series of high-level meetings, the Japanese government approved the restart of Kansai Electric's Ohi 3 & 4 reactors, and urged the Fukui governor and the Ohi mayor to endorse this decision. They restarted in July. Without the twin 1180 MWe units, significant electricity shortages would have been likely in summer peak periods.

    (source)

    Moreover:

    Japan's idled nuclear reactors will gradually be restarted under the newly-elected Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as the units receive the all-clear from the country's Nuclear Regulation Authority, the Nikkei reported.

    (source)

    Japanese LNG prices went up from ~$13/MBTU just before the Fukushima event to ~$18/MBTU in July 2012 (source) just before the 2 reactors restarted, and is at $16.66 today

  10. Re:Long Term Waste EASY.. by dcollins · · Score: 4, Informative

    Okay, let's go for some information from a non-cartoon propaganda source. First of all, India's experimental 500MWe reactor will definitely not be going online this year. It has exceeded the sales pitch for time and money by a factor of 2, and still counting:

    The Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) is a 500MWe fast breeder nuclear reactor presently being constructed in Kalpakkam, India.[1] The Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) is responsible for the design of this reactor. As of 2007 the reactor was expected to begin functioning in 2010.[2] As of April 2011, it was expected to be commissioned in 2012.[3]As of July 2012, it was expected to begin operations in 2013. As of February 2013, it was expected to begin operations in September 2014.[4] Total costs, originally estimated at 3500 crore (35 billion) Rupees are now estimated at 5,677 crore (56 billion) Rs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_fast_breeder_reactor

    Secondly, this reactor does NOT use a thorium fuel cycle. "It will make use of MOX fuel, a mixture of PuO2 and UO2." (same link above). Rather, what it does is OUTPUT processed thorium that can be used to jump-start a later, hypothetical, thorium-based reactor. In other words: The current project is just "Stage II" in India's 3-stage nuclear program, which has taken since the 1950's to even get to this point. Stage III is now hoped to be a reality maybe around 2050:

    According to replies given in Q&A in the Indian Parliament on two separate occasions, 19 August 2010 and 21 March 2012, large scale thorium deployment is only to be expected "3 – 4 decades after the commercial operation of fast breeder reactors with short doubling time".[66][31] Full exploitation of India’s domestic thorium reserves will likely not occur until after the year 2050.[67]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%27s_three_stage_nuclear_power_programme#Stage_III_.E2.80.93_thorium_based_reactors

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  11. Re:It's not waste by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are methods of reprocessing other than breeder reactors.

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace