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."
I am still wanting to see a viable long term storage solution for the waste, with at least one example of a spent rod finding a final and safe resting place. Otherwise the tail risk of nuclear power is just a myth.
It isn't the deaths we are most worried about.
Then what are you worried about?
It's also contaminated less land. And takes up less space overall.
Certianly compared to coal, which produces vast quantities of ash waste (which sometimes has massive spills), churns our mercury and requires insanely huge mining operations due to the sheer volume of coal required.
So, basacilly nuclear provides solid, reliable baseline power with fewer deaths per kWh than any other scheme in existence.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It also take a lot of upfront cash. So as nice as it would be to have more nuclear energy; the window of opportunity is gone. Renewable energy sources will be far cheaper by the time a new nuclear plant opens
I would argue that it's not waste..It's valuable raw material we don't currently use
Risky business, filing a logical fallacy complaint against another user while outright ignoring the reality of the situation, yourself. Most of your complaints stopped being an issue over twenty years ago as the technology matured. Modern reactors are perfectly safe, and can be constructed in such a way that they produce zero hazardous waste. The only major problem that we carry over from fossil fuels is the limited supply, which certain breeder reactor technologies promise to all but eliminate. Your entire premise is false, and has been for longer than most /. readers have been alive.
If you're worried about accidents, then you're worried about deaths and and sickness. But fossil fuels are worse.
If you're worried about weaponisation, then you're worried about deaths. The cat's out of the bag, and not using nuclear power stations won't stop people from making bombs.
If you're worried about waste, then you need not worry.
So what are you more worried about than deaths?
Nuclear power != Nuclear bomb.
With your logic, I have decided to blame solar power on the death of anyone who got dehydrated while out in the sun. And I am going to blame wind power on the death of anyone caused by a hurricane or tornado. Under your flawed logic, more people have died from solar and wind power than have from nuclear power.
sudo make me a sandwich
Your half right – because nuclear and coal are close substitute and coal is the low hanging fruit.
Both are very good a providing base load power and not much else. Natural gas can do other things – peak electricity, heating, stock feed for plastic manufacturing, etc. Solar, Wind, etc. – while getting better – can’t offer reliable baseline load.
And, if we are talking about changing the energy supply mix, then yes, it does make logical sense to ask relative questions – is A better then B? If yes, more of A and less of B.
The only way they can keep the price down is to nationalize it, and even then you have to have a very specific regulatory and business culture (like France) to make it work in abundance. Otherwise, the exclusive private club financing the construction of nuclear power plants will find ways to jack up the prices, essentially holding the ratepayers hostage once the community has made a commitment to having the new plant. IOW, nuclear literally puts too much power in too few hands to the extent that it gets abused immediately.
The war mongers (neoconservatives) love nuclear power the most because while they promote the scamming of consumers at home, they spread fear about its development in any country that has not put itself up for sale to Wall St. or become a client state to US military contractors.
Nuclear proponents talk about coal because coal is the competition. If a new nuclear plant is built it will be build instead of a fossil fuel plant, it won't be replacing a wind farm. 40% of our electricity comes from coal and another 25% comes from gas. Solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal are way down on the list and have no chance of becoming the dominant source of power in the near future, if ever.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
You can own a radio without a car; you cannot operate a hydro plant without a dam. Your analogy is flawed.
The inherent dangers and ecological drawbacks of dams are necessarily inherent to hydro-electric power stations.
Give me one that can:
1) Generate base load, as in it doesn't vary with the time of day or weather.
2) Provide for power in all parts of the world, from northern latitudes to the equator.
3) Is cost effective.
You can't. That isn't to say other power generation methods aren't useful in some areas. Solar rules in the desert for peak load (when it is the hottest, you need the most energy for cooling and it is also outputting the most usually). However you are going to need something for base load. Nuclear is the best option.
If you think we could just go solar and/or wind and that would be all we need, well you haven't researched the grid very well.
Because it doesn't make sense to compare it against technologies that can't scale up to meet demand.
No country has achieved more than 20% grid penetration of wind/solar without major compromises. In the case of Denmark, they did it by trading electricity with Norway. (Norway is fortunate to have LOTS of hydro resources, and hydro is great for energy storage and filling in holes left when you use a resource that typically has only 20-30% capacity factor.)
The problem is that our hydroelectric resources are pretty much tapped out - there aren't many more places we can build dams.
So once your wind/solar penetration goes above what our current hydro resources can fill in the gaps for - you've got a BIG scaling problem.
Nuclear, on the other hand, has a pretty consistent track record of delivering capacity factors of 90% or above. (The exception being France, who actually do have too much nuclear, so much that they actually have to do demand following with some of their plants.)
So what does that leave? Coal and gas. Coal can be proven to be FAR more dangerous and dirty than nuclear, and while gas burns cleanly, if you look at the environmental impacts of modern drilling techniques (such as hydrofracturing), you're approaching as much environmental damage in the past 5-10 years as the entire history of nuclear - it's just not as obvious because instead of bad things happening at a single obvious point source, the damage being done by gas drilling is distributed geographically.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Nuclear Energy is part of a complete energy plan.
Well it's a stepping stone to a sustainable energy plan anyway. But yes, it will be necessary for probably 50-100 years before we can fully finish converting to entirely renewable sources.
The *only* way nuclear is 'good' is that its less bad than coal in terms of greenhouse gases. No more.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
You know what's a false dichotomy? Comparing nuclear to coal when talking about costs, and renewable when talking about environmental effect.
If you have material so highly radioactive why would you store it? You should use it as fuel. You might need a slightly different type of reactor to make use of the waste material you are referring to.
The vast majority of hazardous waste from nuclear power generation is chemical in nature. And it is relatively a small amount compared to the paper industry, maybe you should think twice before putting up signs about how dangerous nuclear energy is.
Nuclear Energy is dangerous, it produces a lot of hazardous wastes.
Yup. Totally agree. The thing is... so does Coal. And oil. And natural gas. Small scale solar actually has more deaths from installers falling off roofs than you'd think All power is somewhat dangerous - nuclear just happens to be the least dangerous we have.
FFS, coal mining and burning puts more radioactivity into the system than nuclear waste would if the plants just ground up their detritus and spewed it into the sky - while removing the natural landscape - but we're used to it so it doesn't count.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Nuclear wins... Hands down.
At least until you factor in the cost of the bribes required to get enough politicians to tell the environmental lobby to take a hike long enough to get a plant approved and running... That has apparently killed the industry over the last decade or two here in the US. World wide though, it is pretty clear that nuclear power is the way to go for generating the base of an industrialized nation's electrical power.
They would not have built them, if they didn't make financial sense... With the possible exception of North Korea and Iran who are building them for other reasons...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Just wait until we start driving electric cars, etc. That's going to double the demand for electricity.
No sig today...
They're not impact-free.
Nothing is, but they don't have fuel costs nor fuel waste...NOTHING else can say that.
Renewables are multiple orders of magnitude less 'impacting' than fossil fuels or nuclear.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I'll try this a few ways:
First:
http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html
Second:
http://xkcd.com/1162/
Third:
I worked nuclear power for 10 years (ops/maint), coal for the last 5 years(maint), and and converting the plant to biomass from waste wood currently. As the TED talk suggests, the right answer is to build nuclear now to replace the aging plants that we currently have while we figure out how to fit the renewable sources in.
If the average nuclear plant has a lifespan of 50 years, and its fuel must be stored safely for 50,000 years, we are making a strange and selfish bargain with future generations on Earth. We don't have safe storage in our own era. What is 1000 x (unknown risk)? Is this a bargain we want to make with the future?