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.
I would argue that it's not waste..It's valuable raw material we don't currently use
Definitely fewer than hydro I guess: check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yes.
You got "Environmentalists" not the actually scientists per say but average guy who feels the need to stop all things that are bad, not really realizing that most things has some sort of trade-off, So they just say NO NO BAD BAD all the time. Oddly enough these people side with the left leaning parties, thus influence their policies.
You got other energy companies who won't cry to see nuclear go away. These guys tend to side with the right leaning parties, thus influence their policies.
As a counterpoint you have the supporters touting Clean, Safe, too cheap to meter. Who are just pushing the opposing side.
Nuclear Energy is dangerous, it produces a lot of hazardous wastes. However it is manageable when you have all the sides playing fairly and stop trying to discredit each other.
Nuclear Energy is part of a complete energy plan. Hydroelectric, Wind, Solar, Fossil Fuels, etc. are needed to. As of right now we are using too much Fossil Fuels, its side effects are outweighing its benefits. So we should start dialing it back a bit and replace it with other sources, yes they have their own side effects too, but they are different and if you get the right balance you are good.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
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
The only entities that can afford to build a nuclear power plant such as Entergy, Duke, PG&E always end up doing the double whammy of cutting back on maintenance just as the plants start to age out. Then, they quickly spin off the plant ownership to a separate division, then a separate DBA, then quietly sell it or convert it to a wholly separate no-liability company just as the expensive chickens of total rebuilt or shutdown come home to roost.
As an aside, the folks running SONGS for PG&E decided to redesign the tube bundles when they had to be replaced. They arrogantly redesigned them - without even telling the NRC, mind you - to get more [Jeremy Clarkson] Power! [/JC], but only managed to make them wear out in mere months due to so much vibration the tubes eroded each other.
So nuclear power does make sense, if it weren't the actual short-term greedy bastards that own and run them.
You know what's a false dichotomy? Comparing nuclear to coal when talking about costs, and renewable when talking about environmental effect.
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.
2) Provide for power in all parts of the world, from northern latitudes to the equator.
This how opponents of renewables make sure they always fail to meet their requirements. Obviously it is dumb trying to use the same type of energy everywhere.
Take Scotland as an example. Using wind they meet your base load requirement. Yes, locally wind speed varies, but over the entire country there is always enough energy being produced to supply a certain amount of base load. Furthermore wind speed is very predictable over the short term, and you can always keep some idling gas plants around to fill in those rare occasions when you need more energy.
Further south solar collectors are the way to go. 0.3% of the energy that falls on the Sahara could power all of Europe. They work 24/7 all year round and are ideal of base load.
Japan has massive geothermal resources, as does a lot of central and northern Africa.
Discard your ridiculous "must work everywhere equally" requirement and the other two are easily met with current technology.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I've got quite a few friends who are anti-nuclear power and they constantly site Chernobyl, 3-mile Island and Fukushima...
The problem is that they refuse to travel to enjoy the fresh air" in Beijing. I spent 3 weeks there in February, and let me tell you, after about 3 days there my nose was constantly congested. Within about 4 days of returning to the US, it cleared up. That air is not too fresh.
Also on the few days when it is clear there, the Japanese complain because all the smog has blown it's way into Japan.
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.
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
Nuclear power could be a lot cleaner and less dangerous if we stopped using those old-fashioned bomb-making reactors, too.
No sig today...
Here. Refined nuclear fuel has roughly a million times as much energy per gram as any chemical source. Even counting the ore and refining, you just have to move much less stuff to get your energy - 1/100 to 1/1000 as much.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
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