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."
How about like the french. We reprocess what we can, and bury what we can't. Safe and Effective.
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.
The North Koreans are accepting spent fuels rods for safe and efficient displosal, no cash down and no questions asked!!!
Funny, I'm still waiting to see the long term solution for the waste of coal plants. And no, existing as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere doesn't count.
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.
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.
...that would actually meet our current demands over the course of a typical day night cycle.
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.
How about like the french. We reprocess what we can, and bury what we can't. Safe and Effective.
Why like the French? We do this in Canada, Japan does it and so does South Korea. It's not exactly "new and exciting" technology, the US is the odd-man-out like usual because of nimbys and environmentalists.
Om, nomnomnom...
Why must we always blame "the environmentalists"? Fuck, the US has less restrictive environmental regulation compared to Canada and Japan, and those countries have "the environmentalists" as well.
Maybe it's because our rotten fucking system can't build anything in a cost efficient manner, without pork? Maybe some other reason?
You mean, like the French, who were TRYING to reprocess spent fuel, and abandoned the project? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix That was the closest that anyone came in making a commercial breeder reactor. All other programs are research programs, who are not scheduled to put out enough electricity to function as an actual commercial plant.
Breeder reactors are a bitch to work. As far as I know, there is no successful commercial program on the horizon.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.