Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Energy: The Good News and the Bad News In the EPA Clean Energy Plan
Lasrick writes: Peter Bradford explains what the EPA's new Clean Power Plan has in store for nuclear energy. He provides an excellent explanation of the details of the plan, and how the nuclear industry benefits (or doesn't). "The competitive position of all new low-carbon electricity sources will improve relative to fossil fuels. New reactors (including the five under construction) and expansions of existing plants will count toward state compliance with the plan's requirements as new sources of low-carbon energy. Existing reactors, however, must sink or swim on their own prospective economic performance—the final plan includes no special carbon-reduction credits to help them."
Your right, the numbers should give people pause, to ask "Why the hell aren't we using nuclear power?"
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) CORRECTED
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Was going to paste the whole table but /.'s filter kept complaining about white space and junk characters
Whole thing is here
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Or just google it, which you obviously didn't do before you posted.
(if you where being sarcastic just ignore my snark, my sarcasm detector isn't good at picking up subtle jabs)
Note the above does not include Fukishima. Other sources that account for that increase nuclear to .09 (90 dead per trillion kWh)
"The four reactors being built in Georgia and South Carolina were supposed to demonstrate that new construction techniques and a new licensing process had finally brought nuclear plant cost overruns and construction delays under control, but they have shown the reverse. Construction of the fifth new US reactor, Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee, began in 1973."
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
"The sheer amount of deaths per terawatts put out by nuclear can give anyone pause on that. "
That would be a grand world total of 51, since the beginning of nuclear as an energy source. No other source, even solar with its distributed installation accidents, has a safety record approaching this.
And the cost picture? If you get to cite a blatantly antinuclear site, I get to pick a site of my own too:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
Because the costs of nuclear are all up front, the most effective strategy for preventing nukes from being built is to impose construction delays.
How the hell can Fukishima increase nuclear related deaths when nobody died from it???
And if we're counting radiation induced cancer and subsequent deaths (which, from fukishima is basically non-existent) then why do we give coal/oil/etc. a pass on pollution induced deaths?
A good a place as any to throw in this link to a well written piece regarding undue radiation fears. Some people are wising up, but many still just can't accept that radiation risk isn't what its been made out to be all these years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...
The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
It costs a lot to build, but proved cost effective over time. Existing plants are very economical, we need to keep them going and not let market shifting policies force them out.
Cost of Exiting Generation - IEA REPORT – 2015
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...
EXISTING NUCLEAR: $50/MWH
EXISTING WIND : VARIES BETWEEN 45 and 140 $/MWH
EXISTING SOLAR: VARIES BETWEEN 150 and 300 $MWH