Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes 599
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."
Long term? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It takes 20+ years to build a nuclear plant (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Long term? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Long term? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not waste (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like saying that there are lots of valuable mining opportunities out in the asteroid belt. It's technically true but the cost involved in taking advantage of it means no-one is really interested while there are better options.
The problem with waste consuming thorium reactors is that no-one has a proven design for a commercial scale one, and all the research ones have had major issues. When you are looking at spending billions of private and taxpayer money on a new nuclear plant it is rather hard to justify spending billions more to make it a thorium one that might run into expensive problems, especially when demand for other forms of clean energy make them a much more attractive proposition.
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [larouchepac.com].
So what are you more worried about than deaths?
Re:As did (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Long term? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have yet to see a nonviable solution to storing nuclear waste. The problem is that no one wants viable, they want perfect. The standards are being set by the fearful, with the design to not really make storage safe, but to make it impossible in order to kill the industry.
Re:Long term? (Score:2, Insightful)
Japan is one of the most high tech industrialized nations in the world. Without any warning or time to plan for a controlled, long term phase-out all of their nuclear plants went offline at once. In the short term the lights stayed on. Within a day their electric train network was operating pretty much normally, except for where there was earthquake/tsunami damage.
Despite dire predictions of black-outs and rationing they got through the summer peaks without issue. Energy prices have not rocketed. They did not reduce their quality of life at all, and in fact in many ways have increased it with more efficient products. The push for efficiency and energy saving has actually driven sales of new appliances and demand for renewable energy systems.
Japan used to get about 23% of its electricity from nuclear plants. Given most countries would naturally allow at least a decade for phase-out like Germany has it doesn't seem likely that they would "suffer" any worse than Japan has. Saying it will result in deaths is just pure hyperbole, proven beyond doubt to be utter nonsense.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Nuclear is fodder for war mongers and scam artists (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Long term? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Long term? (Score:5, Insightful)
The long term waste is a known quantity, and needs to be addressed. But it is nowhere nearly as pressing a concern as the global CO2 levels are.
We have to bring down the CO2 emissions dramatically, and fast. Doing this through renewable energies would be nice, but it is a pipe dream at best. At least for now. We have to go nuclear, and do so on an far more aggressive scale than we are using it now, if we are to survive long enough, to be able to harness the still elusive fusion and renewable energy bonanza, the greens and the lawmakers are still clinging to.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Sure (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's not waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Reprocessing of nuclear waste doesn't have technical or economic hurdles, our reasons for not doing it are all political.
Re:Long term? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's too bad that the only new reactors currently under construction in the US aren't using such a design.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what's a false dichotomy? Comparing nuclear to coal when talking about costs, and renewable when talking about environmental effect.
Re:It takes 20+ years to build a nuclear plant (Score:4, Insightful)
It only takes 20 years because of all the governmental permits, lawsuits and protests that delay the project. Implement a strict but reasonable inspection scheme for every step of the way, and without all the other bullshit it wouldn't take more than 5 years to first criticality.
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wait until we start driving electric cars, etc. That's going to double the demand for electricity.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Long term? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Long term? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, like the French, who were TRYING to reprocess spent fuel, and abandoned the project? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re:It's not waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Please point to a working commercial breeder/fast breeder reactor. The french project was abandoned because its costs had ballooned way beyond projections, with constant technical problems being the main reason. If it would have worked, the French would have accepted it. But it wasn't, and so the French closed it down.
Re:Long term? (Score:5, Insightful)
The French reprocessing plant is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COGEMA_La_Hague_site [wikipedia.org]
There's a list of all of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_reprocessing_plant#List_of_sites [wikipedia.org]
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll try this a few ways:
First:
http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html [ted.com]
Second:
http://xkcd.com/1162/ [xkcd.com]
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.
Re:Long term? (Score:5, Insightful)
This one can't be laid at the environmentalist's feet. The ban on re-processing is purely political and appears to be specifically to make nuclear power look much less attractive than it actually is. Follow the money.
Re:Long term? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why must we always blame "the environmentalists"?
When they stop being a big part of the problems, we'll stop blaming them. Ever hear of the phrase "exporting the pollution"? That's environmentalists admitting that they chased off industry.
Maybe it's because our rotten fucking system can't build anything in a cost efficient manner, without pork?
That's what you get when you make industry too expensive to operate unsubsidized. Subsidies and rent seeking long predate the environmentalist movement, but it destroyed a bunch of otherwise competitive industries.
Long-term storage trumps all (Score:0, Insightful)
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?