[Synapsid]

Thanks GHung.

[KaiserJeep]

I don't suppose any of you feverish "environmentalists" would care to partake of a dose of REALITY?

1) The worst Nuclear Power accident in history (Chernobyl) killed 31 people.
2) The second worst Nuclear Power accident (Fukushima Dai-ichi) killed 0 people.
3) The third worst nuclear accident (Three Mile Island) killed 0 people.

The 435 or so other reactors haven't killed anybody. I suppose you can make an argument that hundreds of people died during construction of these power plants, but the same argument applies to any other generating facility, from coal plants to solar arrays to wind farms, because construction is a moderately hazardous trade.

When it comes to deaths during power plant operations, the statistics would be:

Energy Source // Mortality Rate (deaths/trillion kWh)

Coal – global average // 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China // 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. // 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil // 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas // 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass // 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) // 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind // 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average // 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average // 90 (17% global electricity)

The nuclear figure of 90 deaths includes not only the 31 killed at Chernobyl but an estimate of the deaths caused by cumulative radiation leaks into the environment. Many more such leaks have occurred from nuclear weapons facilities than nuclear power plants of course, since nuclear power is heavily regulated and nuclear weapons facilities are self-regulated by the governments building and using them.

Still it should be remembered that by far the most radioactivity that is spewed into the environment comes from burning enormous quantities of coal which is contaminated with trace amounts of a number of radioactive isotopes.

Notably absent from the figures above are the deaths caused by dams breaking and flooding the downstream areas. So many dams serve not only as hydropower sources but also as reservoirs and recreation facilities, that such statistics are arguable. But if one were to include only those thousands of fatalities known to have resulted from hydro-power-only facilities, then that most venerable and common renewable energy source would assume the title of the most deadly power plants on the Earth.

But any way you cut it: Nuclear Energy is by far the safest form of power we can build.

[Lore]

I remember flying into Harrisburg, PA not long after the Three Mile Island disaster and seeing someone wearing a t-shirt that said; "I survived Three Mile Island,... I THINK!" That says volumes about the effects of a nuclear disaster.

[KaiserJeep]

As someone here pointed out to me, the assumed and calculated fatalities of radioactivity released upon the environment depend upon an entirely unproven theory of radiation exposure called the "Linear No Threshold" theory.

[Lore]

I believe second hand smoke was thought of in much the same way. In a risk assessment why play with something that we don't even know what the detrimental effects could be in the fist place? You wouldn't give a child a loaded gun.

[KaiserJeep]

You can also give somebody who missed his head with every shot another loaded magazine.

Remember that we are choosing between two evils.

Nuclear power by both the statistics of actual fatalities experienced and by those assumed to result from radiation spewed into the environment is still believed to be the absolute safest form of power generation we can build. Even this level of death is in doubt because we observe that both animals and people are inhabiting the contaminated area downwind of Chernobyl, casting doubt upon the LNT model of radiation exposure which is what you are referring to.

Every other form of power generation including the solar PV panels on my roof kills more people. Nor are the "lifecycle" costs of renewable energy even counted in the above statistics. For example, the Chinese-manufactured solar panels that I have installed are comprised mainly of aluminum and mono-crystalline silicon wafers, two substances that can only be manufactured by electric arc furnaces which China powers by extremely dirty coal power plants. It will take over a decade of use before the power produced on my roof has paid back the carbon debt accumulated by manufacturing those same panels. Not to mention the vinyl insulation and passivating transparent films on the panel face, both of which are produced from petrochemical feed-stocks.

Today the fastest growing form of energy production is coal - in China. Look at the statistics above one more time.

[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . . Kaiser Jeep. As with most folks who promote the viability of the nuclear option you do not address the real issues of waste disposal and plant stability after a power down.

No one is disputing your numbers that anyone can pluck from the internet, what pisses me off is your continual spouting of pseudo intellectual bullshit . . . as though you know what you're talking about.

I know sweet f##ck all about nuclear but I have a nose and brain finely attuned to detecting crap.

You have a nice day now, and have a good think about how to dispose of nuclear waste and decommission plants.

Cheers.

[KaiserJeep]

If you would care to point to any accidents, or injuries, or deaths associated with nuclear wastes or de-commissioned nuclear plants, I would gladly include those in my totals.

But you CAN'T do that because there are NONE. That makes you an ignoramus on this topic, and a scare monger. You are motivated by the same fear of the unknown that caused your prehistoric ancestors to shiver in the cave when the thunder was heard. As somebody pointed out, the USA has a waste storage facility, and the fact that we are not using it is a political problem.

As for what you mean by "power down", you were not specific enough for me to know exactly what you are talking about. If you were talking about the emergency SCRAMing of a nuclear core that has experienced a fault, that has happened hundreds of times - you continue to cool the core until the short-lived hot isotopes decay, until eventually you can remove fuel rods. It takes weeks to shut off a reactor running full out, but the only time this was ever a problem was at Fukushima Dai-ichi, because the diesel emergency cooling pumps had their fuel supply destroyed by a tsunami.

On the other hand if you are talking about the planned shutdown and de-commissioning of an obsolete nuke plant, there are several PBWR's (Pressurized Boiling Water Reactors) that were shut down both before and after the one at Three Mile Island suffered a core meltdown. That meltdown will delay the de-commissioning of TMI as well as Fukushima Dai-ichi. Robots are being designed and built for those tasks. But undamaged plants follow a planned process that removes the fuel rods (eventually to end up at Yucca Mountain, after Harry Reid croaks) and buries the mildly radioactive core structure on-site.

You might also acknowledge that other forms of power have toxic consequences. For example the square miles of toxic fly ash produced by a coal plant, or the acid rain produced by burning either coal or oil, and the hundreds of acres defoliated by such rain.

An operating nuclear reactor produced enough waste to fill a 25 foot cube in it's lifetime. An operating coal plant produces FIVE SQUARE MILES of fly ash 25 feet deep producing the same amount of power. This ash is acidic enough that it must be protected from rain or acid enters the aquifers. This ash is mildly radioactive. I personally would prefer to live next to the nuclear power plant - more than any other type, especially a hydro-power dam.

Decades ago, as part of my undergraduate degree, I studied the economics of power plants. I ended up working on computers my whole career, but I studied electrical engineering as a whole subject. I have kept up my reading on power plants, electric vehicles, microelectronics, and other topics. The several times I have supplied links to IEEE publications should be a clue that leads you to a wealth of the most current online information about all aspects of electrical engineering including power plants.

I have no patience with people who spout nonsense out of ignorance. But if there is some part of what I have said, or the relatively complete statistics I have presented that you do not understand, then ask. Because you are only embarrassing yourself, and displaying a widespread ignorance about nuclear power.

Which by the way has NEVER produced a mushroom cloud. But when you finally get to the basis of the widespread prejudice against clean and safe nuclear energy, that is what is typically at the heart of it - the terrifying images of nuclear war.

I grew up during the Cold War. If I can set aside my prejudices, so can you. If you care to. Because we need those nukes in order to get off of oil and coal.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I')f you would care to point to any accidents, or injuries, or deaths associated with nuclear wastes or de-commissioned nuclear plants, I would gladly include those in my totals.

But you CAN'T do that because there are NONE. That makes you an ignoramus on this topic, and a scare monger. You are motivated by the same fear of the unknown that caused your prehistoric ancestors to shiver in the cave when the thunder was heard. As somebody pointed out, the USA has a waste storage facility, and the fact that we are not using it is a political problem.

As for what you mean by "power down", you were not specific enough for me to know exactly what you are talking about. If you were talking about the emergency SCRAMing of a nuclear core that has experienced a fault, that has happened hundreds of times - you continue to cool the core until the short-lived hot isotopes decay, until eventually you can remove fuel rods. It takes weeks to shut off a reactor running full out, but the only time this was ever a problem was at Fukushima Dai-ichi, because the diesel emergency cooling pumps had their fuel supply destroyed by a tsunami.

On the other hand if you are talking about the planned shutdown and de-commissioning of an obsolete nuke plant, there are several PBWR's (Pressurized Boiling Water Reactors) that were shut down both before and after the one at Three Mile Island suffered a core meltdown. That meltdown will delay the de-commissioning of TMI as well as Fukushima Dai-ichi. Robots are being designed and built for those tasks. But undamaged plants follow a planned process that removes the fuel rods (eventually to end up at Yucca Mountain, after Harry Reid croaks) and buries the mildly radioactive core structure on-site.

You might also acknowledge that other forms of power have toxic consequences. For example the square miles of toxic fly ash produced by a coal plant, or the acid rain produced by burning either coal or oil, and the hundreds of acres defoliated by such rain.

An operating nuclear reactor produced enough waste to fill a 25 foot cube in it's lifetime. An operating coal plant produces FIVE SQUARE MILES of fly ash 25 feet deep producing the same amount of power. This ash is acidic enough that it must be protected from rain or acid enters the aquifers. This ash is mildly radioactive. I personally would prefer to live next to the nuclear power plant - more than any other type, especially a hydro-power dam.

Decades ago, as part of my undergraduate degree, I studied the economics of power plants. I ended up working on computers my whole career, but I studied electrical engineering as a whole subject. I have kept up my reading on power plants, electric vehicles, microelectronics, and other topics. The several times I have supplied links to IEEE publications should be a clue that leads you to a wealth of the most current online information about all aspects of electrical engineering including power plants.

I have no patience with people who spout nonsense out of ignorance. But if there is some part of what I have said, or the relatively complete statistics I have presented that you do not understand, then ask. Because you are only embarrassing yourself, and displaying a widespread ignorance about nuclear power.

Which by the way has NEVER produced a mushroom cloud. But when you finally get to the basis of the widespread prejudice against clean and safe nuclear energy, that is what is typically at the heart of it - the terrifying images of nuclear war.

I grew up during the Cold War. If I can set aside my prejudices, so can you. If you care to. Because we need those nukes in order to get off of oil and coal.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'A')s someone here pointed out to me, the assumed and calculated fatalities of radioactivity released upon the environment depend upon an entirely unproven theory of radiation exposure called the "Linear No Threshold" theory.

[Plantagenet]

Turns out that coal-fired plants release radioactivity too---the coal dust contains some radioactive material.

[Plantagenet]

The good thing about Nukes is that they don't release any CO2.

Building nuclear power plants is part of O's strategy to stop global warming. I think environmentalists should embrace the scientific facts and back O's plan to restart the nuclear industry in the US as a way to fight global warming.


Nukes make electricity for electric cars and emit no CO2. Whats not to like?

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'A')s someone here pointed out to me, the assumed and calculated fatalities of radioactivity released upon the environment depend upon an entirely unproven theory of radiation exposure called the "Linear No Threshold" theory.

[Lore]

Nuclear power plants are not even a stop gap measure and only further delays our legitimate response to a safe and sustainable energy solution. They are expensive and problematic to build, as well as operate and dispose of waste. An all out program today would do little to reduce atmospheric green house gases in time to save our collective behinds. The only way to solve the problem is to go all out with local wind, solar, geothermal and other nontoxic renewable energy sources.

Exchanging one bad idea for another is a game for losers.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'A')s someone here pointed out to me, the assumed and calculated fatalities of radioactivity released upon the environment depend upon an entirely unproven theory of radiation exposure called the "Linear No Threshold" theory.

[Plantagenet]

Al Gore just gave a speech predicting that we will create new "dustbowls" in the USA if we don't stop burning fossil fuels and pumping CO2 into the air.

Nukes don't emit any CO2.

Ergo we should replace coal-fired power plants with nukes to stop dustbowls.


Build nukes---stop dustbowls.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '[')img]http://barryonenergy.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/simpsons_nuclear_energy.jpg[/img]
Nukes make electricity for electric cars and emit no CO2. Whats not to like?

[Peak_Yeast]

Using Kaiserjeeps methodology for measuring deaths from nuclear power - no emissions from coal powered plants has ever killed anyone nor has any other source of polution.

The smog in Beijing doesnt kill anyone nor make anyone sick which shortens their life. - Its just crazy eco-hippies that conclude those things..

A little like saying that people with cancer doesnt die from cancer - but from lack of nutrition or organ failures..

So no harm from anything that doesnt kill you instantly is the "wisdom" from Kaiserjeep.

Obviously a completely false way of measuring damage - its actually bordering on insanity to perceive things in such a way.

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Yeast', 'U')sing Kaiserjeeps methodology for measuring deaths from nuclear power - no emissions from coal powered plants has ever killed anyone nor has any other source of polution.

The smog in Beijing doesnt kill anyone nor make anyone sick which shortens their life. - Its just crazy eco-hippies that conclude those things..

A little like saying that people with cancer doesnt die from cancer - but from lack of nutrition or organ failures..

So no harm from anything that doesnt kill you instantly is the "wisdom" from Kaiserjeep.

Obviously a completely false way of measuring damage - its actually bordering on insanity to perceive things in such a way.

[Simon_R]

A Few Questions
How much nuclear fuel do we have currently (in years)
if we start to ramp up nuclear to replace FF ... how much
what if those pesky guys in the 3rd world want some of this .... how much

thanks

Simon