FA+
Shop
My thoughts on: Nuclear power
10 years ago
Just a little series of journals that I may or may not continue. But basically just about some thoughts I have about things that people usually have misconceptions about and other things. Not saying I'm necessarily right or wrong here so feel free to correct or come with your own ideas and thoughts.
So my first thought is about nuclear power. Which is something I have always been a supporter of. And I'm also not against wind or solar power at all, just that they are fairly inefficient so far.
And to begin it all I just find it interesting when you read about nuclear power, and you realize that wind power has killed about 3 times as many people per TWh as nuclear power ever has. (This does include everyone that has so far died from cancer as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl disaster.)
Here are some numbers on human deaths for various power sources so far in deaths per Terrawatt hour of energy produced. This includes deaths from pollution, acquiring the materials, construction, and maintenance. After all, it is a long way to fall if you happen to fall down from a wind turbine somehow.
Coal 60 (Even higher in China at around 90)
Oil 36
Hydro 1.4 (Banqiao dam disaster killing about 171.000 messes the number up a bit with about 0.10 otherwise in Europe)
Wind 0.15
Nuclear 0.04
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/de.....gy-source.html
Chernobyl is of course the biggest killer when it comes to nuclear power, and the total death toll for nuclear power worldwide so far is a bit over 8000 dead. There are of course other problems with radiation exposure, lowering the quality of life drastically. But compare this to the death toll for coal power alone which is around 2.000-3.000 dead per year from gas explosions and lung cancer for example. (Numbers I found are a bit skecty, but even could go up to 10.000 if combined with the hazards of coal mining. And also once again even higher in China.)
Is nuclear power really such a bad thing then? Well in a way, yes. Nuclear power can potentially be extremely dangerous if not handled carefully and responsibly. If several disasters like Chernobyl would happen then it could make large parts of our planet uninhabitable. But then again, are the alternatives really any better?
At the moment we are slowly killing off our planet by burning coal, oil and other biofuels to power our societies. These power sources are certain to create alot of pollution, and so by the time we come up with something that is clean and renewable, or convert more of our powersources to renewable energy, then it might actually be too late. Nuclear power could supplement more traditional power sources temporarily to buy us more time to come up with better renewable energy sources.
To me it seems that nuclear power has been given a bad reputation due to the damage each individual incident has caused or could cause, the same way that airplane crashes get alot more attention than for example car accidents. Even though many times more people die on the road each year. And considering how much power nuclear energy provides I personally think that the risk would be worth it. (We have also learned alot since Chernobyl when it comes to safety after all.)
So nuclear powerplants provide lots of power, but they also produce quite a bit of very dangerous nuclear waste. Which of course is a big problem. However, the benefit is that we can store it someplace underground for a couple of thousand years where it can't do much harm, compared to pumping CO2 straight out into the atmosphere as we currently do.
With more funding I think nuclear power could be developed to produce safer and cleaner power, such as for example the molten salt reactors that are currently in development.
So what do you think? Do you agree with me or maybe think I'm completely wrong in this? That nuclear power should be banned forever?
Please comment and discuss, but please keep it civilized.
So my first thought is about nuclear power. Which is something I have always been a supporter of. And I'm also not against wind or solar power at all, just that they are fairly inefficient so far.
And to begin it all I just find it interesting when you read about nuclear power, and you realize that wind power has killed about 3 times as many people per TWh as nuclear power ever has. (This does include everyone that has so far died from cancer as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl disaster.)
Here are some numbers on human deaths for various power sources so far in deaths per Terrawatt hour of energy produced. This includes deaths from pollution, acquiring the materials, construction, and maintenance. After all, it is a long way to fall if you happen to fall down from a wind turbine somehow.
Coal 60 (Even higher in China at around 90)
Oil 36
Hydro 1.4 (Banqiao dam disaster killing about 171.000 messes the number up a bit with about 0.10 otherwise in Europe)
Wind 0.15
Nuclear 0.04
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/de.....gy-source.html
Chernobyl is of course the biggest killer when it comes to nuclear power, and the total death toll for nuclear power worldwide so far is a bit over 8000 dead. There are of course other problems with radiation exposure, lowering the quality of life drastically. But compare this to the death toll for coal power alone which is around 2.000-3.000 dead per year from gas explosions and lung cancer for example. (Numbers I found are a bit skecty, but even could go up to 10.000 if combined with the hazards of coal mining. And also once again even higher in China.)
Is nuclear power really such a bad thing then? Well in a way, yes. Nuclear power can potentially be extremely dangerous if not handled carefully and responsibly. If several disasters like Chernobyl would happen then it could make large parts of our planet uninhabitable. But then again, are the alternatives really any better?
At the moment we are slowly killing off our planet by burning coal, oil and other biofuels to power our societies. These power sources are certain to create alot of pollution, and so by the time we come up with something that is clean and renewable, or convert more of our powersources to renewable energy, then it might actually be too late. Nuclear power could supplement more traditional power sources temporarily to buy us more time to come up with better renewable energy sources.
To me it seems that nuclear power has been given a bad reputation due to the damage each individual incident has caused or could cause, the same way that airplane crashes get alot more attention than for example car accidents. Even though many times more people die on the road each year. And considering how much power nuclear energy provides I personally think that the risk would be worth it. (We have also learned alot since Chernobyl when it comes to safety after all.)
So nuclear powerplants provide lots of power, but they also produce quite a bit of very dangerous nuclear waste. Which of course is a big problem. However, the benefit is that we can store it someplace underground for a couple of thousand years where it can't do much harm, compared to pumping CO2 straight out into the atmosphere as we currently do.
With more funding I think nuclear power could be developed to produce safer and cleaner power, such as for example the molten salt reactors that are currently in development.
So what do you think? Do you agree with me or maybe think I'm completely wrong in this? That nuclear power should be banned forever?
Please comment and discuss, but please keep it civilized.
The Fujukima (SP?) nuclear power plant in Japan wasn't in the best location and the accident was contained better than what the media and the americans were complaining about. Three mile island was a far worse disaster but they like to play that one down as usual.
Chernobyl was again human greed and arrogance at it's best. The active reactor has now burnt it's way down deep enough to allow for some recovery of nature at the surface, however the water table will be contaminated for the next 200 years or so.
If in the end humanity invents stable fusion or even some form of matter-antimatter reaction system you can be certain that the americans will be the first to steal and or use the tech to make a weapon to threaten the world with.
Being in Quebec 99% of our power is hydro electric and while it's probably the least dangerous, the idea of changing the natural landscape for these hydro generating stations is not a good thing. Point being that Quebec generates about 4x the amount of power it needs and they sell it to Ontario and other provinces as well as the USA. However they keep putting up our electrical rates. Right now they are generating so much power that they can't find place to store it, literally.
Any how. Just some facts, and i enjoyed your journal, thanks for posting.
We have alot of hydro elecrtric dams around where I live and it is a pretty good source of electricity but it does take a toll on the ecosystem I'm sure.
So despite hazards resulting in poor containment and breaches, I am glad when I hear about additional plants coming on-line and hope more get on the American grids. Technology still lacks a battery good enough to assuage the intermittent nature of tidal, wind, and direct solar energy. However, I hope this eventually becomes solved and the use of these more-or-less limitless energy sources becomes well exploited in the future. However, it may require mining of heavy metals which may indeed cause the earth to be scarred and poisoned quite disappointingly in order to produce X amount of storage capacity.
It may be an urban myth, but I hear tell the batteries required to make a hybrid car operate represent not only mining operations of this sort, but as well require so much added energy (and retail price) that even the current market price of fossil fuels is not adequately made up by creating these vehicles. Their selling point is much like airline travel - quite harsh environmentally speaking, but for the end consumer, affordable. Until we become more conscious of the front-end environmental and other similar costs, certain "green" technologies are misnomers.
Problem with more nuclear power is of course that it would increase mining of the fuels needed for them as well as increased waste.
It really is a pity cold fusion doesn't seem really possible as we understand science currently. It's not likely we'll have Back to the Future type Mr Fusion drives anytime soon. But if it did work more or less like the sun, any element prior to Iron (Fe) on the periodic table would theoretically be fuel.
Hopefully more advanced versions of our current renewable energy will be available with a higher output and not too far into the future.
To many humans equals too much need for resources. Its also what creates religions and wars. It may sound strange but perhaps ww3 is what is needed now.