Bullshit. Any energy source where we do not have the technology to clean up the worst case scenario is not the "safest".
Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
391–400 of 679 posts
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It was developed out of government driven military technology That's not a justification. The internet was also developed out of DARPA. Most of silicon valley exists because of cold war electronics warfare research, etc.
Civilian nuclear plants where designed, built, and operated to reduce the costs of nuclear weapons. This resulted in huge subsides, but also a lot of export controls. You can't say that about the internet. PS: A lot of past regulations seem dumb today, but power was not the primary goal which shaped a lot of policy.
"Civilian nuclear plants where designed, built, and operated to reduce the costs of nuclear weapons."
Nope. They were, in fact, designed in a manner that made it very difficult/inefficient to use them to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Reactors designed to produce weapons-grade material operate in a completely different regime. In particular, you need to refuel them on a short continuous cycle, lest the desired plutonium be burned up in the normal operation of the reactor. Power reactors, by contrast, were designed to burn up much more of the fuel, and be refueled all at once.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#393Of course, this is only comparing to fossil sources, not solar, wind, or other renewables (except biomass). I don't think this is going to matter in the end, though. The best, most optimistic arguments the nuclear proponents can make would still take 20-30 years to build out enough to make a standard-deviation difference in greenhouse gasses. Meanwhile, solar/wind are already hitting production costs that rival or be…
> Of course, this is only comparing to fossil sources, not solar, wind, or other renewables (except biomass).
You can include them, nuclear still comes out ahead.
Solar, wind, etc, are not very power-dense. So you need a LOT of installations, building all of them inevitably has fatalities and injuries. (Falls for example.)
From here: http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear... (and you can google tons more sources):
Deathprint:
Wind ……………… 0.15 deaths / TWh
CSP ………………… 0.44 deaths / TWh
Nuclear ……… 0.04 deaths / TWh
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are solar prices like in the night? /s Renewable are all nice and good, but currently we're still building fossil fuel power plants all over the world. It would be better if we instead built nuclear plants. Expanding renewables and nuclear are not opposites of each other.
>What are solar prices like in the night? /s Is that a rhetorical question? Because night time usage largely relies on battery storage for which economies of scale are also reducing the cost in a similar predictable fashion.
/s means sarcasm
However I will say there are newer solar panels that I've read about being tested which can theoretically produce power by moon light. Granted it won't be anywhere near the amount during the day but generating energy via solar at night time isn't entirely impossible it just won't be generating the same amount by orders of magnitude.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I only read the first 3 paragraphs but ..." You can't have a informed conclusion without reading the entire article. That said, it clearly states in the 2nd paragraph that the assessment is for energy types with the lowest negative health impact, with comparison limited to currently dominant sources including nuclear and not renewable types like wind or solar.
I only read the first 3 paragraphs because when you deliberately leave out a significant portion of the energy industry and make a statement that "Nuclear is safest compared to everything else" and then you don't include everything then you are lying. This article has already established up front it is trying to manipulate people.
No, you are projecting your irrational beliefs on the article.
It clearly states the parameters of discussion and titled the report according to the conclusion. They found that nuclear is safest major energy source They never blankly stated that "Nuclear is safest compared to everything else" and to claim that, especially without even reading the entire thing is ludicrous.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#396I've been writing about, thinking about, and exploring lithospheric energy extraction for the better part of 20 years.
I studied operations research during college in the hopes of working on India's nuclear supply chain.
The west choked us out of Uranium and Plutonium, similar to how the British choked us out of Rice during the Bengal Famine of 1943.
http://engineersf.com/people-against-nuclear-energy/
http://engineersf.com/nasa-needs-plutonium%e2%80%8a-%e2%80%8...
http://engineersf.com/2500-10000-indians-die-every-day-from-...
http://engineersf.com/why-is-india-so-behind-the-question-i-...
http://engineersf.com/4000-kilometers-through-my-own-country...
More than anything, the brown/black people of the world need the west to give in to our demands for the approval of our uranium desires to help us get to progress driven escape velocity Nitrogen + Steel economies.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
ABC has an article about the killer cows (which cites data from the CDC, though I've yet to find the data): http://abcnews.go.com/Health/shark-versus-cow-deadlier/story... British cows are apparently similarly deadly: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cows-official...
Thanks for pointing this out. Whoa, now I'm very concerned about snails.
Schistosomiasis is largely a disease of poverty. When drugs and treated water are available, it is easily controlled.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#398I believe the politicization of nuclear energy (the resulting lack of investment & innovation) will go down as one of the major blunders in human history. We'd be in a far, far better situation with greenhouse gasses if we (as a human race) had continued to invest in nuclear energy. There would have been mishaps along the way, but at a much smaller scale than we're experiencing now with deaths from air pollution and…
The problem with nuclear energy is that a nuclear power plant isn't very different in concept from a nuclear bomb. Getting the latter from the former is a serious concern. Having the former accidentally turn into a dirty nuke (not a lot of force, but lots of fallout), is scarily easy. Just see 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl.
"Just see 3 Mile Island"
Really? How many people were killed at 3 Mile Island when it allegedly "accidentally turned into a dirty nuke"?
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#399I believe the politicization of nuclear energy (the resulting lack of investment & innovation) will go down as one of the major blunders in human history. We'd be in a far, far better situation with greenhouse gasses if we (as a human race) had continued to invest in nuclear energy. There would have been mishaps along the way, but at a much smaller scale than we're experiencing now with deaths from air pollution and…
What do you mean "politicization"? Please saw the movie the China syndrome and then 3 mile island happened. Then people were very afraid. These were real possibilities. Does anyone want to live near a nuclear power plant? Do you? I sure as hell would not. How can you twist fear of a disaster in "politicization"? You are also looking thru the lens of our current situation. Very little was being discussed about the ris…
> Please saw the movie the China syndrome and then 3 mile island happened.
Yeah, I'm surprised by how little attention this gets. A significant accident occurred that wasn't supposed to, and subsequent investigations showed that there were significant lapses, including from regulators. People can't be experts in nuclear plant design, construct, regulation, inspections, etc., so they need to be able to rely on the authorities in charge. When that trust is betrayed, it naturally has consequences. You can't just say to people, "Well, yeah, last time we told you to trust us we were completely wrong, but this time will be different!"
When problems happen that aren't supposed to happen, people are naturally going to be overly cautious and skeptical of future assurances. That's not an entirely unreasonable reaction.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#400The discussion I have seen so far on this thread go something like this: 1. Nuclear is really safe. The best. 2. Someone brings up an incident that actually happened. 3. Apologists excuse the incidents that happened because a. It wasnt designed right b. It was due to corruption c. It was bad planning. etc. We live in the real world here. You dont prove nuclear is safe by excusing every accident and actually using the…
"2. Someone brings up an incident that actually happened"
Generally an "incident that actually happened" in which no one was actually, you know, killed.