Nuclear reactors

[roter-kaiser]

I failed to find out how many people get killed in coal mines every year, but heard on the radio earlier this week that the death toll in China ranges from 5000 to 20,000 per annum. As for people dying prematurely because of the environmental effects of fossil-fuel generated electricity compared to that produced by nuclear reactors on a per Watt basis...

Uranium and Plutonium need to be mined as well. Did you look up this statistic as well?

Care to help out? It would be much appreciated.

I did a quick internet search. You have to determine for yourself how reliable this is. But the New Internationalist published in 1999 the following numbers:

...In 1996, 3,362 people died as a result of accidents in Chinese coal mines. Unions claim this is the worst-known record in the world.
Uranium mining has exposed more workers to radiation than any other industry - causing 20,000 deaths since the 1950s....

I think a reliable number from several sources states an average of 5,000 deaths per annum from mining in China. This seems to verify your number, however for all mining not just coal.

And then there's Greenpeace that estimated the number of fatal cancers at up to 100,000 out of 250,000 total cancer cases as a direct result of Chernobyl alone. (http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... hs-180406/)

Let's wait another 20 years for the first figures from Japan...

Bottom line is - I heavily dispute this argument that nuclear energy causes less deaths per Watt produced compared to fossil energy.

[roter-kaiser]

I'm by all means no advocate for fossil energy but just because one energy source (fossil) is bad doesn't mean the other one (nuclear) is good. It was revealed today that Japan could have switched much of its energy needs from nuclear to renewable if not for the nuclear lobby which is extremely powerful all over the world. Japan has several dams for drinking water management which could be used for energy production at the same time for a fraction of the cost of an (operating) nuclear power plant, let alone the 150 billion dollars Fukushima will cost in the next 50-100 years. Japan also has wind, waves, tides and geothermal to is disposal, all clean energy sources waiting to be used.

Undoubtedly clean, renewable energy production is preferable to both fossil fuel and nuclear energy, but comparing the history of coal and uranium in terms of environmental impact in general and human death toll in particular - nuclear power is less damaging.

The main reason energy companies are disinterested in the clean alternatives is that both fossil and nuclear energy is still significantly cheaper to produce than the clean and renewable alternatives. While they are ultimately profit oriented and while we - the consumers - tend to go for the cheapest products available, the market just isn't there. No demand, no supply. Us consumers are no less part of it than the owners of the means of production. Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.

This is mainly the case because calculation of energy production cost for nuclear doesn't include the clean up costs for accidents or the disposal costs including castor transports from Germany to France and back. You may have heard about these

These costs are usually carried by the respective government or, in the case of Chernobyl by the international community - not by the energy company who releases production cost figures.

[nellikin]

Actually, nuclear is largely "cheap" due to liability caps and funding by governments. Public funding enabled nuclear power research and power plants to be developed. Capping liability limits what nuclear power providers have to cover/pay for in the event of a disaster (at least in Europe). If nuclear power stations had to completely cover the damage caused by any accidents, they would have insurance premiums so high as to make them unviable. It is this capping of public liability that allows nuclear power plants to operate - this is in effect a public subsidy of nuclear power, enabling nuclear power plants to produce "cheap" energy at the cost of the public purse. The true cost of nuclear power is much higher than what the consumer pays for.

[Hermit]

I failed to find out how many people get killed in coal mines every year, but heard on the radio earlier this week that the death toll in China ranges from 5000 to 20,000 per annum. As for people dying prematurely because of the environmental effects of fossil-fuel generated electricity compared to that produced by nuclear reactors on a per Watt basis...

Uranium and Plutonium need to be mined as well. Did you look up this statistic as well?

Care to help out? It would be much appreciated.

I did a quick internet search. You have to determine for yourself how reliable this is. But the New Internationalist published in 1999 the following numbers:

...In 1996, 3,362 people died as a result of accidents in Chinese coal mines. Unions claim this is the worst-known record in the world.
Uranium mining has exposed more workers to radiation than any other industry - causing 20,000 deaths since the 1950s....

I think a reliable number from several sources states an average of 5,000 deaths per annum from mining in China. This seems to verify your number, however for all mining not just coal.

And then there's Greenpeace that estimated the number of fatal cancers at up to 100,000 out of 250,000 total cancer cases as a direct result of Chernobyl alone. (http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... hs-180406/)

Let's wait another 20 years for the first figures from Japan...

Bottom line is - I heavily dispute this argument that nuclear energy causes less deaths per Watt produced compared to fossil energy.

Looks like we're getting somewhere here. I failed to find much in the way of reliable data along those lines earlier and went with vague memories of what I heard instead. If it turns out that the production of energy from uranium caused more deaths than energy produced from coal, I will certainly change my mind accordingly. Right now we just have preliminary figures. We'll probably need to weigh up the reliability of your source with that of figures provided by, say, the nuclear industry lobby, or preferably find less biased sources.

[Hermit]

The main reason energy companies are disinterested in the clean alternatives is that both fossil and nuclear energy is still significantly cheaper to produce than the clean and renewable alternatives. While they are ultimately profit oriented and while we - the consumers - tend to go for the cheapest products available, the market just isn't there. No demand, no supply. Us consumers are no less part of it than the owners of the means of production. Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.

This is mainly the case because calculation of energy production cost for nuclear doesn't include the clean up costs for accidents or the disposal costs including castor transports from Germany to France and back. You may have heard about these

I thought that in the context I was using the word "cheaper", it was to be understood in terms of the bills that hit the consumers' hip-pocket nerve.

[roter-kaiser]

The main reason energy companies are disinterested in the clean alternatives is that both fossil and nuclear energy is still significantly cheaper to produce than the clean and renewable alternatives. While they are ultimately profit oriented and while we - the consumers - tend to go for the cheapest products available, the market just isn't there. No demand, no supply. Us consumers are no less part of it than the owners of the means of production. Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.

This is mainly the case because calculation of energy production cost for nuclear doesn't include the clean up costs for accidents or the disposal costs including castor transports from Germany to France and back. You may have heard about these

I thought that in the context I was using the word "cheaper", it was to be understood in terms of the bills that hit the consumers' hip-pocket nerve.

Then I can't think of a reason why renewables couldn't be a cheap energy resource as well. It's a political issue not a technological.

[JimC]

The main reason energy companies are disinterested in the clean alternatives is that both fossil and nuclear energy is still significantly cheaper to produce than the clean and renewable alternatives. While they are ultimately profit oriented and while we - the consumers - tend to go for the cheapest products available, the market just isn't there. No demand, no supply. Us consumers are no less part of it than the owners of the means of production. Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism.

This is mainly the case because calculation of energy production cost for nuclear doesn't include the clean up costs for accidents or the disposal costs including castor transports from Germany to France and back. You may have heard about these

I thought that in the context I was using the word "cheaper", it was to be understood in terms of the bills that hit the consumers' hip-pocket nerve.

Then I can't think of a reason why renewables couldn't be a cheap energy resource as well. It's a political issue not a technological.

If we reached a production level of solar cells and wind turbines where economies of scale start to kick in, and if the necessary real estate is available, and the ability to store and/or distribute the power is put in place, then yes...

[Pappa]

Actually, nuclear is largely "cheap" due to liability caps and funding by governments. Public funding enabled nuclear power research and power plants to be developed. Capping liability limits what nuclear power providers have to cover/pay for in the event of a disaster (at least in Europe). If nuclear power stations had to completely cover the damage caused by any accidents, they would have insurance premiums so high as to make them unviable. It is this capping of public liability that allows nuclear power plants to operate - this is in effect a public subsidy of nuclear power, enabling nuclear power plants to produce "cheap" energy at the cost of the public purse. The true cost of nuclear power is much higher than what the consumer pays for.

I've often wondered why governments are so willing to do this compared to the alternatives. In the UK, we have great potential to generate power via renewable sources, yet the public spending on renewable R&D has been only a tiny fraction of what has been spent on nucular. I suppose it's probably got something to do with weapons.

[Hermit]

I thought that in the context I was using the word "cheaper", it was to be understood in terms of the bills that hit the consumers' hip-pocket nerve.

Then I can't think of a reason why renewables couldn't be a cheap energy resource as well. It's a political issue not a technological.

If we reached a production level of solar cells and wind turbines where economies of scale start to kick in, and if the necessary real estate is available, and the ability to store and/or distribute the power is put in place, then yes...

That is not an entirely fair comment. Government subsidies and other means by which costs are transferred away from the immediate consumer's bill have nothing to do with the pros and cons of various energy production modes.

I'd be very happy if comprehensive cost per terawatthour models could be found that compare the various modes on a level playing field. By comprehensive, I mean the inclusion not only of subsidies and costs that are transferred elsewhere, but also environmental costs such as increased cancer rates from radiation, deaths caused by respiratory failure due to pollution caused by coal fired generators, loss of agricultural production due to dam building et cetera.

[JimC]

I thought that in the context I was using the word "cheaper", it was to be understood in terms of the bills that hit the consumers' hip-pocket nerve.

Then I can't think of a reason why renewables couldn't be a cheap energy resource as well. It's a political issue not a technological.

If we reached a production level of solar cells and wind turbines where economies of scale start to kick in, and if the necessary real estate is available, and the ability to store and/or distribute the power is put in place, then yes...

That is not an entirely fair comment. Government subsidies and other means by which costs are transferred away from the immediate consumer's bill have nothing to do with the pros and cons of various energy production modes.

I'd be very happy if comprehensive cost per terawatthour models could be found that compare the various modes on a level playing field. By comprehensive, I mean the inclusion not only of subsidies and costs that are transferred elsewhere, but also environmental costs such as increased cancer rates from radiation, deaths caused by respiratory failure due to pollution caused by coal fired generators, loss of agricultural production due to dam building et cetera.

There are indeed many factors to consider, but one, straightforward and quite brutal economic reality is the cost per megawatt. My main, and I thought reasonably optimistic point, is that if solar cells (for example) start to be manufactured on a very large scale, the cost per panel will greatly decrease. And given that Oz has a lot of degraded, cheap agricultural land with high solar flux available, one can have some hope for a renewable future, given a decent kick-start to the process...

[Hermit]

There are indeed many factors to consider, but one, straightforward and quite brutal economic reality is the cost per megawatt.

True. Economies of scale and improved technologies have historically reduced unit costs dramatically, particularly in the case of cars and personal computers. Roter Kaiser's point, however, was that political factors distort the cost per megawatt to a significant degree, and this too is undeniable. At the moment it seems to me that the latter is of greater impact than the former. I do share your optimism in so far as I expect this balance to change for the better in the future.

[Warren Dew]

As long as they keep cooling the plant with seawater (which is predicted to continue for the next 50 - 100 years), radioactive iodine will probably be detected. That is because the uncontrolled nuclear reactions taking place in the reactor (which will continue for decades to millennia) will keep producing it and it will keep being released with cooling water into the environment. So, even as it decays, it will be refreshed.

Wrong again.

To "refresh" the source of Iodine 131 would require either a decay precursor with along half life, of which there are none, or continued fission, which doesn't happen after the reactor is shut down, and isn't happening at Fukushima now.

The decay heat at nuclear plants is from fission products slowly going away through decay, not the creation of new fission products. It's a different process from what happens while the reactor is operating.

You might want to leave the technical stuff to people who actually know what they're talking about.

[Warren Dew]

My point however is this, that when people compare nuclear energy with fossil fuel energy, they tend to only state the positive side of nuclear (no carbon emission) and ignore the negative ones (risk, mining, waste disposal, accidents). This is then compared with the negative sides of fossils (carbon emission, accidents).

True for the renewables that you like, too. Personally I like hydropower, but a major dam failure in densely populated Japan would probably be an even bigger disaster for them than Fukushima is.

And then there's Greenpeace that estimated the number of fatal cancers at up to 100,000 out of 250,000 total cancer cases as a direct result of Chernobyl alone. (http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... hs-180406/)

Let's wait another 20 years for the first figures from Japan...

Bottom line is - I heavily dispute this argument that nuclear energy causes less deaths per Watt produced compared to fossil energy.

The last figures I saw were that pollution from coal plants killed 40,000-50,000 people per year in the U.S. alone, or close to 1,000,000 people over 20 years. That figure may be lower with newer scrubbing technology, but it's still way more than Chernobyl.

If we reached a production level of solar cells and wind turbines where economies of scale start to kick in, and if the necessary real estate is available, and the ability to store and/or distribute the power is put in place, then yes...

Economies of scale are not really the issue - certainly wind turbine technology is quite mature, with many thousands of wind turbines operating in various farms. The issue is the effectiveness of the technology and the land costs, as well as, sometimes, side effects. At present, you'd probably get more power out of solar by growing plants and burning them than by using solar cells. As for side effects, the Altamont pass wind farm has been estimated to have increased the temperature in parts of the already hot California central valley by a couple of degrees, as well as allegedly posing a danger to wildlife.

This is why I think the correct answer is not any method of generating more power, but instead conservation and efficiency improvements in how that power is used.

[nellikin]

Okay Warren. So they haven't ruled out the fact that ongoing fission is occurring at Fukushima, just yet. However - you're right - iodine will probably not be refreshed for long. However, I did hear about the need to cool the reactors (1 through 4 I believe) for the next 50 years. This will release heat and possibly other radioisotopes for an unknown period of time. This is bound to have an environmental impact - to what extent is not yet known. Radioactive levels of some isotopes (including iodine) are already approaching levels released during the Chernobyl disaster. In addition, heating the ocean will have unknown effects on the local ecosystem. Something which concerns me. The release of plutonium (which has already been detected) is of great concern as plutonium is taken up from the soil by plants, presenting a potential bioaccumulation pathway. Ingested plutonium would present a risk to any organisms in the foodchain, although the effects of this aren't yet properly known. It is my belief that we should take a precautionary view on this - the history of environmental and human disasters caused by man proves that the assumption "she'll be right" with regards to releasing toxic substances into our environment is dangerously false.

I have to agree that investing in energy efficiency is a great cause - as well as educating the public on ways to reduce energy consumption (e.g. not leaving devices on stand-by, heating and cooling houses efficiency etc.). We still need to find clean ways of producing energy - current methods just harm the environment too much.

However, I'm interested in why you seem to believe that there will be no adverse effects from this catastrophe. The release of radioactivity, in particular such horribly toxic elements as plutonium, into the environment will doubtless have long-term effects for the local and possibly global environment (or at least in areas which are receiving the radioisotopes). The Japanese authorities continually release assurances, which are later refuted by other authorities, or by the Japanese government themselves. I see the disaster at Fukushima as an affirmation of my conviction that nuclear energy is not a safe source of power, not because the regular reactors are dangerous, merely because the risks associated with large accidents are large, and cannot ever be eliminated. I don't but into the argument which dominates energy discussion that nuclear energy is the only alternative to fossil fuels: this is merely a political issue and not necessarily a technological one. Do you really believe nuclear power is safe and risk free, as it would appear from your posts?

[roter-kaiser]

This is why I think the correct answer is not any method of generating more power, but instead conservation and efficiency improvements in how that power is used.

I mentioned that already earlier in this thread as an important part of future renewables based energy supply. In Japan, houses are pourly insulated and people are encourage to use energy to keep the dollars rolling in for TEPCO. The sad thing is, they probably wouldn't have had to build Fukushima if they'd focused on efficient energy consumption.