Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes

[Willin']

Using nuclear power in place of fossil-fuel energy sources, such as coal, has prevented some 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths globally and could save millions of more lives in coming decades, concludes a study.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html

BUT:
I would say the number of people that have died due to nuclear plant meltdowns/fallouts pales in comparison to those who have died as a result of the extraction and burning burning of fossil fuels.

And let's not forget too regular occurrence of coal miners dieing in cave-ins. Oh course nuclear power has the potential for occasional devastating disasters

And of course nuclear plants ain't cheap, no one wants a nuclear reactor in their town, and the whole nuclear waste thing is a bit of a problem.


Why don't we?

We could generate enough power with solar panels to cover the world. they've gotten amazingly efficient and continues at a rapid pace.

plus it doesn't carry the risk of fallout, and nuclear waste sites.

Germany is going big on this already, from what I've heard.

I say eliminate coal, oil and nuclear power.


Switch to solar!

[VDS]

I say eliminate coal, oil and nuclear power.


Switch to solar!

Agree 100%

[melvin]

Based on my very limited knowledge on the subject, I think you cannot "get rid of nuclear power". I might be wrong though.

[Asmo]

I think we should get most of our power from wind and the sun, but we should have nuclear fission plants producing the rare isotopes that we use in medicine and doing various research. If we ever develop nuclear fusion as a viable power source we should use it to power our cities (and maybe use space junk to provide supplementary power to janitor satellites or something), but not rural areas where the plants cannot be well guarded, because crazy people and/or terrorists should not be able to get near something with the capability to destroy a significant amount of the planet. Now solar and wind power still require fossil fuels and metals from mining to produce, but that is significantly less than burning them when compared to the amount of energy one can get from them. Maybe in the future we will develop better bio-degradable plastics and maybe even circuit components from plants or other organisms and have no need to mine whatsoever.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

BUT:
I would say the number of people that have died due to nuclear plant meltdowns/fallouts pales in comparison to those who have died as a result of the extraction and burning burning of fossil fuels.

So, nuclear 1 : coal 0? Unless you've used the phrase "pales in comparison" in completely the opposite way to its standard definition.


And let's not forget too regular occurrence of coal miners dieing in cave-ins. Oh course nuclear power has the potential for occasional devastating disasters

A handful of incidents presenting a danger to the public over the course of 50-odd years is "devastating"?


And of course nuclear plants ain't cheap, no one wants a nuclear reactor in their town, and the whole nuclear waste thing is a bit of a problem.

1) The costs of nuclear power can be reduced through standardisation of both reactor designs and harmonisation of industrial guidelines. Economies of scale and all that. Basically, the more we build and the more consistent the rules are across the board, the cheaper it will get.

2) Such NIMBYism is utterly misplaced, and the fact that it is cited as a problem says more about public perceptions of nuclear power, than it does about the reality of nuclear safety. People also object to wind farms and coal stations being built near their homes, yet such objections are never presented as some kind of knock-down argument against them. In the case of wind this is because its renewable and largely non-polluting operation is generally perceived to "outweigh" its effect on the landscape and local fauna, while in the case of coal burning it is because there are much more compelling environmental arguments against its deployment. The harm to local health caused by coal burning stations is an actuality, while for nuclear power stations it is only a potential.

3) Nuclear waste can be effectively recycled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing), squeezing more usable fuel out of every kilogram of ore that is mined.


Why don't we?

We could generate enough power with solar panels to cover the world. they've gotten amazingly efficient and continues at a rapid pace.

plus it doesn't carry the risk of fallout, and nuclear waste sites.

Germany is going big on this already, from what I've heard.

3% (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/germany-solar-idAFL6E7NT1WK20111229?sp=true) is "big"? Since when?

[Ele'ill]

I think nuclear power is pretty dangerous as we've clearly seen from the handful of near global life ending disasters that have occurred.

[black magick hustla]

near global life ending disasters that have occurred.
um, what?

[Skyhilist]

Obviously nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels. But we already have energy sources that don't require mining operations than are ecological disasters (and where workers are often treated like shit, I might add) and where we don't have to worry about disposing of hazardous waste and where we don't have to worry about any possibility of a meltdown. Solar, wind, hydro, etc. have more than enough potential and are much less of a trade off than nuclear energy.

[Ele'ill]

um, what?


It'll prevent more deaths until there's 1 incident that destroys the planet.

[black magick hustla]

It'll prevent more deaths until there's 1 incident that destroys the planet.

i think "near global life extinction" been a lil exaggerated compared to what actually has happened...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Obviously nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels. But we already have energy sources that don't require mining operations than are ecological disasters (and where workers are often treated like shit, I might add)

Those are problems with capitalism, not nuclear energy.

Unless you think that every private corporation manufacturing renewable energy plant for profit (as well as the mines and factories that provide them with materials and components, for a profit) is somehow a worker's paradise that operates on completely non-polluting magic pixie dust?


and where we don't have to worry about disposing of hazardous waste

Nuclear waste isn't an intractable problem if we're willing to reprocess it.


and where we don't have to worry about any possibility of a meltdown.

Would you believe me if I told you that it was possible to design a nuclear reactor in which meltdown is a physical impossibility?

Because there are already designs in use that require purposeful interference in their normal operations to go into meltdown. Chernobyl happened in part because at least one safety feature at the plant was deliberately disabled.


Solar, wind, hydro, etc. have more than enough potential and are much less of a trade off than nuclear energy.

Renewables have either insufficient energy density to be universally useful (wind, solar), or have geographical requirements that most of the planet's surface fails to meet (geothermal, hydro, tidal).

We need both renewable energy and nuclear fission.