-prior to rural electrification, wind/electric was a mature technology-
I admit it would be hard to fullfil the wants of today's lazy electricity addicts with wind alone, fortunately solar power and electrical efficiency evolved considerably since the thirties-
Death Rate From Nuclear Power Vs Coal?
by John Johnston on 03/24/2011
Death rate from nuclear vs oil vs coal
Seth Godin recently posted this simplified chart,
from an altogether more complicated one. He maintains that this is a simple yet non-exaggerated version of the complicated one. The point is that for each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. This is adjusted for how much power is produced by each method of power generation.
He also points out that if we were to take into account such things as deaths from environmental impacts yet unmeasured, due to climate change caused by fossil fuel emissions for instance, the chart would skew even more.
His post is actually focused on the triumph of coal marketing, that we are surprised at what this data shows. How come many of us didn't already know this? I think it is fair to say that most people don't think coal is that much of a killer, but there you have it.
Many of us even know that we consume mercury from deep-sea species of fish, yet many of us still don't connect the dots back to coal at least not consciously.
Having said that, it should also be acknowledged that the number of deaths attributed to nuclear accidents is a source of serious contention. For instance, this recent take-down of the nuclear power industry raises the possibility that the Chernobyl death toll was grossly underestimated by the Soviets and even the international community. Alternatively, there are also reports claiming the death toll from Chernobyl was over-estimated. It's all quite confusing isn't it? How are we to know how accurate the data is?
...but does it really matter? If the death toll from nuclear was ten times greater, it would still be orders of magnitude less than coal
World coal production
2 United States
4 European Union
8 South Africa
World coal exports
United States 6.9%
South Africa 6.3%
Australia, the 5th largest coal producer, and the greatest coal exporter,
exports 9 times as much deadly coal as Canada.
Of course some of them will try to shift the attention to nuclear and oilsands, it's to be expected, it's what people like that do. Notice how their 'argument' is based on personal attacks and bluster, and very little factual evidence to back up their blah, blah, blah.
As someone who lives within 20 miles of 5 coal powered electric producers [one being ranked #1 US acid rain producer]I'd move in next to a nuke plant tomorrow.... I see so many signs everyday slamming our president, sponsored by the "Clean Coal" org. Come on people, there is no such thing as CLEAN COAL, lets call it what it is, CHEAP DIRTY COAL..
I also live along the Ohio river where every day I see thousands of tons of coal being shipped up the river, and just as much coal being shipped down the river. One might ask why would you ship coal in both directions?? Because the coal rolling up river is low sulfur, it's being burned here. The coal going down river is HIGH sulfur, and being shipped to India, China, or anywhere else they can sell it. Still gets burned, just on the other side of the globe. So we've done nothing to remove the pollution, just makes us look better than them.
However I've also learned you can never make everyone happy. Nor convince people the byproducts from a nuke plant can be safely transported or stored as is done everyday in Europe. We have this nuke fear factor when something goes wrong. If the Japan plant would had an automatic mechanical shut down design, there would been zero release of radioactive material. It didn't, stuff happened, and once again it's all bad news, cancel those nuke plant permits...
Talk about canceling permits and unhappy people. Couple years back while on vacation in Eastern WV, I read the local paper and a group was protesting the wind farm being built in a local county. Their gripe, loud noise produced and the large turbines take away from the only valuable thing they had, the majestic scenic views.... Your also getting millions in benefits for your schools and community. So how bout moving these stinking coal power houses from my back yard to your majestic mountain tops to burn that valuable thing you really cherish, DIRTY FREAK'N COAL!!
Sorry to all my friends in the coal fields, but it is what it is. Time to wake up America, and don't protest when someone wants to build a huge solar array next door cause it might lower your property value. Think of the savings to your health and lets advertize that..
I'm for more nuclear power, and less brain cancer..
-KenThis message has been edited. Last edited by: Kenr34,
If they had sited the diesel powered back-up generators on high ground, there would been zero release of radioactive material. This was an old obsolete plant, due for decommissioning, foolish risks were taken, and they lost.
Obsolete or not, was ultimately an engineering failure.
There is something called a "dead man switch" that should be at the center of a any nuke plant. If a live person ain't holding the button down, the rods ain't hot. Stranger things can happen than a tsunami, like a solar flare knocking out all electrical power in a flash. A good mechanical fail-safe design doesn't need electrical power or human intervention to work.
Sometimes we need to employ the KISS theory to our most critical technical inventions.
The newest gen3 small nuclear reactors have an inherent fail safe which does that.
Store it for like the next 1000 years you mean in containers that have a limited life.
How about they put it in you back yard and then your children's, grand Children's and so on down the line. And when the backyard aint big enough to store it all, what then? It's already a huge problems but the nuke lovers want to ignore that.
YOu talk about the coal being burned somewhere else and like nuke is so clean. It's clean at the front door but the pile of the deadliest, most contaminating substances known to man is being shipped out the back door and becomes a problem with no solution FOREVER.
And what does this tell you? That even when dealing with something so dangerous as a Nuke reactor, the people running it were so concerned about saving money that they couldn't even spend the chicken feed money to install a simple saftey device that would have prevented the whole Fiasco.
Thats a great reassurance for how safe the rest of the 400 odd reactors in the world might be and a very telling insight into an industry rotten to the core and even more greedy that oil companies.
You're dreaming. It's private enterprise with undoubtedly gubbermint subsidies that take away from money for schools and communities. The profits don't go to schools and all that feel good crap, it goes into the pockets of executives and wealthy investors with a few mums and dads picking up the chump change. Same as gubbermints. They don't just pump the money into schools, it largely goes to Gubbermint waste and communities are lucky to see hundredths of a percent of any one income stream or investment. And that's if the enterprise DOES make money which few if any of the alternative energy sources actually do.
NO, as you are so comfortable with it, we are going to turn your backyard into a Nuke waste dump.
It's safe, you said so. Don't protest when it removes any value your property might have will you?
And dosen't the US have a great track record with that?
Millions poured into projects like Amonix that failed after just 14 months http://www.lvrj.com/business/a....html?numComments=42
And there are plenty others like Hatch, Alamosa and more.
They have never been viable commercially or productively. Where is all that money for schools now? Oh yeah, the gubbermint just dropped $20M on grants for a white elephant feel good project that was supposed to replace those evil coal burning power plants.
As you think the coal powerplants are so bad, maybe you could get your power from one of these solar clean green friendly places. Well you could for the little while they are running. During the day only when the sun is shining and it's not cloudy. Or they haven't broken down.... or closed down... after 14 months that they weren't producing power a lot of the time anyway.
Coal ain't so bad when you want the lights and TV on or the AC or to wash your clothes or eat unspoiled food from the refrigerator or even to pump gas into your vehicle.
I take it you don't use any of that Dirty stinking coal generated power do you because that would be hypocritical wouldn't it?
I take it you get your power form other sources such as the solar panels on your roof or the diesel generator out the back running on " Renewable" Veg oil or maybe you have a wind turbine to power your home and domestic energy needs?
Sure wouldn't want to be using any of that stinking coal generated power you protest about so much would you?
Actually I'm currently in the process of liquidating most of our assets so I can do exactly that. One year from now I plan to be living onboard a beautiful sailing vessel that is 100% wind and solar powered. And yes, my backup to those sources will be UVO fed generator. Gotta be able to cook my microwave popcorn at 3AM while posting to this forum from a satellite uplink...
It's been a dream for over 10 years that my wife and I are now putting into motion. So if your interested in a nice house and property along the river with a lovely scenic view of WV, and a slightly higher cancer rate compared to anywhere else in the USA, please give me a call and I'll set up a viewing for ya ASAP..
Those sound like good plans Ken. An uncle had a 34 ft trimaran built for him in the Philippines and did exactly like you're planning. He has been totally happy with his retirement sailing.
When the auto industry had difficulties with 70's designs like the Ford Pinto which killed 27 times more people than the Fukushima nuclear accident, they didn't act like silly nukophobes and demand that production of the automobile be stopped, and that we should return to dirty, obsolete, coal fired steam powered vehicles. Science and technology always carry on and improve designs and increase safety and reliability. Current gen-3 small scale nuclear power plants have built on the enviable safety record of small scale nuclear power systems in ships, and the current designs are presently operating as prototypes without any major difficulties or safety concerns. Decades of power from a few kilograms of fuel has largely eliminated the waste problem as the new fuel systems are reprocessed not discarded as hazardous waste. In fact, the toxic tailing ponds and dumps from coal power pose a much greater health and safety problem. Nuclear power will continue to develop and make progress toward a clean safe power source for the future. The nukophobes will be ignored.
You have my admiration and respect for having the courage of your convictions.
Many people whinge, few people do.
I hope it works out for you, it certainly sounds very Idyllic but I'm not sure it would be something I was up to doing. I'm not educated nor experienced in the ways of the sea at any level. You will certainly be entitled to your Microwave popcorn and a lot more for following your beliefs and the efforts you will be making.
While I don't have any problem using coal generated power and lots of it, I have also been working towards the ability to be independent power wise. I have a Listeroid engine I have been setting up to run on UVO with a generator head and also the engine out of my old W123 Mercedes that I pulled from the rusted body that still ran perfectly. I will be getting a 16 KW gen head this week to mate to this engine. I also have several China diesels hooked up to 12V alternators that supply inverters for low demand times.
I have a number of grid Tie inverters which one is coupled to the Lister so I can back feed power to the grid to use it like a battery and I will also look at putting a few ( they are only 2kw ea) on the Mercedes setup but that will take a while longer as it will require dedicated wiring to handle the current.
An ambition of mine I may or may not reach would be a home/ property where there is a constant supply of flowing water. Micro Hydro seems to me to the simplest, cleanest and cheapest power source of all. I have been looking for a while now and while suitable properties are not easy to find, they are not impossible either and can be surprisingly affordable.
With the right set-up they also allow a far higher output than practical with wind or solar and is much more reliable at the right site.
Good luck with your new life. I hope it turns out to be all you hope for and more.
B]U.S. To Bury Almost All Existing Used Nuclear Fuel; Recycling Deferred At Least 20 Years.[/B]
here’s little hope that the 70,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel dispersed across the United States will ever be recycled, according to a recent study by Oak Ridge National Laboratory—so nearly all existing waste will go into the earth.
In a study completed late last year, Oak Ridge officials determined that the U.S. is at least 20 years away from large-scale reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, if it decides to pursue such technologies. By then, they estimate, nuclear plants will have generated another 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel.
“Based on the technical assessment, about 68,450 (metric tons) or about 98 percent of the total current inventory by mass, can proceed to permanent disposal without the need to ensure retrievability for reuse or research purposes,” Oak Ridge officials conclude in a report issued late last year.
The remaining 2 percent should be reserved for research into storage and reprocessing technologies, the report advised.
The Oak Ridge report came to light this month when it was cited by the Department of Energy in a document revealing DOE’s plan to seek a new permanent geologic waste depository. The country’s previous depository, Yucca Mountain, was defunded by Congress and the Obama Administration in 2011.
The United States long opposed the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel because of terrorism and proliferation concerns, but DOE began researching new reprocessing technologies in 2005, and the Obama Administration has remained open to new technologies.
In 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told Congress “there is research that has to be done, again, because reprocessing has the potential for greatly reducing both the amount and lifetime of the waste and to extend the nuclear fuel.”
At the time—before meltdowns and hydrogen explosions damaged spent fuel pools at Fukushima—the U.S. appeared more open to recycling processes like those employed in France.
After Fukushima, The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, co-chaired by Chu, adopted more cautious language about recycling: “no currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technology developments—including advances in reprocessing and recycling technologies—have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenges the nation confronts over at least the next several decades, if not longer.”
But neither the Blue Ribbon report nor the administration’s response close the door to reprocessing, calling it “premature for the United States to commit, as a matter of policy, to ‘closing’ the nuclear fuel cycle given the large uncertainties that exist about the merits and commercial viability of different fuel cycle and technology options.”
Although reprocessing offers some benefits over long-term storage, few anti-nuclear activists embrace it.
“Recycling is a euphemism for reprocessing which is one of the worst polluters of the atmosphere and the ocean, and is a direct conduit to proliferation,” said Mali Martha Lightfoot, executive director of the Helen Caldicott Foundation. “It is not really a solution to anything except how can the industry get more of our money. It also ups the ante for reactor accident danger, as in the case of Fukushima, because MOX fuel has plutonium in it.”
Mixed-oxide or MOX fuel is recycled from nuclear warheads.
The United States’ current inventory of domestic used nuclear fuel “is massive, diverse, dispersed, and increasing,” according to the Oak Ridge report. Stored at 79 temporary sites in 34 states, it represents”a total of about 23 billion curies of long-lived radioactivity.”
Spent nuclear-fuel rods will continue to stack up outside American reactors in wet pools similar to two that failed in Japan’s nuclear disaster, while the government and industry pursue recycling technologies expected to become viable by 2050.
This was the testimony of Gregory Jaczko, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Peter Lyons, the acting assistant energy secretary, in a Senate Energy Committee hearing this morning.
Fresh from visits to two California reactors, Sen. Diane Feinstein questioned the men about spent fuel rods being stored indefinitely in cooling pools that were designed to be temporary and that filled to their original design capacity years ago.
With no final destination for nuclear waste in the U.S., reactor operators have “racked and re-racked” the spent fuel, as Feinstein put it, in pools at 65 reactor sites across the country.
“I have a hard time understanding why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not mandated more rapid movement of spent fuel to dry casks,” she told Jaczko. “There were no problems with dry cask storage in Dai-ichi. The spent fuel [in wet pools] at Dai-ichi posed a significant problem, contributing to at least one of the hydrogen explosions.
“It is clear that we lack a comprehensive policy to manage the nuclear fuel.”
Jaczko said the pools could be used to safely store spent fuel rods for 100 years. Some have been doing so for 35 years already. Feinstein asked about safety standards for spent-fuel pools, and the dialogue proceeded like this:
Jaczko: The spent fuel pools meet many of the same standards that the reactor itself would have to meet. For instance, the spent fuel pools themselves are required to withstand the natural phenomena, like earthquakes and tsunamis that could impact the reactor itself. The spent fuel is required to be able to deal with these severe accidents. It’s also required to be able to deal with the possiblibility of any type of nuclear reaction happening in the pool itself. So there are very high standards and they are comparable to the reactors themselves.
Feinstein: Well didn’t Japan have similar standards, and yet the spent fuel pools could not withstand the tsunami, the earthquake?
Jaczko: At this point we don’t know exactly what contributed to the situation with the spent fuel pools in Japan. It’s unclear whether that was a direct result of the earthquake itself or whether that was the result of some subsequent actions such as the hydrogen explosions that occurred.
Two of six wet pools failed to contain radiation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in the wake of the earthquake there. “We don’t know for sure what the siutation is,” Jaczko said. “We think it’s possible there was perhaps a leak in the unit 3 pool and perhaps there were some other challenges in the unit 4 pool.”
The Obama Administration has abandoned development of a nuclear waste storage facility proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nevada in favor of emerging technologies for recycling and stabilizing spent fuel. The Department of Energy is funding research in those technologies, and a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future is expected to recommend a spent-fuel policy next year, or later.
The Obama Administration has dismissed spent-fuel reprocessing systems already used in France and Japan because of security and environmental risks.
“We think that with research we can do substantially better, and that is the research that Secretary Chu is pursuing through my office,” said Peter Lyons of the Energy Department.
According to papers filed with the Blue Ribbon Commission, the current research involves faster and simpler processes for separating uranium and plutonium from other fission products in spent fuel and from minor elements like americium and curium. The latter elements would be destroyed in a fast-burner reactor.
Other research is focusing on finding improved, durable forms for each type of radioactive waste, some of which could be recycled and others stored indefinitely.
Republican senators on the committee, Lamar Alexander and Lindsey Graham, praised the administration’s plans.
“I’ve always been a fan of the French reprocessing system,” Graham said, “but quite frankly Secretary Chu has convinced me… that if we’ll be patient maybe in the next decade plus there will be new technologies on the spent fuel reprocessing front that will be worth waiting on.”
Those on the nuke bandwagon are as gullible and ignorant as the gang Greenies that want to push their rubbish hype for Commercial Biofuels, solar and other things that just don't work but they create all sorts of twisted facts and poppycock to support.
It's always going to be better and safer and different in the future but the fact is little to nothing ever gets done in reality to ensure those lofty ideals.
Accidents are always the fault of old reactor designs and can't happen with new ones but those with radiation on the brain conveniently forget that the majority of reactors in the world are those old designs with all their inherent flaws and are being licensed to keep operating past their design dates simply so the operators can keep making money at the dire risk to public health.
If all those old reactors were closed down and only the new supposedly safer ones were allowed to operate, the nuke heads may have some sort of a creditable argument.
As it is they just make fools of themselves with their " New reactors are safe" BS because most of the reactors running today are old designs that are known to be flawed but are allowed by a corrupt industry and Gubbermint to keep operating anyway.
The Nuclear reactor at Chernobyl also had a fail-safe system and so did the one at Fukushima.
The thing that worries me about Nuclear reactors is the experts. The first time I looked at a video of the tsunami hitting the Fukushima plant I was dumbfounded.
I could not and still can not believe that anyone with any intelligence would build a Nuclear power plant right next to the ocean in an area that regularly has both earthquakes and tsunamis.
Surely, if these are the type of people running nuclear power plants there is a real concern about the safety of anything nuclear.
As far as one of these small Chinese nuclear reactors that are apparently going to be smuggled into Alberta with the help of the government- I have seen Chinese quality. That is a real concern.
I agree, the human factor is the biggest concern to safety. When big money is involved, so is greed, which leads to cutting corners and kickbacks. People sign off on things as being done correctly that might not be, just to save the company a buck and increase their bonus. This is not an industry where we can afford to let it slide..
Done correctly, it's by far the best bang for the buck energy supply. But we have to take into consideration the worst case happening, then multiply it by 4, and design around that. Building along any coastal property or fault line should to be forbidden. Unfortunately there is no single power to enforce such rules globally.
Do you mean experts like those that said there was othing to worry about for weeks after the Fukushima Reactors went sky high and the readiation count was literally going off the scale?
The same experts that accused the media who were barely reporting a 10Th of the problem were blowing the situation out of proportion? The experts that then tried to say that a bit of radiation was good for people or was it the ones that suddenly decided to raise the safe exposure limits over night that had previously been questioned as already being on the high side?
What about the ones that kept saying they were just trying to restart the cooling pumps days after they KNEW the reactors had had a full scale melt down hours after the event and the pipes to carry said cooling water were destroyed beyond any hope of repair in any time frame?
What about the experts that signed off on all the safety inspections, repairs and maintainable that was not done or faulty and allowed the reactors to keep operating in a known unsafe condition?
What about the idiots that designed the things to extra/ outside power to run in the first place.
What I want to know is what are those lying bastard " experts now and that the hell are they doing?
Nothing important I hope as they are obviously and without questions Complete and utter idiots that are as bent as the day as is long. Clearly they will say anything they have a vested interest in or someone pays them off to be a mouth piece.
IF these are the experts of the Nuke industry, god help us if anyone puts any stock in what they say or what is going to happen when the next old POS reactor that is safe and fool proof etc goes up.
And that's something to pose t the nuke brigade right now.
ARE THERE CURRENTLY ANY OLD OR UNSAFE OR REACTORS OPERATING THAT COULD HAVE AN ACCIDENT?
IF there are then they should be closed down.
If there are not and they are all fine, Then there should never be another accident should there?
And if they are all safe and wonderful as made out, then if another does go bang, that would be proof positive that they cannot be trusted and are a danger and should therefore all be closed down once and for all before they kill everything bar the cockroaches on the planet.
So lets see what those on the Nuke bandwagon can guarantee us for the future instead of making excuses after the fact. IF there are any dangerous Reactors operating ( If?? ) Then point them out so they can be shut down before another accident occurs. If they are all the safe, clean, rainbows and sunshine machines that are all foolproof and have all the safety measures that would prevent and accident ever occurring, Then there is NO excuse for anything that happens in the future is there.
IF it does, then clearly the things can't be trusted, all the excuses are Null and void and the only logical thing that could be done in the advent of another accident is to shut the whole lying, corrupt industry down.
I have yet to see something built by the Chinese to be revered for its quality.
Undoubtedly the Chinese got to build these reactors through being the lowest tender offered.
Like everything else they build, It would have been done as cheaply as possibly with the use of unskilled labour and manufacturing processes designed to shave as much of the bottom line as possible rather than do the job to the highest standards.
IF you were looking for a high quality Job, the last place in the world you would go would be China!
I see people here saying they would never drive a motor Vehicle that was built in china and how great USA Build quality is. If people are suspect on the Build quality of a Low tech machine like a Car, WFT would you trust the build quality of something as high tech and complicated and nuke reactor to be built in China, especially when they are ALL designed in the USA to start with??
I wonder if the people that support the use of these things would also be happy to go to a cut price Surgeon operating out of their kitchen or basement for a life saving operation they needed?
Exactly and that is the biggest flaw in this whole industry.
You cannot build a machine that guarantees against human greed, corruption and nature.
Humans built it, humans will corrupt and circumvent anything that becomes inconvenient to them.
If humans were trustworthy and always did the right thing, we wouldn't need police would we?
Thinking along those lines is about as naive as thinking safety standards and devices on Nuke reactors will prevent them ever blowing up.
When these things go belly up, there is always something that comes out as to how safety standards and procedures were circumvented that lead to or caused the accident.
MAYBE if operated to the letter of the manual they are safe but to trust that to humans is ridiculous.
This is an industry operating on the slimmest of margins and owned by hugely powerful companies with loads of friends in gubbermint and High places that can get away with murder. Literally.
For anyone to think that this is going to be the one industry in the world that is run precisely as it should and no one involed would ever take a pay off, bend a rule or regulation, turn a blind eye, Sign off on something not done or fixed or just operate like no other industry on the planet is sticking one head so far up their backside it will be their ass doing all the talking.
Come to think of it hear and read of a lot of asses championing Nukes.
IF these things are to be operated to the letter of the rules and regulations, we better train monkeys or find some aliens to run them because trusting it to humans is stupidity of the highest order.
The other problem is the waste.
It's deadly poison with the potential to literally wipe out the world and there is no workable solution to deal with it right now, or in the foreseeable future. It takes away any kind of feel good rubbish about the industry being "clean", the excrement it produces is the most deadly stuff known to man and it's already building up at an alarming rate.
Talk about leaving a problem for your children!
Even if through some Miracle on earth these reactors themselves can be run correctly and have guaranteed 100% safety, the waste problem renders all that null and void until that problem can be solved.
Everyone wants clean, safe, cheap power. The difference is some people want to kid themselves and try and convince others that Nuke provides it.
Anyone with intelligence and honesty knows that is a million miles from the case.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3|