46 ms·

Indeed. Production and use of solar and wind cause more deaths for GW/H than current nuclear fission (which is responsible for around 19.5% of the US' energy ge

by spangry 10y ago

Indeed. Production and use of solar and wind cause more deaths for GW/H than current nuclear fission (which is responsible for around 19.5% of the US' energy generation [0]). The problem is that deaths from nuclear generation are concentrated in very short, dramatic events. I mean, if you're looking for the biggest killer (by at least an order of magnitude), it's fossil fuels: boringly due to the reduction in air quality, leading to higher incidence of asthma/respiratory related deaths. And although this guy is clearly keen on nuclear fission (MSRs specifically), he's actually gone to the trouble or running the numbers on cost, which you are free to critique (http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear...). Here are his four conclusions: - It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farms, on parcels of land totalling the area of Indiana. - It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totalling the area of West Virginia. - We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totalling a few square miles. - We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors, on the same amount of land, but with no water cooling, no risk of meltdowns, and the ability to use our stockpiles of nuclear “waste” as a secondary fuel. As for those arguing against nuclear power because of well publicised nuclear accidents, it's worth considering the facts: - Three Mile Island: no direct fatalities, average exposure dose equivalent to a chest x-ray. Some academic dispute about whether it increased cancer-related deaths, in many cases because the numbers being argued over are incredibly small.[1] - Fukushima: WHO 2013 report concluded health impacts likely to be below detectable levels, although slight increase in cancer probability if linear no-threshold hypothesis applied. More people were killed because of the (probably unnecessary) evacuation of the surrounding areas.[2] - Chernobyl - UN estimates final total of premature deaths from disaster will be around 4000 (49 of these were immediate). Also made a sizeable area of land uninhabitable for some time.[3] A 2012 estimate of 'deaths per trillion kWh' [4] from various energy sources has it at: - Coal (global): 100,000 - Natural gas: 4,000 - Solar (rooftop only): 440 - Wind: 150 - Nuclear (global): 90 [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_Unit... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_hea... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties#WHO_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities

kuschku 10y ago
Except, he's missing quite a few facts. Like, that there's still unsolved engineering problems with finding naterials that survive the corrosive environment within of molten salt reactors. Like, that he didn't inckude waste storage at all. Like, that he calculated prices for renewables based on buying the most expensive panels, but for nuclear, based on the lowest estimates. In reality, the ROI level of renewables has already won against nuclear. And then there's the problem that also plagued plants in Germany, massive corruption and bribing of investigators because it's cheaper than actually building safe plants. It's no coincidence that the only success story for nuclear is a country where all reactors are government-owned and don't have to turn a profit necessarily. And this brings us to the last problem: Most new CO2 will soon be produced in developing countries, with unstable governments and unreliable public systems. And you want to give those governments nuclear reactors? Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc?
- spangry 10y ago
  Your point about the materials challenge for MSRs is very true: for the designs I've seen the 'solution' is super corrosive. However, I don't think it's an insurmountable challenge, and its more a question of durability over time (and then subsequent maintenance costs). Our water plumbing systems will eventually succumb to the rigours of time; it will just be a very long time... On waste storage, MSRs product much much less waste. A solid fuel, light water reactor achieves maybe 3% fuel efficiency, whereas it's somewhere north of 90% for the thorium MSR. In addition, the byproducts it does produce are mostly useless for nuclear weapons. Dr Carlo Rubbia (former director of CERN and 2016 Nobel Laureate) has stated one of the reasons funding for MSRs was cut by the US in the 70s was precisely because it's difficult to use them to produce nuclear weapons. There are even proposals for MSRs that are fuelled specifically by nuclear waste transuranics (e.g. http://www.transatomicpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Neutronics-White-Paper-v1.1.pdf http://www.transatomicpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/N...). Honestly, I'm not so sure the ROI for renewables is anywhere close to 'winning', unless you ignore stuff like renewable intermittancy (meaning you need to build a crapload more highly expensive transmission infrastructure, or attach highly cost-effective batteries to the grid i.e. lead-acid batteries atm). As for German nuclear, I suppose that won't be a problem once they've completely shut down all their nuclear reactors. Pity that the government official estimated cost of this is 55 billion Euros over the next decade. Although the (frankly more credible) 'unofficial' estimate puts the cost at 250 billion euros over the next decade. Not to mention the fact it's resulted in their co2 emissions increasing in both 2015 and 2016 (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhou...). Their own environment ministry now predicts they will probably not make their 2020 co2 reductions targets. So other than the enormous cost and increase in co2 emissions, good policy.

by spangry 10y ago

kuschku 10y ago

Except, he's missing quite a few facts. Like, that there's still unsolved engineering problems with finding naterials that survive the corrosive environment within of molten salt reactors. Like, that he didn't inckude waste storage at all. Like, that he calculated prices for renewables based on buying the most expensive panels, but for nuclear, based on the lowest estimates. In reality, the ROI level of renewables has already won against nuclear. And then there's the problem that also plagued plants in Germany, massive corruption and bribing of investigators because it's cheaper than actually building safe plants. It's no coincidence that the only success story for nuclear is a country where all reactors are government-owned and don't have to turn a profit necessarily. And this brings us to the last problem: Most new CO2 will soon be produced in developing countries, with unstable governments and unreliable public systems. And you want to give those governments nuclear reactors? Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc?

spangry 10y ago
Your point about the materials challenge for MSRs is very true: for the designs I've seen the 'solution' is super corrosive. However, I don't think it's an insurmountable challenge, and its more a question of durability over time (and then subsequent maintenance costs). Our water plumbing systems will eventually succumb to the rigours of time; it will just be a very long time... On waste storage, MSRs product much much less waste. A solid fuel, light water reactor achieves maybe 3% fuel efficiency, whereas it's somewhere north of 90% for the thorium MSR. In addition, the byproducts it does produce are mostly useless for nuclear weapons. Dr Carlo Rubbia (former director of CERN and 2016 Nobel Laureate) has stated one of the reasons funding for MSRs was cut by the US in the 70s was precisely because it's difficult to use them to produce nuclear weapons. There are even proposals for MSRs that are fuelled specifically by nuclear waste transuranics (e.g. http://www.transatomicpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Neutronics-White-Paper-v1.1.pdf http://www.transatomicpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/N...). Honestly, I'm not so sure the ROI for renewables is anywhere close to 'winning', unless you ignore stuff like renewable intermittancy (meaning you need to build a crapload more highly expensive transmission infrastructure, or attach highly cost-effective batteries to the grid i.e. lead-acid batteries atm). As for German nuclear, I suppose that won't be a problem once they've completely shut down all their nuclear reactors. Pity that the government official estimated cost of this is 55 billion Euros over the next decade. Although the (frankly more credible) 'unofficial' estimate puts the cost at 250 billion euros over the next decade. Not to mention the fact it's resulted in their co2 emissions increasing in both 2015 and 2016 (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhou...). Their own environment ministry now predicts they will probably not make their 2020 co2 reductions targets. So other than the enormous cost and increase in co2 emissions, good policy.