3 ms·

> Union of Concerned Scientists are an anti-nuclear lobbyist group. Or maybe they are just concerned about a power source which has proved catastrophic multipl

> Union of Concerned Scientists are an anti-nuclear lobbyist group. Or maybe they are just concerned about a power source which has proved catastrophic multiple times in the past.

magduf 7y ago
Compare the number of deaths due to nuclear accidents to the health effects of us all breathing in coal pollution.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Deaths / trillion kWhr (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#34a80aa0709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...) Coal – global average 100,000 (41% global electricity) Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity) Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) Oil 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity) Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (2% global electricity) Hydro – global average 1,400 (16% global electricity) Hydro – U.S. 5 (6% U.S. electricity) Nuclear – global average 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) I've never been quite enthusiastic about these kinds of numbers, because I'm not sure what deaths are included. I believe this article includes indirect, pollution-related deaths for fossil fuels, but what about deaths in uranium mining and processing? Forbes separates out the US numbers because of the strong regulatory regime here---which strikes me as odd; doesn't Forbes usually consider environmental and health-and-safety regulations bad? One confounding factor in this data is the low numbers of large-scale accidents for nuclear power. The reason the hydro power number is so high is a number of very large dam failures; would nuclear numbers be similar if Chernobyl happened in a much higher population area or if Fukushima happened faster?
  - nickik 7y ago
    > but what about deaths in uranium mining and processing Modern Uranium mining is basically pin-point mining mostly done by machines. And even without that, Uranium is so energy dense that you don't actually have to mine much. Every other energy source also has lots of mining simply because you need lots more of normal metals. Think about the absurd amount of mining required for wind miles. The same for processing, those are very highly advanced modern processes that are pretty strictly on safety. There are very few deaths from either. > One confounding factor in this data is the low numbers of large-scale accidents for nuclear power. The only ever large-scale accident (in terms of people) for nuclear power is Chernobyl and if you look at the long term death we are talking around 4000 who die earlier and maybe 50 who died faster and that is one event 40 years ago. Other then that there have been basically 0 deaths from radiation from civilian power nuclear accidents. In reality Chernobyl was a military reactor and shouln't even be included in the first place. > or if Fukushima happened faster I'm not sure what you are talking about here. It seems that you assume that evacuation saved people? That is totally wrong. Actually a far larger number of people died during the evacuation that were actually endangered by the radiation.
nickik 7y ago
They are a lobbyist group they get their money from contributions by people who want to fight nuclear power. > proved catastrophic multiple times in the past Any evidence for that?

> Union of Concerned Scientists are an anti-nuclear lobbyist group. Or maybe they are just concerned about a power source which has proved catastrophic multiple times in the past.

magduf 7y ago

Compare the number of deaths due to nuclear accidents to the health effects of us all breathing in coal pollution.

mcguire 7y ago
Deaths / trillion kWhr (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#34a80aa0709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...) Coal – global average 100,000 (41% global electricity) Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity) Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity) Oil 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity) Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (2% global electricity) Hydro – global average 1,400 (16% global electricity) Hydro – U.S. 5 (6% U.S. electricity) Nuclear – global average 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush) Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity) I've never been quite enthusiastic about these kinds of numbers, because I'm not sure what deaths are included. I believe this article includes indirect, pollution-related deaths for fossil fuels, but what about deaths in uranium mining and processing? Forbes separates out the US numbers because of the strong regulatory regime here---which strikes me as odd; doesn't Forbes usually consider environmental and health-and-safety regulations bad? One confounding factor in this data is the low numbers of large-scale accidents for nuclear power. The reason the hydro power number is so high is a number of very large dam failures; would nuclear numbers be similar if Chernobyl happened in a much higher population area or if Fukushima happened faster?
- nickik 7y ago
  > but what about deaths in uranium mining and processing Modern Uranium mining is basically pin-point mining mostly done by machines. And even without that, Uranium is so energy dense that you don't actually have to mine much. Every other energy source also has lots of mining simply because you need lots more of normal metals. Think about the absurd amount of mining required for wind miles. The same for processing, those are very highly advanced modern processes that are pretty strictly on safety. There are very few deaths from either. > One confounding factor in this data is the low numbers of large-scale accidents for nuclear power. The only ever large-scale accident (in terms of people) for nuclear power is Chernobyl and if you look at the long term death we are talking around 4000 who die earlier and maybe 50 who died faster and that is one event 40 years ago. Other then that there have been basically 0 deaths from radiation from civilian power nuclear accidents. In reality Chernobyl was a military reactor and shouln't even be included in the first place. > or if Fukushima happened faster I'm not sure what you are talking about here. It seems that you assume that evacuation saved people? That is totally wrong. Actually a far larger number of people died during the evacuation that were actually endangered by the radiation.

nickik 7y ago

They are a lobbyist group they get their money from contributions by people who want to fight nuclear power. > proved catastrophic multiple times in the past Any evidence for that?