3 ms·

I'm trying to cobble together some statistics on the safety of nuclear power, but unfortunately, the IAEA site is slammed presently (wonder why...), so I'm left

by rosser 16y ago

I'm trying to cobble together some statistics on the safety of nuclear power, but unfortunately, the IAEA site is slammed presently (wonder why...), so I'm left with assembling them by hand, from Wikipedia. If anyone out there can point me at a better source for this data, I'd be most grateful. As a preliminary indicator of my findings, I've gathered start-up dates (and shut-down dates for reactors that are no longer operational) for the 12 reactors in countries that start with "A", yielding some 322 reactor-years of operation. If 12 of the 500-ish civilian, non-experimental reactors, including decommissioned, in the world have a combined 322 reactor-years of criticality, let's guesstimate that there's been something on the order of 12000 reactor-years of criticality globally, across all non-experimental, non-military reactors. In that time, there have been 27 civilian nuclear "accidents" (defined as damage to persons or property directly attributable to something Going Wrong at a reactor), and 8 -- count them, eight -- "incidents" (defined as something Going Wrong at a reactor, but not causing damage to persons or property outside the plant, itself). (Again, this data is from Wikipedia, so its accuracy is open to debate.) Given the choice between one "accident" every 500-odd reactor-years (again, take that number with a cup of salt), and continually pumping ten gigatons of just CO2 into the atmosphere every year -- and that just from coal-burning power plants -- I know which I'd prefer. That said, I agree with you on one point: we damn well should be investing massively more than we are into "green" energy technology. Much of that is unproven, and often has its own set of ecological consequences. Even leaving that aside, the best estimates say it will be decades, at least, before any of it can even start to supplant current energy sources. What, exactly, should we do in the interim? (EDIT: math is hard past 0300.)

maigret 16y ago
You can have a look at another (rough) estimate I did on my answer to geuis. I agree with you, and as I stated in my other answer, things like barrage breakings (due to an equivalent earthquake) can be also devastating for civilization. What I think would be useful is to have a public look at the track record of nuclear and compare it's impact with other energies. Nuclear power is going to stay for now, and that's probably necessary with the current state of the technology, but do we really want to invest so many billion in it for the next 100 year? Is really nuclear our safest bet against climate change?
- ericd 16y ago
  Realistically, we need an alternative that is as cheap as or nearly as cheap as the dirty energy production methods if we want it to take off. Nuclear is the only clean energy source that comes close, and it's likely to remain that way partly because of fundamental reasons. Things like solar, wind, etc. simply don't have the energy density to be viable replacements, with the possible exception of large scale solar deployments if one could reduce the material cost of panels, increase the efficiency, and find a way to store excess energy for the dark periods. For a very readable analysis with a good amount of rigor, I highly recommend the book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air by a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge, available free here: http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "and compare it's impact with other energies" This is where your argument falls apart. What other energy sources are there? Let's see... burning fossil fuels is not only environmentally unsustainable but also, as part of its regular operation, releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants. Solar? Workable on small scale, physically impossible to provide the majority of humanity's energy needs. Same goes for tidal, wind, and hydro. Geothermal? Ditto - only possible in very selective environments, zero chance of being able to provide significant power generation outside of very limited circumstances. There simply isn't a better technology out there right now. Until fusion comes along, nuclear is the best we've got. Nobody here is claiming it isn't without its risks, but it sure beats the pants off of what we're doing right now. Even if we completely ignore the environmental angle, the social angle, and the economic angle, and consider these choices purely on how much radiation exposure they will subject people to, nuclear still wins. That's how far apart these options are. You are choosing between an extremely low chance of being exposed to a potentially damaging dose of radiation... or a guarantee of breathing down radiogenic material for your entire lifetime. Anti-nuclear paranoia has been one of the most insidious and evil things to infect our collective consciousness in the past decades. It has enforced a continued and growing reliance on depleting fossil fuels, which has not only damaged the environment via greenhouse gas emissions, but pumped gigatons of radioactive material into the atmosphere to be inhaled by everyone. It has caused wars and famine and anti-science paranoia (did you know that the MRI was first called the NMRI? Guess why they had to rename it?).

by rosser 16y ago

maigret 16y ago

You can have a look at another (rough) estimate I did on my answer to geuis. I agree with you, and as I stated in my other answer, things like barrage breakings (due to an equivalent earthquake) can be also devastating for civilization. What I think would be useful is to have a public look at the track record of nuclear and compare it's impact with other energies. Nuclear power is going to stay for now, and that's probably necessary with the current state of the technology, but do we really want to invest so many billion in it for the next 100 year? Is really nuclear our safest bet against climate change?

ericd 16y ago
Realistically, we need an alternative that is as cheap as or nearly as cheap as the dirty energy production methods if we want it to take off. Nuclear is the only clean energy source that comes close, and it's likely to remain that way partly because of fundamental reasons. Things like solar, wind, etc. simply don't have the energy density to be viable replacements, with the possible exception of large scale solar deployments if one could reduce the material cost of panels, increase the efficiency, and find a way to store excess energy for the dark periods. For a very readable analysis with a good amount of rigor, I highly recommend the book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air by a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge, available free here: http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/
potatolicious 16y ago
> "and compare it's impact with other energies" This is where your argument falls apart. What other energy sources are there? Let's see... burning fossil fuels is not only environmentally unsustainable but also, as part of its regular operation, releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants. Solar? Workable on small scale, physically impossible to provide the majority of humanity's energy needs. Same goes for tidal, wind, and hydro. Geothermal? Ditto - only possible in very selective environments, zero chance of being able to provide significant power generation outside of very limited circumstances. There simply isn't a better technology out there right now. Until fusion comes along, nuclear is the best we've got. Nobody here is claiming it isn't without its risks, but it sure beats the pants off of what we're doing right now. Even if we completely ignore the environmental angle, the social angle, and the economic angle, and consider these choices purely on how much radiation exposure they will subject people to, nuclear still wins. That's how far apart these options are. You are choosing between an extremely low chance of being exposed to a potentially damaging dose of radiation... or a guarantee of breathing down radiogenic material for your entire lifetime. Anti-nuclear paranoia has been one of the most insidious and evil things to infect our collective consciousness in the past decades. It has enforced a continued and growing reliance on depleting fossil fuels, which has not only damaged the environment via greenhouse gas emissions, but pumped gigatons of radioactive material into the atmosphere to be inhaled by everyone. It has caused wars and famine and anti-science paranoia (did you know that the MRI was first called the NMRI? Guess why they had to rename it?).