Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Feel free to HR me all you want (15+ / 0-)

    but it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is safer than coal  and cheaper than solar and wind (as of right now at least).

    Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

    by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:36:48 PM PDT

    •  On that latter point (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock, matador, JeffW

      the fulcrum is tipping, it seems, and compared to modern nuclear power plants, the total cost per kwh of wind power may be less.

      We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

      by raptavio on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:53:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  NEw construction, LCOE of wind is the cheapest (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, JeffW, Paul1a

        ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:06:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If wind has the lowest LCOE, then all special (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox

          tax credits for wind should end, as it would already be the lowest cost alternative.

          I the evidence of LCOE strong enough to support this policy change?

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:59:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

            The tax credits will give further incentive to build wind farms, and the more we get the better. Or switch all the incentives over to solar, I think we could all agree that would be a good idea.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 04:05:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is no need to subsidize what is already (0+ / 0-)

              the lowest cost solution.

              Subsidies are not free, for those on the left the money could be better spent on investing in bringing better lives to the poor and the sick.

              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 04:25:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Production credits for wind level the playing (0+ / 0-)

              field, or at least somewhat. Yes, on principle the lowest cost source should not need them.

              ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 08:17:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau

            But for grid hook up cost which is among the highest, essentially doubling the cost to generate (offshore). For now considering all the other subsidies, etc, I'd leave the wind production credits alone - They level the paying field.

            ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:34:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Safer than solar? (5+ / 0-)

      But honestly, the biggest problem with nuclear power isn't that it does kill people, but that it will kill people.  

      Let me explain: I agree that, properly regulated and monitored, nuclear power is safe, partly b/c ppl are initially (rightfully) scared about what could go wrong.  

      But then time marches on, the regulators are captured by the industry, regulations are relaxed, and finally there's a disaster.

      This happens in every industry, but a disaster in a coal-powered plant is a very less serious disaster than one in a nuclear power plant.  The consequences are simply far more severe.  

      •  It would have to be a really big disaster (5+ / 0-)

        killing millions of people at this point, to make it worse than the coal and oil it replaced.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:05:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Only because none of these studies take into (3+ / 0-)

          account a broader picture. This study says that only 5000 people died from nuclear in 40 years. Sure, if you count the direct deaths, but how much radiation has been released? How much more cancer has there been from Chernobyl?

          5000 is an absurdly low number and makes it hard to take these reports seriously.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:16:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For what it's worth (5+ / 0-)

            the claim is that this does take into account cancer deaths due to radiation.

            I'm always open to new evidence.  Do you have backup for the assertion that "5000 is an absurdly low number?"

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:34:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you look at the fall out from Chernobyl (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sleipner, Bisbonian

              alone you'll find that it accounts for 5000 deaths, and that's not including exposure outside of the local region, so the fallout in Europe is not taken into account at all. That means that the number they give is wrong even for the deaths that we can definitely attribute to that one incident. This speaks to an incredibly shoddy methodology and honestly undermines the rest of the study.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:54:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  From your link: (5+ / 0-)
                The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs). Since more than 120 000 people in these three groups may eventually die of cancer, the additional cancer deaths from radiation exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from all causes.

                Projections concerning cancer deaths among the five million residents of areas with radioactive caesium deposition of 37 kBq/m2 in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine are much less certain because they are exposed to doses slightly above natural background radiation levels. Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5 000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population from radiation exposure, or about 0.6% of the cancer deaths expected in this population due to other causes. Again, these numbers only provide an indication of the likely impact of the accident because of the important uncertainties listed above.

                Chernobyl may also cause cancers in Europe outside Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. However, according to UNSCEAR, the average dose to these populations is much lower and so the relative increase in cancer deaths is expected to be much smaller. Predicted estimates are very uncertain and it is very unlikely that any increase in these countries will be detectable using national cancer statistics .3

                So yes, if one takes the "up to" numbers as the actual numbers then we get 9000+, which is indeed more than 5000.  But it's not so much more as to make much of a dent in 1.8 million.  Even assuming these estimates are off by a factor 10 wouldn't make much of a dent in 1.8 million.

                “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                by jrooth on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:11:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is not just cancer (0+ / 0-)

                  There are miscarriages, birth defects, and other abnormalities.

                  Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                  by splashy on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 01:45:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't say safer than solar. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paul1a, Gary Norton

        I said cheaper than solar.

        Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

        by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:10:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It won't be by the time the next (5+ / 0-)

          nuclear plant gets built.

          The price of solar is dropping while the price of nuclear tends to rise as they realize the necessary safety issues and correct for them. The first of a new type of plant is the cheapest.

          Plus, building more solar makes it cheaper, and it's safer. Why does safety not matter in that case?

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:20:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe. I'm dealing with (0+ / 0-)

            what we know, not maybes. Right now nuclear is safer than coal and natural gas and cheaper than wind and solar. That alone should make it a better alternative than coal and nat gas but when you take into consideration who is profiting from coal and nat gas it becomes a no brainier.

            Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

            by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:36:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not maybe, Solar is safer than nuclear (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greendem, Joieau

              And you know it. I'll ask you again, why is it that you only care more about safety than price?

              Also, we know for a fact that solar is dropping in price. You keep saying that it's science and then you wave your hands around when I point out the fact about solar. If we have the political will to spend enough, around 1.5 trillion, to build nuclear to replace coal then we can do it with solar, it's as simple as that. You're using the threat of a catastrophe to justify doing something a lot of people don't want to do that isn't necessary.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:48:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wasn't saying nuclear is safer you (0+ / 0-)

                obtuse fucktard. Over and over again with the solar is safer shit. I know you asshole. that's not the point I'm making. Reading comprehension's not your best skill, huh? Right now it takes more energy to make a solar panel than a solar panel can produce. Even if you were correct that the w/hr cost were the same, which they are not, solar is still not a viable option for powering a city. Your own house, sure, but cost wise, for anything larger than personal use it's not cost effective.

                Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

                by psilocynic on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 08:45:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So no numbers? (0+ / 0-)

                  You just like to swear and make claims?

                  You just keep saying that nuclear is cheaper and fuck everyone who doesn't like it and I'm the asshole?

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 08:59:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Solar .12 -fission .11 cents Nov 2011 (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, greendem, Paul1a

            http://www.eia.gov/...

            So they are about tied today, while wind is the cheapest 3.3 to 6.5 cents per kwh

            http://www.eia.gov/...

            ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:13:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Not without huge taxpayer subsidies (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, matador, sleipner, Bisbonian

          Nuclear: The most expensive way ever invented to boil water.

          "Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel

          by greendem on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:23:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  So what? (7+ / 0-)

      I appreciate your effort to brave the group-think about nuclear, so I applaud you.
      However, nuclear energy still involves powerful mega-corporations holding the little guy hostage and squeezing the last dime out of his increasingly feeble hands. It's very capital-intensive.

      I could be led to support nuclear power under these conditions:
      1. We come to a national consensus on what to do with the waste that is the safest of all alternatives.

      2. We make the spearpoint of our effort the development of 4th generation reactors that can use up almost all of the spent fuel from conventional reactors and from military nuclear bomb stockpiles.

      3. Cost savings from nuclear energy accrue to the taxpayers who paid for the research, not Wall Street or mega-utilities.
      Ultimately, I don't think nuclear stands a chance in the long run against wind (which is a type of solar energy, if you think about it) or solar. When the bottom drops out of energy costs I don't think nuclear can compete, so we should at least have reactors which can clean up and reduce existing stockpiles of spent fuel and bomb material.

      In the long run, all forms of energy should be evaluated honestly, including wind and solar, (which create their own environmental issues), and we should move in  the most sensible direction.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:08:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, as far as I know of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        6412093, Paul1a, Gary Norton

        all energy production involves powerful mega-corporations holding the little guy hostage and squeezing the last dime out of his increasingly feeble hands. And I agree with the points you make. I am a proponent in the sence that I believe nuclear is a stop gap measure between truly dangerous energy production like coal and gas and more positive and environmentally friendly alternatives like wind and solar. I would rather have nuclear with all its problems than coal though.

        Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

        by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:23:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Solar doesn't have that same problem (0+ / 0-)

          Point of use generation allows for more consumer control and can lead to power companies paying customers. We have solar and we have the ability to set up a lot of it. We don't need a stop gap, we just need to fund the switch over.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:31:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, I wasn't talking about solar just then (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Paul1a

            but solar is not a viable alternative to nuclear yet and it might not be for some time. When it is I hope it overtakes nuclear entirely. As of right now, nuclear is cheaper than solar and safer than coal.

            Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

            by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:34:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why are you going off of two standards? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              codairem

              If we want the safest why not just go for the safest?

              It has the added benefit of not being nearly impossible politically.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So we burn coal (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Johnny Nucleo, alain2112

                until solar catches up? Great plan.

                Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

                by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:15:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, please pay attention (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  codairem

                  Solar is more expensive but safer, so we pay more and install solar. It's not like we can just magically switch to nuclear, it takes at least three years to bring a plant online, assuming the best political climate for it. Your accusations are absurd and your "plan" to ignore the safety issues with nuclear is absurd. How much solar could we get up for the 26+ billion it takes to build a nuclear plant? And how much will future supply of solar increase if we spend the money on that instead of nuclear? Spending on nuclear instead of renewables is throwing good money after bad. We need to build up renewables as quickly as possible and nuclear gets in the way of that, no matter what sort of nonsense catastrophism you might want to push. We can do this in a reasonable way without nuclear.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:26:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's not a realisting solution. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Johnny Nucleo

                    I really wish it were, but it's not.

                    Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

                    by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:37:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Of course it is (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jgnyc, codairem, Roger Fox, Joieau

                      You think that building 1.5 trillion dollars in new nuclear plants is reasonable and not spending the same money on solar and other renewables. That's not reasonable. You just really want there to be a big switch to nuclear. I understand it seems like the only way, but it isn't.

                      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                      by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:43:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually, nuclear can't put a dent (0+ / 0-)

                        in worldwide GHG output shy of at least a thousand new 1,000+ Megawatt reactor plants. And that's new capacity, not replacement for the ~400 antiques worldwide on their last legs. Minus 52 of Japan's, since they'll probably not be generating 'trons again in the foreseeable future.

                        $1.5 trillion dollars is only 50 plants at $20 billion apiece [current tag] and getting more expensive every day that goes by. That's just the first round of cost overruns on new units that won't come on line for at least another decade and a half. That won't replace the antiques that will go down for good in that amount of time, a predictable half our current fleet. They're dropping like flies and will continue to drop - Crystal River, Calhoun, Yankee, San Onofre 2 and 3, two at North Anna and two more at Diablo, several on the Mid-Atlantic coast and Florida that simple sea level rise will put an end to. Three rickety clunkers at Browns Ferry and all the rest of the Mark I and IIs - 23 of 'em in this country of a design proven far too dangerous to justify, just like the same models in Europe now shuttered or scheduled for quick exits. MitsubishiHI is facing divisional bankruptcy as both GE and Siemens got out of the nuclear business and are going heavy with renewables. There's no future in it, the actual industry is aware of that even if the news is slow to trickle down to the minions.

                        It's all about the floating cash at this point. Who can monopolize the most of what governments must of course be investing if there is to be any future at all. Nukes are not a good investment.

                        $1.5 trillion dollars would go a long way toward ending King Coal's reign with kinetic sources and solar, site generation and a much more distributed supply. Which can be deployed right now and start contributing to the grid tomorrow. Probably still have gas contributing for the next couple of decades, but we could definitely cure the worst of it.

                        If you add in the capital costs, annual direct and indirect subsidies (including loan guarantees, passes on water regulations and taxpayer liability for those trillion dollar meltdowns that happen often enough to matter), decommissioning and long term waste management (if they ever get around to it), nuclear is no bargain. Might as well count the true costs.

                  •  SOlar is tied @ 11 cents per KWH (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AoT, Paul1a

                    See my citation up thread. Solar price points are trending down, fission is trending up.

                    ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                    by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:15:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Also, by going rooftop solar we create possibly (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, jgnyc, Wee Mama, JeffW, codairem

            millions of sustainable, non-exportable, middle class and working class jobs, esp. in the inner cities where there is a great job deficit.

            You can't make this stuff up.

            by David54 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:39:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I appreciate your point of view, the realism (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          psilocynic

          involved is why I would support 4th gen. reactors. But I'm closer to AoT's thinking.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:37:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No HR from here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psilocynic

      Feel the love.

      Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

      by 6412093 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:01:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "cheaper than"....therein lies the problem. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT

      Decisions should not made primarily upon the current cost, as our current free market economic model demands.  Allowing the "market" to determine our future in this way is sure to produce more of the disastrous results we have already begun to witness.  

      More short term thinking is not what our world needs to be saddled with.

      It has always seemed strange to me...The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row

      by ovals49 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:04:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wind LCOE over 30 yrs 3.3-6.5 cents/kwh (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, Wee Mama, JeffW, codairem, Paul1a

      for new construction.
      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      Fission is way higher, like 11 cents. And trending up. Solar at 11 cents is trending down.

      right no wind is the cheapest form of electricity (new construction)

      And a wind turbine goes carbon neutral in less than a year.

      ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:05:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site