• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

New study: nuclear saves millions of lives compared to fossil fuel, and lowers Co2


cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,625
Website
www.google.com
2 scientists from Nasa's Goddard institute have calculated that nuclear power has prevented 1.84 million deaths:

Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes | Chemical & Engineering News

Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. Based on global projection data that take into account the effects of Fukushima, we find that by mid-century, nuclear power could prevent an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths and 80 to 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels, depending on which fuel it replaces.
Surely Ireland should now be looking to nuclear power, albeit likely in conjunction with the UK ?

cYp
 


SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,895
Nuclear is not commercial and can only work when the State underwrites all the risks.

The privateers make the profits and the taxpayers pick up the tab.

No thanks.
 

Astral Peaks

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
25,982
Beyond doubt we should, but God help the politician who raises it.
 

RobertW

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
20,483
Isn't there supposed to be even some sort of dáil ban discussing Nuclear Energy?
 

Astral Peaks

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
25,982
Nuclear is not commercial and can only work when the State underwrites all the risks.

The privateers make the profits and the taxpayers pick up the tab.

No thanks.
It's a trade-off, the financial risk assessment looks at the value to a country of energy security and budgetable expenditure vs the possibility of failure in various scenarios.

Have a read of this: http://www.iaea.org/nuclearenergy/nuclearknowledge/schools/NEM-school/2012/AbuDhabi/PDFs/day2/01_Barkatullah_FinanceNPP_AbuDhabi.pdf
 

Pat Gill

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
5,301
Website
www.energyco-ops.ie
Twitter
Pat_Gill
2 scientists from Nasa's Goddard institute have calculated that nuclear power has prevented 1.84 million deaths:

Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes | Chemical & Engineering News



Surely Ireland should now be looking to nuclear power, albeit likely in conjunction with the UK ?

cYp
Oh for the love of all thats holy, another waste of internet bandwith.

For a start the UK will have enough on its hands keeping the lights on from 2015, the first new UK nuclear plant is now likely to be completed in 2022 at the earliest.

And we already use UK generated electricity in Ireland and shock horror, there are no border guards checking the electrons passports to see where they came from.
 

wilting

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
353
The study doesn't appear to account for workplace deaths such as in coal mines, oil rigs etc. If I recall correctly, nuclear power is also much safer on that count.
 

Asparagus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
4,882
But.... Look at how we run the health service.... Can you imagine Jackie Healy Rae getting a nuclear reactor for his constituency?

All for nuclear power but need a proper state first
 

Telemachus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,565
Website
en.wikipedia.org
Most of these deaths would be in heavily carbon polluted asian cities and their hinterlands. These deaths arent really relevant to us as we don't have much pollution from burning carbon fuel.

Nuclear proliferation throughout central and south-east asia might help mitigate those deaths, is that what ya want?

Sure in a few years Fusion technology might be widely available, this would help those countries more.

[video=youtube;JAsRFVbcyUY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAsRFVbcyUY&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 

wilting

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
353
Fusion is still decades away, if practical at all. There are alternatives to straight up uranium or plutonium nuclear power though. Thorium and waste burning reactors spring to mind.
 
D

Dylan2010

the technology is moving on, there are various plans for reactors under 50 megawatts. the only way forward is a nuclear electric backbone
 

Expatriot

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
4,325
Nuclear is not commercial and can only work when the State underwrites all the risks.

The privateers make the profits and the taxpayers pick up the tab.

No thanks.
Just like a bank really.
 

Expatriot

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
4,325
It Japan cant manage it I think we can pass on it. I would rather be energy poor to be frank.
 
D

Dylan2010

Maybe on a warship?
see below as an example, there is also the pebble bed type reactors.


Toshiba 4S - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The plant design is offered by a partnership that includes Toshiba and the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) of Japan.[1]

The technical specifications of the 4S reactor are unique in the nuclear industry.[2] The actual reactor would be located in a sealed, cylindrical vault 30 m (98 ft) underground, while the building above ground would be 22×16×11 m (72×52.5×36 ft) in size. This power plant is designed to provide 10 megawatts of electrical power with a 50 MW version available in the future.[3]

The 4S is a fast neutron reactor. It uses neutron reflector panels around the perimeter to maintain neutron density. These reflector panels replace complicated control rods, yet keep the ability to shut down the nuclear reaction in case of an emergency. Additionally, the Toshiba 4S utilizes liquid sodium as a coolant, allowing the reactor to operate 200 degrees hotter than if it used water. Although water would readily boil at these temperatures, sodium remains a liquid; the sodium coolant therefore exerts very low pressure on the reactor vessel even at extremely high temperatures.

The Toshiba 4S Nuclear Battery is being proposed as the power source for the Galena Nuclear Power Plant in Alaska.[4][5]
 

daveL

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
19,591
Nuclear is not commercial and can only work when the State underwrites all the risks.

The privateers make the profits and the taxpayers pick up the tab.

No thanks.
as opposed to fossil fuels somehow?
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,895
It's a trade-off, the financial risk assessment looks at the value to a country of energy security and budgetable expenditure vs the possibility of failure in various scenarios.

Have a read of this: http://www.iaea.org/nuclearenergy/nuclearknowledge/schools/NEM-school/2012/AbuDhabi/PDFs/day2/01_Barkatullah_FinanceNPP_AbuDhabi.pdf
The difficulty being that if all the risks were priced properly, and the cost of decommissioning was included, the cost per kW/h would be prohibitive.

The numbers only work when these little details are ignored.
 

Astral Peaks

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
25,982
The difficulty being that if all the risks were priced properly, and the cost of decommissioning was included, the cost per kW/h would be prohibitive.

The numbers only work when these little details are ignored.
Well, you will get a hundred different risk pricing analyses depending on who you ask, so that part is a given.
 

Maximilian

Active member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
240
The difficulty being that if all the risks were priced properly, and the cost of decommissioning was included, the cost per kW/h would be prohibitive.

The numbers only work when these little details are ignored.
The problem is that, in general, the externalities associated with fossil fuels, for example, are not accounted for to the same extent as those in nuclear energy.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,895
The problem is that, in general, the externalities associated with fossil fuels, for example, are not accounted for to the same extent as those in nuclear energy.
I agree about fossil fuels, but they are not accounted properly for nuclear either.

Ultimately people are going to have to get used to energy being a lot more expensive - and that's before we even begin talking about cutting energy use back to sensible levels as a result of major climate change mitigation efforts, which are only a couple of years away.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top