Notes on Nuclear Power [Citation Needed]

[athelind]

... This is just a quick note. No substance, no references, no citations.


A lot of people are up in arms about how the situation in Japan underscores the "dangers of nuclear power".

To this point, the radiation leaked into the environment is minimal. Things are Very Bad Indeed if you're within a certain radius of the plant, but my suspicion is that the increased health risks and hazards caused by this amount of radiation will still be substantially less than those caused by fossil fuel plants.

Let me emphasize this:

The environmental and human impact of a complex of nuclear reactors failing catastrophically after a major disaster is less than that of fossil fuel plants in the regular course of their operation.^{[Citation Needed]}

I will endeavor to find numbers to confirm or deny this next week, after I return home.

---

Yes, I just used the Lorax as an icon in a possibly-pro-nuclear post.

---

Comments

[paka.livejournal.com]

My gut feeling, too, has always been that no, nuclear power isn't a great solution - it's a limited resource and when it goes boom it really goes boom - but you have to get power from somewhere, and I'd far rather it be a nuclear source if you're not going for geothermal/solar/hydroelectric power. And what Pathia said; f'rex people in Arizona have health problems resulting from Uranium mining, but compare that to the much greater health and natural problems from coal mining throughout Appalachia, and that's before you stick the stuff in a plant and start spewing junk.

[hinoki.livejournal.com]

Again, that depends on the design of the reactor itself.

There are designs now that we COULD build (but are not being allowed to) that are a whole helluva lot safer than the pressurized water reactor. We could go with a Pebble Bed type, or any of the others.

Calculated nuclear waste on the newer designs is like a single soda-can of waste a year, last I'd heard.

Instead, due to the hysteria, the innovation and progress has been rather stifled and we're stuck using reactors built in the 70's and 80's, that had been designed in the 60's and 70's using antiquated design and fabrication methods.

[hinoki.livejournal.com]

Just a fast pass through google yielded this interesting comparison..

Death Rate from Nuclear Power vs. Coal, as compared in Watt/seconds.

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/

I'll find more in a bit. :)

[paka.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the information!

Also, the obvious bleeding heart liberal comments to make here are that, the same way I've noticed we aren't literally dismantling mountains in the west, I've noticed that we don't have troops overseas dying to make sure we have a supply of Uranium, and that as odious as I find some Arizona politicking, it's a lot less obnoxious than maintaining a good diplomatic relationship with good folks like Saudi Arabia.

[zeeth_kyrah]

This link alone is worth passing on. Thanks for finding it.

[zeeth_kyrah]

Er, and I mean "so are the others, but this one is so clear and obvious that it deserves its own post".

[hinoki.livejournal.com]

Paka, here's a link to a basic comparison on the RBMK style vs. LWR (LightWater Reactors).

http://users.owt.com/smsrpm/Chernobyl/RBMKvsLWR.html

Also check out the link I put in a bit lower down.. dealing with the # of deaths per watt/seconds across coal, oil, and nuclear.