• Nuclear power prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths since 1971 & will prevent an
    20 replies, posted
[quote]Using nuclear power for energy instead of coal has prevented almost 2 million pollution-related deaths around the world, and could save millions more lives in the future, according to a new paper. It’s the latest publication from James Hansen, NASA’s fiery climate change scientist, who is retiring on Wednesday after 46 years with the space agency. The paper argues that policymakers should increase nuclear power, rather than continuing dependence on fossil fuels. The 2011 disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant should not deter governments from expanding nuclear power, according to Hansen and its lead author, Pushker A. Kharecha of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute. On the contrary, nuclear power will prevent further deaths from air pollution, they argue. Even taking the disaster at Fukushima into account, they calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths since 1971, and will prevent another 420,000 to 7 million deaths by the middle of this century. (The death range depends on which fuel nuclear power will be replacing.) Nuclear power has already prevented 64 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions, and would prevent the equivalent of another 80 to 240 gigatons, again depending on which fuel it replaces.[/quote] [url]http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/departing-climate-warrior%E2%80%99s-latest-paper-nuke-power-less-deadly-petroleum[/url]
Is this accounting the 100 something nuclear plants China is current planning/constructing?
[QUOTE=Atlascore;40140006]420k to 7 million? That's.. a large amount of variance.[/QUOTE] Yes, here's why: [QUOTE]The death range depends on which fuel nuclear power will be replacing[/QUOTE]
[url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1258473]Shit, this is late, I completely missed the other thread[/url]
It can't be worse than coal and oil. The air pollution from coal and fossil fuels has made Beijing and other chinese cities literally toxic. Solar, Wind and Hydro can only supply so much.. we need Nuclear power. They're working fine in Europe, only the Soviets have managed to mess it up. The Japanese disaster took a giant Tsunami to happen. It's pretty safe.
but but but but radiation! but but but but nuclear explosions!! but but but but chernobyl!!! BUT BUT BUT BUT!!!! :downs:
We should just buiild Thorium reactors much safer.
Traveling wave reactors are pretty efficient, they breed U-238 into PU-239 and burn it all at once. So technically it runs off nuclear waste, all it needs is a little kick start from a few U-235 rods to get it going. [quote]TWRs differ from other kinds of fast-neutron and breeder reactors in their ability to utilize fuel efficiently without uranium enrichment or reprocessing, instead directly using depleted uranium, natural uranium, thorium, spent fuel removed from light water reactors, or some combination of these materials. [/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor[/url] I think that's the short term future of nuclear power. Companies wouldn't need to have uranium enriched to a certain degree in order to use it as fuel. They could just extract the uranium from mines and smelt it into fuel rods directly.
North Korea is saving lives, god bless
[QUOTE=Slacker101;40140212]We should just buiild Thorium reactors much safer.[/QUOTE] Uranium reactors are plenty safe as long as you don't staff them with interns and/or build them on a fault line in a location where a tsunami can show up.
I wish the general public was better informed about Nuclear power.
[QUOTE=Slacker101;40140212]We should just buiild Thorium reactors much safer.[/QUOTE] yeah just fucking click on thorium reactor in the build menu, because it's that easy right?
My parents are rather thick and are all like "but nuclear powers are baaad! chernobyl fukushima what will happen to the permanent storage thingies?!?!" I wish they could snap out of it and see that it is not as bad as they think it is. It's a real shame actually.
Yeah, and then the 3rd bomb is dropped and the tally changes.
[QUOTE=DrLuckyLuke;40141898]yeah just fucking click on thorium reactor in the build menu, because it's that easy right?[/QUOTE] It is that easy. The only reason we're still using Uranium is because you can make tank shells, armour and huge bombs with it.
[QUOTE=Zeneros;40141955]My parents are rather thick and are all like "but nuclear powers are baaad! chernobyl fukushima what will happen to the permanent storage thingies?!?!" I wish they could snap out of it and see that it is not as bad as they think it is. It's a real shame actually.[/QUOTE] The Japanese use Nuclear power and they've been nuked twice, why can't people learn to see benefits of things that [I]were[/I] dangerous.
[QUOTE=Zeneros;40141955]My parents are rather thick and are all like "but nuclear powers are baaad! chernobyl fukushima what will happen to the permanent storage thingies?!?!" I wish they could snap out of it and see that it is not as bad as they think it is. It's a real shame actually.[/QUOTE] I don't see the logic. I could easily say oil is bad by pointing at BP and Exxon.
The problem with Nuclear power, and particularly Radiation is that it really flips a lot of negative subconscious switches in people. In a Freudian sense its called the Nuclear Uncanny. While the reaction to nuclear power is unfortunate, its completely natural. Here is a little explanation: [url]http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KxjHaiugNaMC&pg=PT46&lpg=PT47&ots=mo1cmAcbpB&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false[/url]
And what about when the waste, which we don't currently know how to dispose of or use properly, seeps into the water table in 100-1000 years? Tossing it in big concrete holes in the ground is just a longer-term version of burning fossil fuels without caring about climate change over the next few decades
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40144408]And what about when the waste, which we don't currently know how to dispose of or use properly, seeps into the water table in 100-1000 years? Tossing it in big concrete holes in the ground is just a longer-term version of burning fossil fuels without caring about climate change over the next few decades[/QUOTE] SSHHHH, we don't talk about that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.