• NASA Scientist: Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes
    83 replies, posted
[img]http://cen.acs.org/content/cen/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes/_jcr_content/articlebody/subpar/articlemedia_0.img.jpg/1364917514021.jpg[/img] [img]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-bJO0Tne4J6I/UVskZryLlCI/AAAAAAAAJs0/Ni4YREbjK5k/s600/W3512.jpg[/img] [quote]Using nuclear power in place of fossil-fuel energy sources, such as coal, has prevented some 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths globally and could save millions of more lives in coming decades, concludes a study.[/quote] [quote]“I was very disturbed by all the negative and in many cases unfounded hysteria regarding nuclear power after the Fukushima accident,” says report coauthor Pushker A. Kharecha, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.[/quote] [url]http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html[/url]
Well, duh. Nuclear power is one of the safest sorts of power out there. It's just that when it goes wrong, which it does once every 30 years so far, it goes very wrong.
Everyone with a bit of insight knows that but there was way too much uneducated scare which swept the drooling masses against it. Build a nuclear power plant next door to me and the spent fuel deposit over the street, as long as there is enough guarantees of quality and security (as there always is, publicly, these days), then I am down.
[QUOTE=Riller;40133090]Well, duh. Nuclear power is one of the safest sorts of power out there. It's just that when it goes wrong, which it does once every 30 years so far, it goes very wrong.[/QUOTE] Aren't modern ones pretty much guaranteed to never cause a meltdown
[QUOTE=Ishwoo;40133171]Aren't modern ones pretty much guaranteed to never cause a meltdown[/QUOTE] nothings guaranteed in life, look at the recent plant that went down in japan.. If the right measures are taken, they are pretty safe, even the old ones we have across the US.
Our Gen 3 reactors are much safer than the antiquated Gen 2s that are left over from yesteryear; still we should keep the reactors beyond civilian sectors until we have the tech to build Gen 4s, which are apparently much safer and more efficient than the previous generations.
[QUOTE=Ishwoo;40133171]Aren't modern ones pretty much guaranteed to never cause a meltdown[/QUOTE] It is highly unlikely that they would ever have a catastrophic meltdown. The construction methods have changed a lot, we have learned the importance of multiple redundant systems in case of failures, and as a last resort, we have learned a lot about dealing with meltdowns and preventing any major disasters. Radiation emitted has decreased substantially, and so has nuclear waste. It isn't perfect, but long-term it's the most efficient power generation method around at the moment.
[QUOTE=DarkSiper;40133203]nothings guaranteed in life, look at the recent plant that went down in japan..[/QUOTE] But they had very bad luck. An earthquake and a tsunami right? All it needed was a tornado, a volcano eruption and the coming of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse to be doomsday itself.
[QUOTE=Ishwoo;40133171]Aren't modern ones pretty much guaranteed to never cause a meltdown[/QUOTE] Unless you build them on a major tectonic fault line or run a Gen II reactor with an inexperienced B-crew through an emergency-procedure-drill, yeah, you're good.
[QUOTE=Riller;40133090]Well, duh. Nuclear power is one of the safest sorts of power out there. It's just that when it goes wrong, which it does once every 30 years so far, it goes very wrong.[/QUOTE] Except it only goes wrong every 30 years because someone drastically fucks up and the reactor is older than the Queens tits. Modern reactors are super safe and only gonna get safer.
[QUOTE=dass;40133232]But they had very bad luck. An earthquake and a tsunami right? All it needed was a tornado, a volcano eruption and the coming of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse to be doomsday itself.[/QUOTE] This. I mean, really, the fact that it survived something like 4 days, being hit by a tsunami, and earthquake, and being without any power or oversight in that condition, yet it still held for 4 days.. that's a testament as to how well these things work, and how safe they really are.
[QUOTE=DarkSiper;40133203]nothings guaranteed in life, look at the recent plant that went down in japan.. If the right measures are taken, they are pretty safe, even the old ones we have across the US.[/QUOTE] That one was an old reactor that was hit with both one of the largest earthquakes in history (9.0) [I]and[/I] a goddamn tsunami, and yet it was still only a tenth or so as bad (possibly less) than the Russians that went "hey, let's see what happens if we shut down all of the safety nets and regulations and purposefully induce a meltdown". They're pretty goddamn safe.
Not to mention, we have new types of reactors all together and understand a lot of the processes a lot better. We can also use a different material now, Thorium, so that's pretty sweet too.
[QUOTE=DarkSiper;40133203]nothings guaranteed in life, look at the recent plant that went down in japan.. If the right measures are taken, they are pretty safe, even the old ones we have across the US.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant[/url] Fukushima was built in the 70's. It's not modern in terms of Nuclear Power technology. Chernobyl is actually newer than Fukushima. It was built in 1977, but I don't see anyone saying Chernobyl is modern nuclear energy technology. Lets not forget that an inexperienced skeleton crew was running the tests that night. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant[/url]
Isn't Thorium by its nature completely safe to use?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;40133229]It isn't perfect, but long-term it's the most efficient power generation method around at the moment.[/QUOTE] I keep seeing this tossed around, does anyone have numbers to back this up? I have a friend who is a retired nuclear technician who always told me that with all the regulation, maintenance, and disposal costs, it isn't any cheaper than solar, hydro, or wind, just occupies less space.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40133478]I keep seeing this tossed around, does anyone have numbers to back this up? I have a friend who is a retired nuclear technician who always told me that with all the regulation, maintenance, and disposal costs, it isn't any cheaper than solar, hydro, or wind, just occupies less space.[/QUOTE] I imagine like any process that we get good at, it can be made cheaper the better we understand how to do it and the more we actually end up doing it that usually happens at least
But NASA works for the NWO so nobody is going to believe them :( (people actually think that)
[QUOTE=catbarf;40133478]I keep seeing this tossed around, does anyone have numbers to back this up? I have a friend who is a retired nuclear technician who always told me that with all the regulation, maintenance, and disposal costs, it isn't any cheaper than solar, hydro, or wind, just occupies less space.[/QUOTE] We're not talking about money, we're talking about efficiency. Nuclear Power is very expensive, but it has a massive power output, and it takes up less space in comparison to solar and wind. As for money, I imagine the reason why it's so expensive to maintain reactors is because almost all of the reactors in America were built in the 60's and 70's when Nuclear power and it's tech wasn't fully understood. Technology has made a massive leap since then.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40133545]We're not talking about money, we're talking about efficiency.[/QUOTE] 'Efficiency' is a meaningless term on its own. Space efficiency, cost efficiency, manpower efficiency, production efficiency, resource efficiency, they're all different kinds of efficiency. Usually when people discuss efficiency in the context of power sources, it's about how much power you can get for your dollar, which means cost efficiency is the metric in use. [QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40133545]As for money, I imagine the reason why it's so expensive to maintain reactors is because almost all of the reactors in America were built in the 60's and 70's when Nuclear power and it's tech wasn't fully understood. Technology has made a massive leap since then.[/QUOTE] The same applies to solar, but I was always told in the context of modern reactors. Regulatory and disposal costs don't change much with newer technology, you still need all the same inspections and nuclear waste (which, as a sidenote in comparison with wind/solar, isn't exactly green) has to go somewhere.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40133623]'Efficiency' is a meaningless term on its own. Space efficiency, cost efficiency, manpower efficiency, production efficiency, resource efficiency, they're all different kinds of efficiency. Usually when people discuss efficiency in the context of power sources, it's about how much power you can get for your dollar, which means cost efficiency is the metric in use. The same applies to solar, but I was always told in the context of modern reactors. Regulatory and disposal costs don't change much with newer technology, you still need all the same inspections and nuclear waste (which, as a sidenote in comparison with wind/solar, isn't exactly green) has to go somewhere.[/QUOTE] Modern reactor designs can run off of nuclear waste so we could actually reduce total nuclear waste and start digging it all back up.
It may not be a perfect power source, but it's damn safer than most of the other sources out there (excluding natural power which generates not nearly enough juice) The majority of the reactor meltdowns occuring today are older reactor designs which didn't have the same failproof systems in place. Nowadays, if there is any fault, a passive failsafe is tripped and and waste is diverted into a secondary tank
[QUOTE=Bletotum;40133469]Isn't Thorium by its nature completely safe to use?[/QUOTE] No. It's a radioactive element, so by it's nature it's hazardous. It's not as bad as the heavier radioactive elements though (especially the man-made ones).
Indian Point <3 [img]http://blogs.cas.suffolk.edu/emilyforzano/files/2012/03/IndianPoint1.jpg[/img] Under constant scrutiny and pressure for not being renewed and crazy people wanting it to be shut down even though it's the literal power source for NY
Why arn't we using thorium nuclear power yet
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40133423][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant[/url] Fukushima was built in the 70's. It's not modern in terms of Nuclear Power technology. Chernobyl is actually newer than Fukushima. It was built in 1977, but I don't see anyone saying Chernobyl is modern nuclear energy technology. Lets not forget that an inexperienced skeleton crew was running the tests that night. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant[/url][/QUOTE] To add to that, Fukushima was also massively below the standards it was supposed to be from a maintenance point of view. There was an IAEA report back in 1995 or so that told them to hurry the fuck and upgrade it, and again in 2005 or so, and they ignored it both times. With modern safety measures, it's pretty likely that Fukushima would have managed to tank out the entire event with no issues barring a temporary shutdown. A modern NPP with well maintained safety measures is a literal fortress.
The primary reason people don't like nuclear power is that the word nuclear is often associated with bombs and giant radioactive explosions that murder everyone. Which is a stupid thing to associate it with. Hell, radiation helps cancer in most cases, and it [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium_smoke_detector]fucking makes sure your house doesn't burn down[/url]
[QUOTE=Riller;40133090]Well, duh. Nuclear power is one of the safest sorts of power out there. It's just that when it goes wrong, which it does once every 30 years so far, it goes very wrong.[/QUOTE] Thing is, there are theoretical sources of energy that are superior in almost every aspect over nuclear energy. The one aspect that still has to be worked on is it's efficiency. Nuclear Power is the power of now, but not the power of the future.
[QUOTE=Dacheet;40134218]The primary reason people don't like nuclear power is that the word nuclear is often associated with bombs and giant radioactive explosions that murder everyone. Which is a stupid thing to associate it with. Hell, radiation helps cancer in most cases, and it [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium_smoke_detector]fucking makes sure your house doesn't burn down[/url][/QUOTE] but japan make boom so it bad
[QUOTE=proch;40134316]Thing is, there are theoretical sources of energy that are superior in almost every aspect over nuclear energy. The one aspect that still has to be worked on is it's efficiency. Nuclear Power is the power of now, but not the power of the future.[/QUOTE] Yep. We're still stuck with the power of 70 years ago right now, though. Sure, solar and wind energy is in theory better, but nothing's more efficient than nuclear at current time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.