Is the fear related to nuclear energy rational?

Great Debates
121

Sounds great! Out of curiosity, how many megawatts does this “wind farm across the river” make?

If left unattended, a coolant leak, in general, will not turn into disaster. But I applaud you for taking back your claim that a leak is a nuclear accident.

This is totally nonsense – both sinkings were extensively investigated, and we have a very good idea what went wrong on the Thresher, while the cause of the Scorpion’s loss is more inconclusive. Sometimes mysteries are just mysteries.

In the Navy, to be a Qualified Nuclear Engineer means that one has passed and completed Prospective Nuclear Engineer Officer School (PNEO) at Naval Reactors. I passed and completed PNEO, and am therefore a Qualified Nuclear Engineer. That means I’m qualified to serve as Engineer Officer (also known as Chief Engineer) of a nuclear submarine.

I used Navy terminology. Perhaps I should have explained this better.

This “vast new wind farm” has a much, much smaller power generation capacity than an average commercial nuclear reactor.

What’s the worst, in your opinion?

Good for you!

So we only disagree on whether new plants should be built.

Germany is slowly getting to 10%, which jives with what I’ve said and not with your hyperbole. Good job, Germany! Tiny Denmark is ahead – over 30%. Way to go, little Viking dudes!

My degree is in Physics.

I already explained what I meant by “qualified navy nuclear engineer”. It’s a Navy term that one achieves by completing PNEO school at Naval Reactors.

I do understand it, and you’re still beating up this straw man – I never stated anything counterfactual about nuclear fission. It’s a sideshow in this discussion that you’ve latched onto.

Already married. But I’ll keep saying it, because I completed PNEO school.

I’m surprised too, because I never said they use different physical laws. I’m not aware of any objects in the universe that don’t use the same physical laws.

122

There’s an even greater difference between an operating engineer, and a lawyer.

We already touched on this. The price of this success is a lot of dead Chinese, an increase in greenhouse emissions, and the highest energy prices in Europe.

Regards,
Shodan

123

Oh there were some Pit threads. They were all locked.

124

Rubbish. Not only would replacing all power plants with reactors not solve the problem, it would make it worse. There would be only ten years (maybe) of fuel if there were enough reactors running to replace all fossil fuels.

Methods to extract uranium from the oceans are possible, but at more than ten times the cost. Which would make electricity ten times more expensive.

125

Per this site, there were 225,000 turbines worldwide in 2012; and per Smithsonian Magazine, turbines kill 140,000 to 328,000 birds per year.

At less than two birds per year killed per each wind turbine, you’ll require each mill to run for thousands of years – or to kill Arabian Rocs – to pile up carcasses twenty feet deep.

Something about overestimating?

(Not to take too much away from your main point, which is valid: these machines do kill birds.)

126

This was alluded to, upthread, but never validated. How is this possible? What is the cause of death from solar panels or wind turbines? Are we counting the industrial accidents in their creation and erection? Nuclear is, to be sure, remarkably safe, but who, exactly, has died from wind turbines?

At least with coal, we have a very clear answer: coal-mining accidents have killed thousands, and that doesn’t even begin to take into account the harm from pollution.

127

I’ve seen cites on this before, but never a breakdown of how it works out. My WAG would be they are counting deaths from mining and production as well as installation, operations and maintenance. Wind farms are really large scale building projects with the possibilities of accidents happening in both production, installation and maintenance. Solar…well, there would be a lot of maintenance, but not sure how it would be more dangerous to build and maintain one that do the same for a nuke plant (not that either of them have a very large death rate I’d guess, either from production, maintenance or operation). So, would love to see a cite on this as well.

Of course, getting to the OP, it kind of underscores that most of the fears related to nuclear energy, such as the ones shown by the OP, are pretty irrational when looked at, well, rationally. Deaths due to nuclear are dwarfed by energy production systems that are comparable in scale (i.e. fossil fuels). Niche energy production systems, such as wind and solar, by the very fact that they don’t scale up anywhere in the ball park of nuclear (even in the US after literally decades of no new nuclear plants built, and despite the push for renewable energy initiatives for things like wind and solar) are still comparable from a deaths perspective…which says it all right there.

128

So, for instance, we could say, and probably truthfully, that Baseball is more dangerous than nuclear power…because of the workmen killed while building stadiums.

It isn’t exactly a one-to-one comparison, but it does have some validity.

Total agreement. Someone pointed out the mis-assessment of risk people make, in general, regarding air traffic vs. automobile traffic. Without seeing the real statistics, our experiences tell us (wrongly!) that airplanes are riskier than cars.

Real numbers are one of the more rational ways to evaluate risks. But…the comparisons do have to be kept honest.

129

Yes, the chief difference is that I don’t claim to be any kind of engineer. And when I do claim something like 125 foot historical tsunami wave heights, and all the engineers and physicists scoff, I provide a cite, because I remember seeing the site and the statistic.

Here are 10 interesting factoids about radiation. 10 Sizzling Radiation Facts - Listverse

130

Experience has shown that facts (and sources) will not matter. Because it’s not a matter of facts and evidence.

131

How many birds do house cats kill every year …

132

[ka’ching] … thanks for subsidizing my electric bill.

133

How … exactly … does a solar panel kill someone?

134

Knock it off.

If a poster submits evidence that contradicts their claim that they have knowledge of a field, it is permitted to point that out.

This quoted statement is nothing but unsubstantiated ad hominem that does nothing to further the discussion while edging right up to the line of accusing a poster of lying–and that is a violation of the rules.

[ /Moderating ]

135

Exactly. How many birds die of old age…or disease…or by flying into tree branches…?

Are wind turbines significant as an increased cause of bird deaths?

Meanwhile, they’re making them less deadly to birds by adding warning sounds, etc. There’s always room for improvement.

136

It can fall on them.

137

More than a billion. But they have it coming.

How many birds do power lines kill every year?

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/powerlines.html

I’m sure they have it coming too.

138

I’ve been told numerous times by some conservatives that scientists don’t understand how radioactive decay works, which means that scientists have no idea how to build a stable, safe nuclear plant. Who’s telling me this? Why, it’s all the conservatives who run around screeching about “evilution.” Ok, that was a bit sarcastic, but bottom line, if you are one of the people spreading misinformation about evolutionary theory, then you don’t get to lecture me about nuclear safety, because you are a hypocritical idiot.

Aside from that, though, and more seriously, I live in a country where the Republicans and half of the Democrats fight tooth and nail against regulation and inspection regimes. So, until the majority of this country decides that regulatory and inspection regimes are okay, I will fight tooth and nail against new nuclear construction. When people can look at the BP oil spill or that fertilizer plant explosion in West Texas and think those are acceptable outcomes, there is no way I’ll support the building of new nuclear plants.

139

I have this incredibly silly vision of “wind” turbines that are actually superglue-covered bird traps. The birds’ frantic efforts to free themselves turn the blades until they die of exhaustion and are replaced by more birds. Renewable organic energy! :stuck_out_tongue:

140

I think you’ve nailed it here.