Nobody gives a shit about death rates. If they did we’d ban cars & guns.
Leave the death rate bullshit out of it.
For oil you have to count all the people who died directly and indirectly to maintain a steady supply of it. That number is in the hundreds of thousands in this century already.
We can build new nuclear power plants. They haven’t been outlawed or anything. They’re just really expensive and business won’t touch it. If there is a state religion in America, it’s business. Business decides what is or is not doable. The God of Business says “no.”
You might think if we just did away with regulations it would all work out. Time and time again removing regulations has led to corruption and disaster. We can’t simply say, “do away with regulations.” We’d be eating plutonium in our hot dogs.
Didn’t I WARN you about liberal Death Panels? :smack:
They are so expensive for political reasons. And if business won’t touch it, then sooner or later we’re going to have to have the government do it. Although from the looks of things, not until our coasts are underwater from global warming will we break down and admit that it’s a problem.
Interesting. I had never considered that nuclear power might actually be less cost effective than coal or natural gas. It turns out that the answer is probably a bit more complicated than levdrakon is trying to sell, but he’s not exactly wrong.
According to that link from the World Nuclear Association (which describes itself as “Representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession”) there are lots of situations where nuclear is not the most economically efficient way to generate power.
It turns out that almost 100% of the cost to generate nuclear power is caused by capital requirements. Not surprising, since we have quite a bit more experience building coal or oil/gas plants than we do building nuclear plants. Once the plant is built and the capital is invested though, nuclear is the clear winner. It costs about 2 cents per kilowatt hour to generate nuclear power, compared to about 16 cents per kilowatt hour to generate power from oil. Natural gas is closer at 3 cents per kilowatt hour, but the cost of natural gas can fluctuate much more wildly, and is currently at all-time lows.
Anyway, I think it’s time to adjust what we expect from nuke power. Instead of limitless, basically free energy that’s safer than all the alternatives, we should expect it to be almost limitless, still-pretty-expensive energy that’s safer than all the alternatives.
When you say “political reasons” do you mean here in the US or globally? Are you talking about Peaceniks and NIMBYs?
Nuclear reactors aren’t equally opposed everywhere, but nuclear power plants have a way of ending up way behind schedule and way over budget even in places with very minimal opposition. Most people don’t seem to realize that utilities were canceling nuclear plans even before Peaceniks started protesting. The things are big, ridiculously expensive and you can’t just turn them up and down or off and on as the energy market changes. Take all the Peaceniks out of it and it’s still a really hard sell getting utilities to build them.
I like the idea of the government taking it over. I could get behind that and I’ve said so before. It’s one of those things that for some reason is simply out of the question, like expecting corporations to actually pay taxes. Never happen!
As a person living in a province where most of my power is provided by either nuclear or hydro electric I’ve gotta say it’s not only an option it’s a great one.
We’ve had horrible terrible leaks and accidents at both the Pickering and Bruce reactors and yet no one has died or even been injured. Even your Three Mile Island disaster caused not a single death.
The biggest problem you guys have in the states is political. No one wants to build a new nuclear plant so you continue to run your old ones which are much less safe and efficient than a new one would be.
Lets toss in a couple of comparative facts:
World wide
From MSHA (US ONLY):
So in it’s best year coal mining killed more people in the US than nuclear power generation has directly killed in it’s entire lifespan over the entire globe.
Chernobyl was horrible and terrifying but it was undermanned by undertrained staff during the execution of a power reduction test. It was human error and in order for the disaster to occur they had to make dozens of errors and ignore multiple warning systems. All of which they did. I’m not going to say that it won’t happen again because the human race has a horrifying ability to refuse to learn from our mistakes but not using nuclear power because of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl is like saying you’ll never drive again because someone dinged your parked car when your only other transportation choice is jumping on boxcars at level crossings. It’s an insane over reaction to one risk while completely ignoring other greater risks.
Are you sure? BC won’t touch nukes, your uranium mining activities are strongly opposed by native peoples, you store your nuclear waste on site with no solid plans for long-term storage, you’ve had new power plants canceled, and once upon a time you had these cute little reactors called SLOWPOKEs but as soon as China got into the same act that industry evaporated. You’re on the hook for nuclear proliferation too. Didn’t you guys sell your CANDU reactor technology to India and Pakistan and they went and weaponized it? Someday India & Pakistan may get into it with a nuclear exchange, and even if not, we’re looking at further proliferation problems when those countries pass their technology along to who-knows-who. You still export uranium for “peaceful purposes” but I don’t think I have to explain how silly that is.
Are you sure? That’s a serious question. Has anyone checked? Long-term studies or anything?
That is not political. It’s fiscal. It’s business.
Let me just toss out one fact: Fukushima is going to become a trillion dollar mess, without a single loss of life from radiation. That whole prefecture (state, province) is completely fucked.
That cost isn’t political. It’s reality! Who wants to build a nuke plant knowing, however unlikely, what could happen?
I really wish you would make other decisions the same way you’re deciding power strategies.
I have this terrifying investment opportunity. You might lose everything if you invest in it but 99% of the time you’ll make small consistent gains. Or there’s this other option that is going to consistently cut into your capital. Which do you choose?
What I choose is based on the best and most recent information I can get my hands on. Going back to my OP, we’ve got a bunch of nuclear reactors downstream from dams and the risk assessors, at the very least, screwed up. The reactors aren’t designed to survive a sudden dam failure and flooding. They didn’t know beans about global warming and didn’t take into account things like unprecedented levels of precipitation and flooding. They probably didn’t think terrorists would fly planes into things either.
:: post snipped ::
Wanna bet?
That is a test. They ran an F-4 Phantom into a concrete wall at ~480 MPH to test the wall. This was done my the Nuclear Reactor Safety division of Sandia National Laboratories. The point of the test was to get a baseline on the damage as they were studying the effects of a plane hitting a containment dome. This test was done in 1988, IIRC.
My father* ran that test. The conclusion was simple, running a plane into a dome ends up with a smashed plane and some dead people from the crash. The wall was 12 feet thick and the deepest dent was ~3.5 inches. You can fly whatever you like into a containment dome and it ain’t gonna do shit to the reactor.
For the record, this has been discussed multiple times on this message board.
The nuclear safety people think of a hell of a lot more things than you do when it comes to this stuff.
[QUOTE=TriPolar]
Just admit you have no idea what I think about this subject. Someone might think you can’t even read. I don’t trust humans, as my post clearly states.
[/QUOTE]
I am not sure what you think. However, the point is that even with humans in the chain, nuclear is way safer than anything else. That **includes **accidents with human error. And the newer reactors are designed to limit human errors.
So your point is silly and illogical and worthy of levdrakon.
Link to deaths by Terawatt hour.
Slee
*He was also at Three Mile Island as soon as the accident occurred. The VP called our house asking for him.
I know. I remember your story about your dad.
The Fukushima reactor shells, and the dozens of American nuclear plants situated under dams and their reactor shells can surely handle a jet fighter crashing into them. This brings me much comfort.
Unfortunately Fukushima was a flood, and having a dam suddenly fail would also be a flood. Flooding knocks out the cooling system and the reactor itself does the rest. For free.
You stated that the nuclear safety folks did not think about planes hitting plants. I proved you wrong. You then claim you knew about that. If that is the case, why did you bring it up? The answer is simple, you are either lying or you want to ignore facts that show nuclear is safe. Hell, look at the per terawatt safety record. The answer is clear.
I never discussed flood issue with my Dad. It never came up. However I am certain they look at those issues. The Fukishama accident should have been a minor issue had they moved the generators. They did not and that is umexcusable.
However, the power you are using to run your computer is most likely from a source that kills way more people than if it were generated by nuclear. There is no safe source of energy. Since there is no safe source of energy, it makes sense to use the sources that kill the least number of people. Nuclear is on that list.
Additonally, the hysterical anti-nuke folks made it impossible to build new nuclear plants in many areas. The unintended concequence is that instead of new, safer plants coming online, older plants are being run much longer than expected. That is stupid. Add to that the fact that the sources we are using instead of nuclear are more dangerous and emit more pollution.
We have been over this before and it is obvious you have no understanding of the concept of relative risk.
Slee
I said “flying planes into things.” Like dams.
Here is some more info for you about threats to dams.
In the near future,with resources either running out or becoming incredibly expensive the only choice will be nuclear power or going back to a preindustrial lifestyle.
High moral standpoints seem to lose their attraction when it means that you have to hand pump cold water every morning before the wood fire heats it up enough for a drink, and baths and showers become an infrequent luxury.
And tv, movies and internet ?
Forget about it.
The fact is that, yes, you do have waste that will last for thousands of years, but all of the waste we have at present fills an incredibly small space.
Apart from that, far from the Chernobyl area being a post apocalyptic desert, inhabited by two headed cockroaches and giant spiders, its more like a wild life reserve.
Yes, I suspect that cancers are rife there, which is why we take so many safety precautions.
Technology is improving daily to improve safety.
And atmos pollution is non existant.
Given the choice for the future, I’d choose something else.
But there is no something else.
So realisticly we have no choice.