The nuclear plant in Nebraska that is currently on the edge, due to flooding, was cited for multiple violations/problems/oversights or whatever bureaucratic double-speak they use, that were all directly related to two things.
They were not prepared for flooding.
And if a fire broke out it would prevent the safety/backup systems from being used, and make it impossible for workers to do what was needed to fix the problem.
The irony is that they had both a fire, and flood, right after the situation was made clear to them. What isn’t reported, is a sign off that the problems had bee fixed, before the fire and flood.
Like Fukushima, the flooding will no doubt be the major cause of damage and loss of life. I really hope that unlike Fukushima, nobody will be talking about Omaha three months from now.
That is probably true. I would say in Russia/Pakistan/India/China, it’s far far worse. While the concern over American reactors is certain, the next major disaster will probably occur in a country that is ill prepared to evacuate 2 million people.
So, I was interested in what **enigmatic **was getting at, so I googled some text from his quote and had a look at this Abt Associates outfit. It appears their studies were commissioned to study the effects of pollution controls. It’s a little unclear from this,
but it looks like the US enacted some air pollution control laws, and the result was a 50% drop in coal plant emission related health problems and deaths. So, it appears pollution controls work fabulously. We simply need to keep on that. We are, aren’t we?
It also appears looking at their interactive “find your area” map that health effects are highly localized. If you live in the densely populated eastern half of the US, you get more smog, and you get more problems. You live in the western half, you can breath easy, at least until the pollen gets your allergies going. Can’t blame coal for that, though.
As for mining deaths I’m not sure what to tell you. As far as I know, it’s union work, and life doesn’t get much cushier for a working stiff than a union job. Some jobs are more dangerous than others but in the US generally speaking, the more dangerous the job, the better the pay and we don’t use slave labor. Society needs energy and sooner or later a wind turbine installer is going to fall to his death or something. I don’t know how to eliminate all risk from the energy producing industries.
Yes a 50% drop, down to a mere 13,000 a year. And that is impressive. Keep working on it and get it down by 4000-fold and you might be as low as nuclear has been. Seriously, would you be willing to accept 13,000 American deaths from nuclear power a year, or even half that (putting it in a per TWh basis)? Heck, if there was one accident, that caused a just a dozen deaths, you’d be apoplectic.
And nice to see that you think it doesn’t matter so long as the bulk of the effects are localized.
Yeah, coal mining work is a cushy union job. :rolleyes:
If more nuclear meant fewer car accidents then that would hold. As it doesn’t, that is an idiotic comment.
FX, you’ve refused to answer my simple questions, to evade them or ignore them, so far, but I will try another: How few deaths would there need to be from nuclear until you’d prefer it to coal for the portion of power production that renewables and natural gas cannot provide?
If the discussion is about the generating of electricity, why do car accidents matter? If someone raises car accident stats, you’d be perfectly correct in dismissing them.
That said, many many many more people die as a result of the use of coal than the use of nuclear power. Even in recent disasters, the number of casualties are the merest fraction of routine coal-mining deaths, let alone the coal-pollution deaths. On the assumption that we have to get electricity from somewhere, stepping up use of nuclear is perfectly rational.
No deaths for uranium, and total injuries, including office work and prep plants, of 11 (2009), 14 (2008), 3 (2007), and 11 (2006). 2010 doesn’t have uranium broken out yet, but I don’t recall seeing any news reports on mass uranium mining casualties this last year…
It’s difficult to find reliable figures for Chinese coal mining deaths, but the most recent figures show 2,631 dead in 2009 (which while bad is at least an improvement from the 3,215 dead in 2008.) Worldwide coal mining deaths are so sketchy I don’t really trust any figures (and I’ll wager I can poke holes in any figures posted), but I would not be surprised if they topped 5,000 a year. There are a large number of deaths from Indian mines, and deaths from artisinal mines in Asia and Africa are not reported at all for the most part.
Such idiocy. To get a correct comparison, assuming such a tactic is even valid, you have to give deaths/injuries and whatever yardstick you are using, for the number of coal mines vs uranium mines. Adjusted, so that if there are 200 coal mines, and 200 deaths, you compare it to uranium mines, adjusted for the numbers. 3 uranium mines, 20 deaths.
Same for health risks, same for deaths and injuries per the number of plants.
Even on a per-ton basis (which would be superior to a per-mine basis), because fewer tons of uranium need to be mined to get the same amount of energy, you will have fewer deaths and injuries if the rates of injury are even remotely comparable.
Nonsense. If you compare the number of people who were forced to flee, who lost valuable land, and who are facing permanent loss of farms and businesses, nuclear power is so far beyond coal power plants, there actually isn’t any comparison to make.
If you compare economic loss from a power plant disaster, again, nuclear is so far beyond coal plants, there isn’t even a basis to start. But of course the nuclear believer never mentions that, and when faced with reality, they switch to something else.
I can already see it forming in the brain of the true nuclear believer. They will want to bring coal mining and the loss of mountaintops into the mix. Compare that instead. Anything to avoid simply looking at the current disaster unfolding in Japan.
Heck, compared to the widespread devastation of the quake/tsunami itself,… but in any case, the Japan reactors are suffering from a truly awesome and unlikely natural disaster, while coal casualties continue to steadily rack up.
Okay, let’s do that math. What is the economic loss of a gigawatt-hour of coal power vs. a gigawatt-hour of nuclear power?
Can we boil this down - is it your premise that the disaster in Japan means we can not (or at least should not) ever use nuclear fission for electricity?
Now now, don’t try and change the subject. I was pointing out that an honest comparison of nuclear vs coal plants doesn’t look good when you look at impact in human life, property and freedom. Or from an economic view.
That shows complete ignorance of how nearly 50% of our energy is produced. The number of mines doesn’t matter, as mines can be tens of millions of tons per year, or a few tens of thousands. Plus the factors of open-pit versus underground makes for an uneven assumption.
Let’s just compare mining deaths and injuries per GW*hr generated. Take 2010.
I have, and I still see a place for nuclear to meet our growing demand for electricity. It’s simply too useful to let the occasional disaster rule it out.
But you’re repeatedly claiming (in a rather passive-aggressive and churlish manner, I think) that “some people” in this thread (feel free to name names, if you can) will support nuclear no matter what. I’m just curious if you’ll refuse to recognize the value of nuclear no matter what.