|
Post by Barry Brook on May 17, 2013 22:42:04 GMT 9.5
A post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/green-junk-in-praise-of-wasteCatch up on the latest, hottest articles on at the nuclear-green frontier, by the new internet road warriors for pragmatic sustainability, Geoff Russell and Ben Heard. This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by jimgreen on May 17, 2013 23:21:49 GMT 9.5
Heard, Russell, Brook, Hansen et al take the position that low-level radiation exposure is harmless. That view is at odds with the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion.
Heard, Russell, Brook, Hansen et al claim that the Chernobyl death toll was a few dozen deaths. The credible scientific estimates range from 9,000 to 93,000.
For the second time in a month, Russell has made a multi-order-of-magnitude mathematical howler - and he calls himself a mathematician!
[Links to FOE site redacted - ad homs and irrelevant to cited article]
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on May 17, 2013 23:30:04 GMT 9.5
What 'howler', Jim? Are you arguing that you didn't divide by 8.76 instead of multiplying in your table (creating a 77-fold distortion), or that you didn't blatantly cherry pick your numbers, or that you aren't using exactly the same slanderous methods of the climate change denialists, including trying to discredit respected and highly credentialed researchers with the Steve Milloy inspired 'junk science' epithet?
|
|
|
Post by geoffrussell on May 18, 2013 11:08:28 GMT 9.5
Heard, Russell, Brook, Hansen et al take the position that low-level radiation exposure is harmless. That view is at odds with the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion. ... The unanimous (aside from a few nutters) view of medical people everywhere is that tiny amounts of radiation create tiny amounts of stochastic (as opposed to deterministic) risk. But the argument over low level radiation is just a red herring which keeps being brought up to distract from the big issues, of which there are two: 1) Can renewable energy save us from a destabilised climate? The answer is certain ... NO. Why not? First, no energy system can do this because it isn't just an energy problem, its also a deforestation, black carbon and methane problem. Second, every country which rolled out nuclear in response to the oil crisis succeeded. They just built them and they worked. In contrast, nobody has made renewables work with anything like that level of success. Which leads us to 2) Is nuclear power less risky than a destabilised climate? That's way too easy. Who'd even bother comparing nuclear accidents with crop failures, mass starvation, cyclones and adverse weather events? Even asking the question is stupid. It's like asking whether playing bowls is as dangerous as defusing IEDs in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on May 18, 2013 11:27:58 GMT 9.5
Heard, Russell, Brook, Hansen et al take the position that low-level radiation exposure is harmless. That view is at odds with the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion. Heard, Russell, Brook, Hansen et al claim that the Chernobyl death toll was a few dozen deaths. The credible scientific estimates range from 9,000 to 93,000. Actually most reasonable projections show about 6-7000 cancers, so far, amongst the general population, almost all of them thyroid cancers which have a 90%+ survival rate. The Casualty rate among the liquidators was obviously far higher but it is far from causing tens of thousands of deaths. Those figures are sloppy science that likes to assign all increases in the death rate after the accident to the accident. And I also note that all of these links you provide are on websites that are a) not peer-reviewed journals and b) from political organisations that campaign against nuclear power. Do you have any actual evidence? EDIT: From UNSCEAR's website on Chernobyl: Bolding added for Emphasis. But ofcoures this is where you say the UNSCEAR is simply a shill of "Big Nuclear" despite the fact that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are now larger organisations than many of the reactor vendors people associated with that term.
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on May 18, 2013 17:52:42 GMT 9.5
EDIT: From UNSCEAR's website on Chernobyl: Bolding added for Emphasis. But ofcoures this is where you say the UNSCEAR is simply a shill of "Big Nuclear" despite the fact that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are now larger organisations than many of the reactor vendors people associated with that term. Actually it's no so much UNSCEAR, they tend to ignore them and cite the BEIR report from 2006. What the Nuclear shill comments refer to is their conspiracy theory that the IAEA and WHO are in some sort of alliance because of this clause in the agreement between the WHO and IAEA: But what they forget, and it's not hard to miss as it is in the section directly above part 3 is the following: Note the bit in bold. It's a world of delusion reinforced by group think.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 19, 2013 1:05:54 GMT 9.5
Not just that, but similar wording is in agreements between the WHO and a whole heap of other agencies.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Keen on May 19, 2013 18:09:07 GMT 9.5
Jim Green, how can you be so dishonest as to claim that the Chernobyl death toll figures constitute a mathematical "howler"? Even if your estimate range was correct, this has nothing to do with Ben or Geoff's mathematical calculations and everything to do with the assumptions used. Of course, your estimate range is rubbish - WHO put the *maximum* potential toll at 4000, the official UNSCEAR figure is a few dozen, and there are no peer-reviewed estimates anywhere near 93,000.
Shame on you for such dishonesty and your refusal to acknowledge your errors.
|
|
|
Post by Helmut Eller on May 20, 2013 19:56:58 GMT 9.5
Geoff Russell writes: Here the number one suggestion was to install ceiling insulation followed by switching off that second fridge. The messages were clear. First, climate change mitigation will be a doddle, just turn stuff off and be a bit more careful and everything will be fine. Second, it’s your fault you are generating so much CO2. Both messages are wrong. It's true that efficiency improvements alone don't solve the CO2 problem, but it's still a reasonable thing to do. Because, first, those small things are under our own control: we can do them now without the political support of an entire country. Second, even if electricity is generated from clean sources, we would pay less money with a more efficient house.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 20, 2013 20:41:18 GMT 9.5
It's true that efficiency improvements alone don't solve the CO2 problem, It's worse than that, not only do they not solve the CO 2 problem they distract from real solutions to the CO 2 problem. but it's still a reasonable thing to do. True, improved efficiency is good for the economy even if it may not be good for the environment (Jevons paradox has a habit of appearing when you really don't want it, e.g. aircraft fuel usage which increases after more efficient aircraft come out). Because, first, those small things are under our own control: we can do them now without the political support of an entire country. But they don't matter, 450 ppm or 449.9 ppm is just not a significant difference and as I said before, that kind of thing is more likely to distract people from real solutions (wouldn't be surprised if that's a large part of why they are being promoted). Second, even if electricity is generated from clean sources, we would pay less money with a more efficient house. More likely you'd pay around the same money but be more comfortable (which isn't a bad thing, just that it won't help the environment).
|
|
|
Post by Helmut Eller on May 20, 2013 21:07:39 GMT 9.5
Second, even if electricity is generated from clean sources, we would pay less money with a more efficient house. More likely you'd pay around the same money but be more comfortable (which isn't a bad thing, just that it won't help the environment). If you turn off that second fridge you are going to pay less. The only way you pay the same is that you found a way to violate the laws of arithmetic.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 20, 2013 21:40:23 GMT 9.5
More likely you'd pay around the same money but be more comfortable (which isn't a bad thing, just that it won't help the environment). If you turn off that second fridge you are going to pay less. The only way you pay the same is that you found a way to violate the laws of arithmetic. Actually if people get a more efficient fridge they are more likely to get that second fridge. Be careful about confusing those who are ideologically committed to reducing their energy usage with those who are doing it for more pragmatic reasons for most people aren't going to reduce their energy usage, merely transfer it around to new uses or even use the more efficient appliance more than they otherwise would.
|
|
|
Post by Helmut Eller on May 20, 2013 22:23:56 GMT 9.5
Be careful about confusing those who are ideologically committed to reducing their energy usage with those who are doing it for more pragmatic reasons for most people aren't going to reduce their energy usage, merely transfer it around to new uses or even use the more efficient appliance more than they otherwise would. And what's wrong with saving energy and money in one place so that you can spend the money on something else that you like? Nothing; it's entirely reasonable. Now, how reasonable is it to wait for the rest of the country to form a consensus about nuclear power and using expensive energy less efficiently while you're waiting?
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 20, 2013 22:56:15 GMT 9.5
And what's wrong with saving energy and money in one place so that you can spend the money on something else that you like? Nothing; it's entirely reasonable. The main problem is that if you promote it too much people will think it is sufficient on its own when it isn't (and it's not even necessary). Now, how reasonable is it to wait for the rest of the country to form a consensus about nuclear power and using expensive energy less efficiently while you're waiting? But per capita energy consumption just isn't going to be going down very much and promoting energy conservation is likely to make it harder to get that consensus. As for expensive energy, higher prices will encourage saving energy, but it has rather severe problems of its own, namely its impact on the poor (while the rich probably wouldn't even notice) so I'd say that lowering the price of energy is a good thing (taking externalities into account of course, otherwise I'd have to argue for coal).
|
|
|
Post by Helmut Eller on May 21, 2013 0:07:55 GMT 9.5
And what's wrong with saving energy and money in one place so that you can spend the money on something else that you like? Nothing; it's entirely reasonable. The main problem is that if you promote it too much people will think it is sufficient on its own when it isn't (and it's not even necessary). As I said, efficiency improvements alone don't solve the CO2 problem. However, arguing against efficiency seems like a bad strategy to me. After all, better efficiency simply means that you can do the same useful stuff with less energy (or more useful stuff with the same amount of energy). Now, how reasonable is it to wait for the rest of the country to form a consensus about nuclear power and using expensive energy less efficiently while you're waiting? But per capita energy consumption just isn't going to be going down very much and promoting energy conservation is likely to make it harder to get that consensus. As for expensive energy, higher prices will encourage saving energy, but it has rather severe problems of its own, namely its impact on the poor (while the rich probably wouldn't even notice) so I'd say that lowering the price of energy is a good thing (taking externalities into account of course, otherwise I'd have to argue for coal). Yes, some people overestimate the potential of efficiency improvements. However, as individuals, we have little influence on energy prices or national energy strategy. Having an efficient house or car and the financial benefits from that, doesn't necessarily mean that we can't be in favor of nuclear power and cheap energy.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Simpson on May 21, 2013 13:22:38 GMT 9.5
I think the messages we would like to see are:
Turn off your incandescent lights to save money.
Turn on nuclear power to save the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Helmut Eller on May 21, 2013 17:05:36 GMT 9.5
I think the messages we would like to see are: Turn off your incandescent lights to save money. Turn on nuclear power to save the planet. Yes, that sounds about right.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 21, 2013 17:15:12 GMT 9.5
As I said, efficiency improvements alone don't solve the CO2 problem. However, arguing against efficiency seems like a bad strategy to me. I wasn't really arguing against efficiency (in fact I'd prefer us to be efficient, though even there things are more complicated), just noting that it isn't the way to save the planet. After all, better efficiency simply means that you can do the same useful stuff with less energy (or more useful stuff with the same amount of energy). There's also the possibility that you end up doing more useful stuff with more energy used (Jevons paradox) which whilst a good thing for the economy and human welfare would not be good if you're relying on reducing energy usage to save the planet. I suspect that we've been largely talking past each other.
|
|
|
Post by Helmut Eller on May 21, 2013 18:01:59 GMT 9.5
As I said, efficiency improvements alone don't solve the CO2 problem. However, arguing against efficiency seems like a bad strategy to me. I wasn't really arguing against efficiency (in fact I'd prefer us to be efficient, though even there things are more complicated), just noting that it isn't the way to save the planet. But that's quite different from what Geoff Russell writes in the article: Who gives a damn how much electricity you use when it’s clean? Nobody should give a damn. If we care about money, then it seems very reasonable to give a damn.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on May 21, 2013 19:12:14 GMT 9.5
I wasn't really arguing against efficiency (in fact I'd prefer us to be efficient, though even there things are more complicated), just noting that it isn't the way to save the planet. But that's quite different from what Geoff Russell writes in the article: Who gives a damn how much electricity you use when it’s clean? Nobody should give a damn. If we care about money, then it seems very reasonable to give a damn. He means that noone else should care how much people use. The social impacts of the electricity use effectively dissapear. You can complain about energy wastefulness when it will negatively effect you but not really when it won't... in that case its none of your business.
|
|
|
Post by pepperman on May 24, 2013 18:26:51 GMT 9.5
I simply can't agree with this article. Surely the best, least cost approach is to hammer down energy demand AND decarbonise, not do one OR the other.
Take this statement:
"To even suggest that efficiencies can play a significant roll is daft. We have had energy efficiency stickers on white goods along with a constant stream of improved efficiencies in all of our household and industrial processes for a couple of decades. I used to use a 120 Watt computer screen, now I use a 40 watt screen, I used to use a computer with a 400 watt power supply, now I use one with a 30 watt power supply. Has any of these kinds of huge efficiency gains slashed our total or per capita emissions? No."
Well yes they have actually. Where would the total or per capita emissions be without taking steps to increase efficiency? Take the example of computing. 20 years ago not many households had a computer. Now nearly everyone does, and if our computers were using 520W rather than 70W...?
Energy demand in the developed world has now topped out, partly because of energy efficiency legislation, partly because we are saturated. We don't need any more lighting, fridges, cars, computers, washing machines etc etc. If we buy a more efficient fridge we're not going to go out and buy another one because we probably have two fridges already!
Now that this has happened energy efficiency standards should be ramped up and then the effects of improved efficiency will really start to bite into demand. The technologies can also be rolled out around the developing world so that they can increase their prosperity while avoiding a large chunk of their growth in energy demand without the efficiency gains.
As a side note, one useful thing that this article does is confirm my view that cost comparisons for developing electricity systems which are predominantly renewables vs predominantly nuclear shouldn't be comparing the costs to supply the same amount of electricity because the end result of the two scenarios would be completely different.
The renewables scenario should be modelled to deliver much less electricity than the nuclear scenario because an aggressive energy efficiency strategy across all sectors would be pursued in concert with the rolling out of renewables (it would have to be and this is a good thing).
A high penetration nuclear scenario just wouldn't see that same efficiency drive. It could, of course, but it wouldn't because as far as I can make out virtually all nuclear proponents tend to hold views just like the views ot the author of this article.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 24, 2013 21:57:52 GMT 9.5
I suggest everyone read this and its comments before trying to argue that energy efficiency is somehow going to help save the planet. I simply can't agree with this article. Surely the best, least cost approach is to hammer down energy demand AND decarbonise, not do one OR the other. But there just isn't much we can actually do to significantly reduce energy demand short of raising prices to the point at which the poor freeze to death in winter. For you see whenever you increase efficiency in one area people use the money saved to buy more stuff that uses energy (or they use things more often). Take this statement: "To even suggest that efficiencies can play a significant roll is daft. We have had energy efficiency stickers on white goods along with a constant stream of improved efficiencies in all of our household and industrial processes for a couple of decades. I used to use a 120 Watt computer screen, now I use a 40 watt screen, I used to use a computer with a 400 watt power supply, now I use one with a 30 watt power supply. Has any of these kinds of huge efficiency gains slashed our total or per capita emissions? No." Part of it is that as computer monitors have gotten more efficient they've also gotten larger to the point at which they don't use less power than the old ones (but are much nicer to look at). Well yes they have actually. Where would the total or per capita emissions be without taking steps to increase efficiency? Probably right where they are now, we'd just be a bit less comfortable. Take the example of computing. 20 years ago not many households had a computer. Now nearly everyone does, and if our computers were using 520W rather than 70W...? The power consumption of computers has been on a bit of an upward trend even as computers got more energy efficient. Though cooling constraints and the existence of laptops mean there's an incentive to be efficient regardless of energy cost. Energy demand in the developed world has now topped out, partly because of energy efficiency legislation, partly because we are saturated. We don't need any more lighting, fridges, cars, computers, washing machines etc etc. If we buy a more efficient fridge we're not going to go out and buy another one because we probably have two fridges already! No, instead they'll buy something else that uses electricity (or they'll instead get a larger fridge). If you get more efficient lights they'll probably leave them on more often. It's only those who are trying to save energy for its own sake that will actually get significant reductions. Now that this has happened energy efficiency standards should be ramped up and then the effects of improved efficiency will really start to bite into demand. The only way to do that would be to outright ban a lot of things, you'd need to ban people from having too many cars, or too big cars (not that I'd object to people who never go off-road being banned from owning SUVs), too many appliances, too large a TV, too powerful a computer (I understand the EU actually proposed to ban powerful graphics cards), too many rooms air-conditioned, too many holidays, etc. Is that really the world anyone would want to live in? Because that is the only way short of raising the price to the point the poor can't afford any of that to get significant demand reduction. The technologies can also be rolled out around the developing world so that they can increase their prosperity while avoiding a large chunk of their growth in energy demand without the efficiency gains. To bring the developing world up to our standard of living we must also bring them up to approximately our per capita energy consumption, energy is the ability to do work afterall. As a side note, one useful thing that this article does is confirm my view that cost comparisons for developing electricity systems which are predominantly renewables vs predominantly nuclear shouldn't be comparing the costs to supply the same amount of electricity because the end result of the two scenarios would be completely different. Yeah, nuclear doesn't need help from storage, fossil fuels and demand management (euphemism for rolling blackouts). The renewables scenario should be modelled to deliver much less electricity than the nuclear scenario because an aggressive energy efficiency strategy across all sectors would be pursued in concert with the rolling out of renewables (it would have to be and this is a good thing). In which case you'll have to take into account what you trade off to get that extra energy efficiency. A high penetration nuclear scenario just wouldn't see that same efficiency drive. Nuclear is more efficient than renewables in terms of labour, materials and land usage and I would argue that it is more important to be efficient there than with energy. It could, of course, but it wouldn't because as far as I can make out virtually all nuclear proponents tend to hold views just like the views ot the author of this article. Or maybe because energy efficiency isn't an end, but a possible means to an end, one that doesn't always make sense in all circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on May 25, 2013 1:41:49 GMT 9.5
Energy efficiency's primary contribution to civilisation is to improve the standard of living as opposed to actually saving energy.
Its like LED lights are almost at the point where the lighting bill for leaving them on is negligible, so people will probably only turn them off when they actually want it to be dark.
EDIT:
Another example is that for similar screen sizes LCD Televisions use far less power than CRT ones.... however power consumption of the average television has in recent years.... gone up because sizes have escalated enormously.
Within a few years it appears 50" will be standard... which has seven times the area of a 19" television.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 27, 2013 7:24:02 GMT 9.5
Credible scientific estimates for radiation deaths are below 100 total for Chernobyl. Credible scientists admit that linear no threshold should not be used for determining death or cancer rates in large populations receiving small doses. Only non-credible organisations such as Greenpeace use LNT to determine population death rate from tiny exposures.
More than 3000 people die in traffic accidents every day. (1.2 million per year). These are real deaths, rather than imaginary. But if you care to be imaginary, imagine all the extra traffic accidents from needing to install, service, and dismantle wind and solar farms, with their extreme use of materials per lifecycle MWh. Imagine the death rate from mining all the extra iron ore etc. from this high materials need in a wind and solar powered world. Imagine the industrial accidents with acids and such needed to produce the extra batteries to store all that unreliable power. Imagine how much safer we'd all be with nuclear power, avoiding all those traffic kills, transport environmental impact and pollution, etc.
In any case, talking about the death toll of Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power is like talking about the death toll of the hydrogen filled Hindenburg dirigible as an arguments against the fire safety of dirigibles. It's silly, because all modern zeppelins and dirigibles are helium filled, which can't burn or explode.
Greens produce so much nonsense, it's a fulltime job just to refute 1% of the nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on May 27, 2013 8:39:11 GMT 9.5
@pepperman Geoff Russell's article highlights a fallacy in our faith in "reducing emissions". In the final judgement, it wont be our reductions that count, but the remaining emissions. Yes, I also reduce my emissions and feel virtuous about it. Surely if enough of us feel the same, it would be enough to delay more drastic measures? Well, it does add up to a lot of virtue. But it doesn't forgive us for what we have emitted. The victims of our neglect will certainly judge us. But our pleas about the 30 or 50% that we did reduce will be outweighed by the evidence - 100% of what we did emit. We may also be condemned for delaying drastic action. Science shows that there is only one drastic non-carbon source of reliable energy. Repeat our arithmetic by all means, but dont delay too long.
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on May 27, 2013 12:13:40 GMT 9.5
Jim Green had a week to mull his thougths over and replied over at Decarbonise SASincere apologies to Ben Heard and Geoff Russell for attacking them for a “multi-order-of-magnitude mathematical howler”. The recurring 77-fold howler is mine, not theirs. (And Russell’s real mathematical howler is trivial compared to mine since his involved nothing more than an illustrative thought-experiment.)
The Heard/Russell article states that “nearly the entire community of environmental organisations in Australia is currently standing behind figures that are completely mathematically incorrect.” They are referring to a joint NGO statement opposing nuclear power. Had they checked the dates, they would have seen that the October 2010 NGO statement pre-dates my January 2011 paper with mathematical errors − there is no connection between the two.
I’ll take the Choose Nuclear Free paper down and correct it. There’s much to disagree with in the Kharecha/Hansen article and in the Heard/Russell article and i’ll address those points in the revised/corrected paper.
Ben Heard says in the comments: “The trouble for FoE here is that the logical chain of response from correcting this is a significant change in messaging regarding nuclear. They are in a serious bind.” I’m bound to acknowledge my miscalculations and to apologise for an unwarranted attack. But my messaging − in my critique of the Kharecha/Hansen paper, and in the Choose Nuclear Free paper, and on countless other occasions − is that the greatest hazard posed by nuclear power (and the nuclear fuel cycle more broadly) is the repeatedly-demonstated connection to WMD proliferation. That is unchanged. I’ve also said repeatedly that i’ll gladly volunteer time and energy opposing the uranium/nuclear industry because of i) the WMD links and ii) the sickening, systemic racism which makes the industry unsupportable. Again, no change.
In terms of accidents and routine emissions, the figures used by Kharecha, Hansen, Heard, Russell et al. don’t even factor in the lowest of the Chernobyl death estimates (9,000 from the IAEA/UNSCEAR/WHO studies in 2005/06) so they’re off to a bad start. The same applies to Externe − it comprises many reports, some of them giving figures lower than mine and at least one suggesting a higher figure (average collective dose of 989 manSv/GWy from uranium mining/milling alone over 100,000 years − p.123 in ‘Power Generation and the Environment − a UK Perspective’). Leaving aside the two elephants in the room − the fossil fuel / climate links and the nuclear / WMD links − i think that factoring in reasonable estimates will show that nuclear is safer than fossil fuels in terms of accidents and routine emissions, but more dangerous than all renewables except biofuel/biomass … more on that when i correct/revise the Choose Nuclear Free paper.
Ben − fyi FoE reluctantly pulled out of ACFID about 6-12 months ago, because of the hefty membership fee.
Sincere apologies again for an unwarranted attack, and apologies for screwing up my calculations, and for taking a week to realise that i screwed up my calculations.
Jim Green jim.green@foe.org.au A much better response from Jim that's less on the name calling and more intellectually thought out.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on May 27, 2013 12:52:32 GMT 9.5
That is unchanged. I’ve also said repeatedly that i’ll gladly volunteer time and energy opposing the uranium/nuclear industry because of i) the WMD links and ii) the sickening, systemic racism which makes the industry unsupportable. Again, no change.
How exactly is the nuclear industry systematically racist? Is this an Australian-specific thing? Weapons Proliferation is rather a moot point since the technology to make nuclear weapons is so simple that any state that wants them can have them, even without widespread civil use of nuclear power. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle on that one. Additionally, I fundamentally disagree with this whole idea of measuring radiation from uranium mining/milling over a hundred thousand years.... that is a truly absurd timescale, I wonder what the total dose to mankind from bananas will be over that timescale..... It also doesn't account for measures that could make uranium mining effectively obsolete (the recently demonstrated and continuing drastic improvements in seawater extraction). And then there is them talking about UNSCEAR studies about Chernobyl from 2005 but ignoring the more recent work done by the agency simply because it revises down the fatalities from 9000 to a few dozen.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 27, 2013 18:05:40 GMT 9.5
How exactly is the nuclear industry systematically racist? Is this an Australian-specific thing? No more so than the rest of the mining industry (and you'd need a lot more mining to go with renewables). From my understanding the main issue is native title, or more accurately, old mines being exempted from it.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on May 27, 2013 19:09:03 GMT 9.5
So let's play devil's advocate, and use Jim's suggestion of 93000 as a credible upper bound for Chernobyl death toll.
According to Hansen, nuclear power has saved 1.84 million people. Substract 93000 and nuclear has still saved 1.75 million lives.
So what is Jim's point in the first place? The use of an old unsafe (runaway prone) reactor with no containment and that was run by would-be-terrorist Sovjets for operators, that no-one is building today, has slightly reduced the number of lives saved by nuclear power worldwide.
It's amazing to think how robust nuclear power is. Despite all that abuse, maldesign, corruption and complacency, nuclear power has saved many lives and is the safest energy technology we have today (lowest death rate per TWh).
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 30, 2013 16:24:31 GMT 9.5
I simply can't agree with this article. Surely the best, least cost approach is to hammer down energy demand AND decarbonise, not do one OR the other. i completely agree with you. there is a reason, why supporters of nuclear power dislike power saving. Nuclear power is expensive and slow to build up. the future of nuclear power depends on increased power demand. A reduction in power demand is the doom of nuclear power, as it has to compete with (cheap) old plants and financing a plant 10 years in advance is a massive financial gamble. this new article gives reduced demand as a main reason for the decline of nuclear power in the USA around the time of the 3 mile island accident. bos.sagepub.com/content/69/3/63.fullthe article also has this interesting graph: bos.sagepub.com/content/69/3/63/F1.expansion.html
|
|