Skip to main content

Risk and Nuclear Energy

Over at Potential Energy, Gia Milinovich has taken a look at the numbers, and wonders why nuclear energy is considered to be a "risky" source of electricity:
The World Nuclear Association has gathered together some information on energy related deaths since 1979 which makes for some extremely interesting reading. In China in 2004, 6,027 people were killed in coal mining accidents (China averages over 5,000 deaths per year from coal mining). Though the Australian coal mining industry is considered the safest in the world, there have been 112 deaths in new South Wales mines alone since 1979. In 1979 and 1980, 3,500 deaths were caused by the failure of hydro-electric dams in India.

Despite all of these facts, nuclear power is still deemed ‘too risky’. If the risks don’t come from ‘accidents’, where do they come from?

I understand the risks posed by radiation and have come to the conclusion that I’d be happy to have a nuclear waste storage facility in my back garden… Can anyone tell me why most people think nuclear power is dangerous?
I have my own ideas, but I'm interested in hearing what other folks in the industry have to say. Stop by Potential Energy and leave your two cents.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Dear happy,

Neither you nor James Lovelock can have a nuclear waste storage facility in your backyard without first allowing your neighbors the opportunity to hold hearings.

Besides you wrongly assume that there have never been any environmental, health and safety impacts from uranium mining globally.
Anonymous said…
Any environmental, health and safety impacts from uranium mining globally are tiny compared to similar impacts from coal mining globally. Not to mention the widespread deposition of tons of tramp uranium from burning coal.

Living to for a few years in Moundsville WV and marrying into a family of coal miners allowed me to get a better idea of the human impact of avoiding adequate use of uranium.

I will never forget how the psuedo-environmentalists cheered the deaths of thousands when Zimmer was converted from nuclear to coal.

Then, of course, there is Donara, Buffalo Creek and Willow Island just in the US. Not to mention the daily killing of hundreds by coal pollution. Being an anti-nuke is the easiest way to be a mass murderer.
Anonymous said…
No gunter, nuclear power supporters don't assume anything. We have decades of empirical evidence demonstrating that the environmental, health and safety aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle are superior to any comparable alternative. This stems from the simple fact that, pound for pound, uranium has several orders of magnitude more energy content than any fossil fuel.
Anonymous said…
Happy never said nor "assumed" anything about uranium mining. The fatalities associated with coal mining are hard facts.

Have you got the numbers on uranium mining? Let's compare them, shall we? And shall we compare the amount of uranium it takes to produce a megawatt of electricity, versus the amount of coal?

And then let's compare the greenhouse emissions from using coal versus the greenhouse emissions from using uranium... shall we keep going?
Anonymous said…
Dan & anonymous,

Because one has to look at more than just the safety consequences of bad mine engineering and health consequences like black lung, other health impacts have to be factored into the future for both fossil and nuclear.

So, for example, one has to factor the nuclear waste from uranium mill tailings which are left over from the extraction of the uranium oxide. These tailings contain about 85% of the radioactivity of the original ore, like radium-226 (half-life of about 1600 yrs), and thorium-230 (half-life of about 80,000 yrs). While the tailings are lower in radioactivity in comparison to other categories of radioactive waste from the back end of the nuclear fuel chain, these tailings, basically left on the surface, are still radioactive at a thousands times more than natural background and are extremely long-lived. I think to the best estimate is that there are about 230 million metric tons of uranium mill tailings accumulated from U.S. uranium production.

These exposed mill tailings pose a health threat to communities nearby that will last for hundreds of thousands of years through inhalation and ingestion radiation doses.

Actually nuclear power supporters assume an incredible amount... like some day, some where, some body, some way will come up with a scientificially accepted long term management program for nuclear waste. We are now more than a half-century into this technology and you still have to assume that a acceptable management strategy is forthcoming. That should have been taken care of before you started commercial operation.
Anonymous said…
The radioactive tailings will eventually reach the surface anyway and expose people. So tailings represent no increase in overall human exposure. The fact that any uranium at all is removed from the tailings is a net benefit to human health, if low levels of radioactivity are harmful.

Dr. Bernard Cohen has explained this quite clearly.
Kelly L Taylor said…
There are other comparisons to consider as well, Paul. The radioactive decay of the mine tailings slowly reduces the potential harm. The pollutants removed from the coal combustion are also dumped by the ton, often on the ground or open ponds - and remain toxic forever.

Furthermore, what is hard to explain in a sound bite but you yourself are well aware - the longer the half-life of a radioactive isotope, the 'less' radioactive it is. That is to say, the longer the element 'hangs around' the less hazard it presents for a given time of exposure.

So, for those who want to capitalize on the fear of radioactive health risks, it's either "highly radioactive" *OR* it 'lasts for millions of years.' Both can sound scary, but it's really a fear-mongering attempt to have your cake and eat it, too.
Jim said…
"The radioactive tailings will eventually reach the surface anyway and expose people. So tailings represent no increase in overall human exposure."

Why? Why would they "eventually reach the surface"? The ore has been buried for millions of years, quietly decaying peacefully under the mountains. Can't you see the difference between hauling millions of tons of ore to the surface and then strewing the tailings all over the landscape, and the incredibly slow leaching process that occurs naturally?


"the longer the half-life of a radioactive isotope, the 'less' radioactive it is."

In the context of dealing with waste, this is a bit of a red herring, isn't it? Uranium 235 (with a half-life of hundreds of millions of years) is less radioactive than Carbon 14 (half-life of 5,700 years) - Gee, no wonder people are so worried about their carbon footprint!
Brian said…
Seems to me that energy production should be based on cost effectiveness, as it is. But environmental degradation and public risks are given as little weight as possible, while taxpayer provided government subsidies, which include potential disaster costs, add plenty of weight in that calculation here in the USA. This does not seem right.

As to the comparisons being tossed about here between coal and nukes...coal is really bad. We need to get away from it as fast as possible. But as for nukes, I'll be in favor as soon as it has nominal limits on potential taxpayer subsidies for disaster mitigation, and, in effect, is commercially insurable for the rest, instead of the other way around. See:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html

Plus: What Jim said. Big difference between radioactive materials reaching the surface naturally, even through volcanic activity, as compared to deliberately mining and concentrating them.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin