Science/Environment Nuclear power: The ultimate climate solution

[CD Xbow]

Yes, nuclear is safe if you exclude major accidents! So is base jumping, if you exclude major accidents.

Does the nuclear death rate include deaths from uranium mining? Miners have increased lung disease including cancer and an increase in many cancers. These effects can take decades to appear and may not be included. Does it include the increase in childhood leukemia around the Sellafield reprocessing plant in the UK? Deaths from radiation related to the nuclear industry may be subtle and take years to show themselves.

In short, this picture is a propaganda piece.

I'd like to know how they work out deaths from solar panels and wind turbines, which must be predominately from installation.

Other than the health cost, nuclear is at least 5-8x more costly than renewables. Why do we want one of the most expensive forms of energy? We are a country with space, lot's of sun and lot's of wind which makes us ideal for low cost renewables.

 

[quotemokc]

Yes, nuclear is safe if you exclude major accidents! So is base jumping, if you exclude major accidents.

Does the nuclear death rate include deaths from uranium mining? Miners have increased lung disease including cancer and an increase in many cancers. These effects can take decades to appear and may not be included. Does it include the increase in childhood leukemia around the Sellafield reprocessing plant in the UK? Deaths from radiation related to the nuclear industry may be subtle and take years to show themselves.

In short, this picture is a propaganda piece.

I'd like to know how they work out deaths from solar panels and wind turbines, which must be predominately from installation.

Other than the health cost, nuclear is at least 5-8x more costly than renewables. Why do we want one of the most expensive forms of energy? We are a country with space, lot's of sun and lot's of wind which makes us ideal for low cost renewables.

Crying about and calling it propaganda doesn't make it incorrect just because you refuse to believe it.

What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?

Fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous energy sources, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner.

ourworldindata.org

 

[CD Xbow]

Crying about and calling it propaganda doesn't make it incorrect just because you refuse to believe it.

What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?

Fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous energy sources, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner.

ourworldindata.org

Refuse to believe an infographic from the mining industry promoting the safety of nuclear energy???????

Like I pointed out, any activity is safe if you remove the major accidents. The 737 Max is safe if you remove the 2 major accidents!! You can't seriously believe a graphic which removes the catastrophic accidents that have befallen the nuclear power industry?

There is no explanation of how they get their figures so in the end, it's just an image. However as it's deliberately misleading then it becomes an act of propaganda.

I don't believe they have figured in excess mortality on miners from uranium mining. In the 2 largest studies on excess lung cancer mortality from uranium mining showed an excess mortality over the study period was 2185.4 per 100 000 miners, another showed 6x the lung cancer rate. Unfortunately the studies are rather uncommon, often limited in scope (eg just look at lung cancer and not other diseases) or size and seldom do they look at whole of life risk. I find it hard to believe uranium mining is significantly safer than coal mining.

it also ignore the dangers presented by hundreds of millions of tons of radioactive tailings that no one in the world has yet found a solution for. This presents an ongoing risk and the cost of cleaning it up needs to be figured into the cost of nuclear power. it's in the too hard basket for now. Nor is there a good system of disposal of high level nuclear waste from reactors. Older containment systems are breaking down much faster than expected.

 

[Deliverance]

Refuse to believe an infographic from the mining industry promoting the safety of nuclear energy???????

Like I pointed out, any activity is safe if you remove the major accidents. The 737 Max is safe if you remove the 2 major accidents!! You can't seriously believe a graphic which removes the catastrophic accidents that have befallen the nuclear power industry?

There is no explanation of how they get their figures so in the end, it's just an image. However as it's deliberately misleading then it becomes an act of propaganda.

I don't believe they have figured in excess mortality on miners from uranium mining. In the 2 largest studies on excess lung cancer mortality from uranium mining showed an excess mortality over the study period was 2185.4 per 100 000 miners, another showed 6x the lung cancer rate. Unfortunately the studies are rather uncommon, often limited in scope (eg just look at lung cancer and not other diseases) or size and seldom do they look at whole of life risk. I find it hard to believe uranium mining is significantly safer than coal mining.

it also ignore the dangers presented by hundreds of millions of tons of radioactive tailings that no one in the world has yet found a solution for. This presents an ongoing risk and the cost of cleaning it up needs to be figured into the cost of nuclear power. it's in the too hard basket for now. Nor is there a good system of disposal of high level nuclear waste from reactors. Older containment systems are breaking down much faster than expected.

It is very tricky to judge. Estimates vary wildly from major events.

What was the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?

When we think of nuclear safety, two accidents often come to mind: Chernobyl and Fukushima. What was the death toll and impact of these disasters?

ourworldindata.org

 

[FredLeDeux]

FMD.

Nuclear power again.

Just how often do you have to kill a zombie?

 

[Power Raid]

Refuse to believe an infographic from the mining industry promoting the safety of nuclear energy???????

Like I pointed out, any activity is safe if you remove the major accidents. The 737 Max is safe if you remove the 2 major accidents!! You can't seriously believe a graphic which removes the catastrophic accidents that have befallen the nuclear power industry?

There is no explanation of how they get their figures so in the end, it's just an image. However as it's deliberately misleading then it becomes an act of propaganda.

I don't believe they have figured in excess mortality on miners from uranium mining. In the 2 largest studies on excess lung cancer mortality from uranium mining showed an excess mortality over the study period was 2185.4 per 100 000 miners, another showed 6x the lung cancer rate. Unfortunately the studies are rather uncommon, often limited in scope (eg just look at lung cancer and not other diseases) or size and seldom do they look at whole of life risk. I find it hard to believe uranium mining is significantly safer than coal mining.

it also ignore the dangers presented by hundreds of millions of tons of radioactive tailings that no one in the world has yet found a solution for. This presents an ongoing risk and the cost of cleaning it up needs to be figured into the cost of nuclear power. it's in the too hard basket for now. Nor is there a good system of disposal of high level nuclear waste from reactors. Older containment systems are breaking down much faster than expected.

There have been numerous studies on nuclear facilities and mine sites, thus the reason why we see some of the highest safety standards in mining and power generation compared to many other industries.

It is probably this reason along with the centralised nature of the operations that make them so safe.

Firstly nuclear is the safest power generation by kWh with or without Fukushima, Chernobyl and the upstream and downstream industry.

The most dangerous nuclear industry is medical imaging and dental. The reason for this is the decentralised nature and relaxed controls and processes.

This also explains why solar and wind, despite being safe, have more deaths than nuclear. Working at heights would be a major issue for renewables along with fire and electrical.

The big hidden death toll for renewables is the deaths relating to child labour, conflict minerals and the biggest one being the largest environmental disaster on the planet being the toxic spill (which is also radioactive) from northern china all the way to the sea by HONG KONG.

Coincidentally nuclear energy is the alchemist dream where we can eliminate certain types of mining, as we can create the element and isotopes we need. Perhaps eliminating all mining long term other than bulks.

In regards to nuclear waste, the reason why we don’t have storage is two fold. One the waste is so small, we don’t have the demand as yet. After 70 years of nuclear, they would only have enough waste to fill 35% of a ship! So they need to operate for another 140 years for 1 ship by tonnage.......or another 3,000 years by volume!

In addition to the need for another 3,000 years of nuclear by volume, and the major reason why we don’t have a storage facility is nuclear waste is not waste. It is fuel for gen 4. Given this burns the other 97.7% of the uranium, the waste is even smaller.

However despite needing 10s of 1,00s of years by volume, before we need a facility, australia will have one shortly.



Lastly in addition to being safer, it is significantly cheaper to renewables as it is reliable. Meaning we don’t need the rolls Royce grid and the back up systems.

It’s also and most importantly effective in reducing CO2. After all what is the point of renewables if they are ineffective in reducing CO2 or worse increase it as we have seen in France.

 

[Power Raid]

FMD.

Nuclear power again.

Just how often do you have to kill a zombie?

Don’t be left behind in the 80s

You’re living in a time of the greatest roll out of nuclear fleet in the history of man.

The future is clear and the nations of haves and have nots has always been determined by cheap reliable power.

Nations that are wealthy also happen to care more about the environment.

So if you care for the environment, the pathway of hydro and nuclear are clear. Just look globally today and there is no nation on the planet delivering 14-70g CO2 per kWh that has taken responsible action.

 

[MrWalker30]

It is very tricky to judge. Estimates vary wildly from major events.

What was the death toll from Chernobyl and Fukushima?

When we think of nuclear safety, two accidents often come to mind: Chernobyl and Fukushima. What was the death toll and impact of these disasters?

ourworldindata.org

your preaching about an incident that happened decaded on decades ago. most of countries in europe and some of Asia run on nuclear to power millions on millions of homes. hundard of ships, including navy vessels, submarines, aircraft carriers run on nuclear to name a few.

over the years technology has vastly improved, along with the knowledge and safety procedures behind things

 

[Power Raid]

Refuse to believe an infographic from the mining industry promoting the safety of nuclear energy???????

Like I pointed out, any activity is safe if you remove the major accidents. The 737 Max is safe if you remove the 2 major accidents!! You can't seriously believe a graphic which removes the catastrophic accidents that have befallen the nuclear power industry?

There is no explanation of how they get their figures so in the end, it's just an image. However as it's deliberately misleading then it becomes an act of propaganda.

I don't believe they have figured in excess mortality on miners from uranium mining. In the 2 largest studies on excess lung cancer mortality from uranium mining showed an excess mortality over the study period was 2185.4 per 100 000 miners, another showed 6x the lung cancer rate. Unfortunately the studies are rather uncommon, often limited in scope (eg just look at lung cancer and not other diseases) or size and seldom do they look at whole of life risk. I find it hard to believe uranium mining is significantly safer than coal mining.

it also ignore the dangers presented by hundreds of millions of tons of radioactive tailings that no one in the world has yet found a solution for. This presents an ongoing risk and the cost of cleaning it up needs to be figured into the cost of nuclear power. it's in the too hard basket for now. Nor is there a good system of disposal of high level nuclear waste from reactors. Older containment systems are breaking down much faster than expected.

you do know the mining industry lobby groups, including the CFMEU and the electrical unions, are pro coal and anti uranium? so I'm not sure where you get the assertion "infrographic from the mining industry". Could you provide a reference?

the reason for this is the mining of uranium often doesn't require mining, rather just a pump.

 

[Lyttelton Ranger]

On Monday's Q&A, the ignorant attitudes towards nuclear power generation were on show amongst the panellists. Sadly I think their attitudes reflect the majority of this country's people.

That ignorance shone through by the mere fact that it wasn't even mentioned once by anyone during a 15 minute segment on how best to meet Australia's future energy demands. Instead there was a debate about upscaling gas production vs renewables (wind & solar) with battery storage also mentioned.

This was the perfect opportunity to raise some awareness about the advances in safety and efficiency of nuclear power yet it is still nowhere near the forefront of most people's thinking

 

[Lyttelton Ranger]

You can’t imagine any other issues?

A entire facility for producing radiopharmaceuticals failed because a single valve got stuck in the wrong position. It took weeks before they could fix it because it was in the middle of a hot cell, so they needed to wait four weeks while the radioactivity was either removed (and some of it physically couldn’t be removed) or decayed to a level that was safe for humans to enter.

In Australia. Last year.

Now there were people affected (patients) and it cost a number of groups a lot of money but it wasn’t a “nuclear accident” in the sense we’re discussing. It was, however, an event caused by a mechanical failure that couldn’t be rectified immediately because it wasn’t physically possible to do safely.

Modern reactors have complex computer systems, algorithms and “AI” and will have rigorous safety protocols. As they should.

But they also have their fair share of mechanical components and 10 cent LED lights and transistors too. They may also have some humans involved*.

So a problem doesn’t have to be a cataclysmic event. It can be a faulty valve or a busted piece of electronics or a mistake in an algorithm (Boeing 737 Max) or some other unforseen mechanical issue. It can just be a human error fu**up. The truck carrying fuel rods down the Monash at 2am has an accident. Use your imagination.

So my point about nuclear is that for all the processes and systems reducing the probability of an incident to close to zero, it isn’t zero and will never be zero. And if you have a major incident the ability of governments and emergency services to mitigate this sort of incident is very limited with the health and social ramifications played out over a generation.


*automated to within an inch of its life. Those coal jobs are still going to disappear.

Do you have this same attitude towards the airline industry.

All those horrific plane crashes from the 60's to 90's didn't grind the industry to a halt. Years (make that decades) of crash reviews and safety improvements have made flying safer than driving a car.

And just like a shiny new nuclear facility, your typical modern jet has just as many technically advanced computer systems, algorithms and "AI" (and yes even a truck load of humble 10c LED bulbs).

Ten to fifteen years is a long time to get a permanent nuclear plant up and running and perhaps it will be an hour late to the Prom Dance, but so what. The best solution is the one that meets our needs in terms of power delivery and emissions reduction.

 

[quotemokc]

An incredibly densely populated country in the UK has had nuclear power since 1956 yet here, a country with boundless empty coastline and desert are too scared to even try it.

 

[Gethelred]

FMD.

Nuclear power again.

Just how often do you have to kill a zombie?

It depends. Is it a radioactive zombie?

 

[FredLeDeux]

It depends. Is it a radioactive zombie?

Hope not.
You can kill it, but it takes 24,000 years to die.

 

[Seeds]

Crying about and calling it propaganda doesn't make it incorrect just because you refuse to believe it.

What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?

Fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous energy sources, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner.

ourworldindata.org

It is if its propoganda. chernobyl only has recorded like 150 deaths. The reality is in the tens of thousands. Cancer takes 10 plus years to kill many people.

plus with nuclear its not just deaths. Loss of habitable land is a major downside.

nuclear also kills people who are completely innocent and have nothing to do with its development and no choice. Solar kills installers. People who agree to a risky task and take the risk on.

 

[Power Raid]

On Monday's Q&A, the ignorant attitudes towards nuclear power generation were on show amongst the panellists. Sadly I think their attitudes reflect the majority of this country's people.

That ignorance shone through by the mere fact that it wasn't even mentioned once by anyone during a 15 minute segment on how best to meet Australia's future energy demands. Instead there was a debate about upscaling gas production vs renewables (wind & solar) with battery storage also mentioned.

This was the perfect opportunity to raise some awareness about the advances in safety and efficiency of nuclear power yet it is still nowhere near the forefront of most people's thinking

Australia with the bipartisan support of liberal and labor have made a number of changes to legislation to enable nuclear power in Australia and are creating a third government department between the CSIRO and ANSTO to manage it.

Prior to the last election labor provided the approval, with everyone thinking they'd win the election, for a study of SMRs in Australia. The study has progressed under the Libs with the lead horse being a US technology with the location to be at or around Woomera. This is an expensive SMR being $0.19 per kwh vs Rolls Royces' (which from memory was $0.06 or $0.08 per kwh). However UNSC is much smaller (5-100MWe), modular, responsive Gen 4 reactor that being rolled out in Canada by Ontario Power.

My gut feel is Rolls Royce will be the biggest player in Australia but they are a couple of years behind the US group.

This won't be discussed promoted publicly as the electorate are not ready yet.

 

[Power Raid]

It is if its propoganda. chernobyl only has recorded like 150 deaths. The reality is in the tens of thousands. Cancer takes 10 plus years to kill many people.

plus with nuclear its not just deaths. Loss of habitable land is a major downside.

nuclear also kills people who are completely innocent and have nothing to do with its development and no choice. Solar kills installers. People who agree to a risky task and take the risk on.

Chernobyl has left a terrible scar on the industry but lets look at the facts:
1) it was a plutonium generator to build nuclear weapons with the by-product being power and heat
2) it was a 1950s design and 1960s build
3) it had very few safety systems and what systems it did have were over-rided manually to test "in the case of melt down"
4) The WHO have very different numbers to movies and documentaries

I don't think anyone advocates building Gen 2 or Gen 3 reactors. Gen 3.5 probably don't make any sense other than in the Pilbara, Geraldton and SA.

What I think most who advocate nuclear power in Australia look at Gen 4 SMRs.


The safety record, CO2, total pollution, price, reliability, total energy output (electricity and heat) and responsiveness individually and combined exceed that of all their peers.

- as safe as wind and solar, leaving hydro, gas and coal for dead
- the lowest CO2 by far given reneables are "carbon light" needing gas for reliability and carbon heavy if you add the expansion of the grid back to renewables
- nuclear is a closed loop when it comes to pollution
- the cheapest power using full cost accounting with SMRs coming in at $0.08 (only coal or gas could beat this when using the cost of supplying power not the misleading cost of producing power). Note smaller SMRs that will power our militaries and mine sites in the future are currently $0.19 per kwr vs diesel at $0.27
- reliability speaks for itself and now responsive unlike Gen 3.5

 

[DIG]

It’s depressing how closed minded Australians still are to nuclear power. Hopefully that’s starting to change now.

 

[Seeds]

Chernobyl has left a terrible scar on the industry but lets look at the facts:
1) it was a plutonium generator to build nuclear weapons with the by-product being power and heat
2) it was a 1950s design and 1960s build
3) it had very few safety systems and what systems it did have were over-rided manually to test "in the case of melt down"
4) The WHO have very different numbers to movies and documentaries

I don't think anyone advocates building Gen 2 or Gen 3 reactors. Gen 3.5 probably don't make any sense other than in the Pilbara, Geraldton and SA.

What I think most who advocate nuclear power in Australia look at Gen 4 SMRs.


The safety record, CO2, total pollution, price, reliability, total energy output (electricity and heat) and responsiveness individually and combined exceed that of all their peers.

- as safe as wind and solar, leaving hydro, gas and coal for dead
- the lowest CO2 by far given reneables are "carbon light" needing gas for reliability and carbon heavy if you add the expansion of the grid back to renewables
- nuclear is a closed loop when it comes to pollution
- the cheapest power using full cost accounting with SMRs coming in at $0.08 (only coal or gas could beat this when using the cost of supplying power not the misleading cost of producing power). Note smaller SMRs that will power our militaries and mine sites in the future are currently $0.19 per kwr vs diesel at $0.27
- reliability speaks for itself and now responsive unlike Gen 3.5

Fair enough. Can a repeat of fukushima happen though? Are new nuclear plants now completely safe from tsunami, earthquake or missile attack?

 

[quotemokc]

Fair enough. Can a repeat of fukushima happen though? Are new nuclear plants now completely safe from tsunami, earthquake or missile attack?

If they are built correctly yes.

 

[Seeds]

If they are built correctly yes.

How do you make one safe from missile/bomb attack?

 

[quotemokc]

How do you make one safe from missile/bomb attack?

You could apply that to anything.

 

[Power Raid]

Fair enough. Can a repeat of fukushima happen though? Are new nuclear plants now completely safe from tsunami, earthquake or missile attack?

you can fly a jumbo jet into a Gen 3.5

A SMRs and Gen 4 go a step further as they can't go critical, so no issue with the above


Villages in places like Namibia are likely to have SMRs before Australia. As they require no staff, no monitoring and no refueling. Just demand response.

Ontario will be first in line and Woomera is Australia's current location under review. but I feel the army will get one before Woomera.

 

[Deliverance]

It’s depressing how closed minded Australians still are to nuclear power. Hopefully that’s starting to change now.

Plenty are closed minded to solar and wind. Nuclear will be a huge leap of faith for many.

 

[Messenger]

Do you have this same attitude towards the airline industry.

All those horrific plane crashes from the 60's to 90's didn't grind the industry to a halt. Years (make that decades) of crash reviews and safety improvements have made flying safer than driving a car.

And just like a shiny new nuclear facility, your typical modern jet has just as many technically advanced computer systems, algorithms and "AI" (and yes even a truck load of humble 10c LED bulbs).

Ten to fifteen years is a long time to get a permanent nuclear plant up and running and perhaps it will be an hour late to the Prom Dance, but so what. The best solution is the one that meets our needs in terms of power delivery and emissions reduction.

Not a great analogy. Nuclear power has many potential substitutes that are quicker to build and don’t have the same inherent risks.

And even if you could get one built in 15 years, it wouldn’t be ten minute late, it would be years late.