THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE NUCLEAR POWER

[Jiblethead]

i really like that deaths per kw/h stat, i never realised solar was that unsafe, for the amount of power it generates

and obviously solar could never be the MAIN source of power its just not efficient enough

either way we have to find SOMETHING better than nuclear, but it aint easy

[wyly]

Errr... not really.

You see, here's the thing... a nuclear plant is big, impressive, and it can be very dangerous. But it also generates a huge amount of power, in a very small, isolated area. Yes, disasters are possible (and I'm under no illusion that they will have perfect safety records), but if you look at the lives lost (per KW/h generated) its actually pretty safe.

On the other hand, Solar (and even wind) might seem like the safest thing out there... how can a solar panel hurt anyone? The problem is, each individual panel only generates a limited amount of power. So you need more of them. More manufacturing (which can lead to industrial accidents), more raw materials (so more mining accidents), more accidents during installation. If you look at the number of deaths caused by solar (per Kw/H) its higher than that of nuclear.

So, which is more important, a small risk that hundreds might die from a nuclear accident all at once, or a guarantee that hundreds will die, but that those deaths will be spread out over more locations?

but more nuclear also requires more mining, more manufacturing(industrial accidents), more accidents during installation, and then need to consider the size of the projects as well, how many people are involved, an industry with ten times the number of employes could be expected to have ten times the number of industrial accidents...

then you overlook the number of people displaced by nuclear accidents, I believe it was 350,000 by Chernobyl and another 80-100000 by fukishima...what solar or wind project has done that?

[segnosaur]

but more nuclear also requires more mining, more manufacturing(industrial accidents), more accidents during installation, and then need to consider the size of the projects as well, how many people are involved, an industry with ten times the number of employes could be expected to have ten times the number of industrial accidents...

Yes, more nuclear means more mining for uranium, more manufacturing, etc. But like I said, nuclear plans generate a heck of a lot of power.

Digging out a few pounds of pitchblend to provide me nuclear power for a few years will cause fewer deaths than digging out several hundred pounds of cadmium, copper, etc. or whatever substances they use for Solar power.

then you overlook the number of people displaced by nuclear accidents, I believe it was 350,000 by Chernobyl and another 80-100000 by fukishima...what solar or wind project has done that?

I personally think Chernobyl is irrelevant... it was a poor reactor design, run by idiots. Not saying the designs used in the western world are perfect, but they're a far better than the Chernobyl design.

And yes, there were thousands displaced by the events at Fukishima. I believe they estimate that there will be something like 130 deaths due to it. But guess what? With dozens of nuclear power plants in operation over multiple decades, the overall number of deaths/displacements is, well, minimal. Yes, it would really suck to be some worker who dies of radiation poisoning, or ends up homeless because of the evacuation, but it would also suck to be a worker who dies in an industrial accident at the local solar panel manufacturing plant. (And there are more of them, on average, than people who die from nuclear accidents.)

[Guest Manny]

Ideally you reprocess it. If its done right, all of the energy that you'll need in your life could probably result in the amount of radioactive material you can hold in your hand. After that, you bury it at some place like Yucca mountain.

"Ideally" is right. Decades of research devoted to trying to solve the problem has made very little progress. Otherwise it would not be a problem anymore... but it is. Reality = 1, segnosaur = 0

[segnosaur]

Ideally you reprocess it. If its done right, all of the energy that you'll need in your life could probably result in the amount of radioactive material you can hold in your hand. After that, you bury it at some place like Yucca mountain.

"Ideally" is right. Decades of research devoted to trying to solve the problem has made very little progress. Otherwise it would not be a problem anymore... but it is. Reality = 1, segnosaur = 0

As I pointed out before, the problems with nuclear power (such as reprocessing of fuel rods and developing long-term storage solutions) is a political problem, not an engineering one.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/10/10greenwire-gao-death-of-yucca-mountain-caused-by-politica-36298.html?pagewanted=all

GAO's study found that Energy Secretary Steven Chu's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program was made for policy reasons, not technical or safety reasons, and officials speaking for Chu in 2010 did not cite any technical concerns or safety issues related to the Yucca Mountain site.

Unfortunately, whenever some people hear the term "nuclear" they go into panic mode, and regardless of whatever science or statistics you give them, they will continue to stick their fingers in their ears, and shout "La la la... I can't hear you.... Nuclear is evil!"

[wyly]

Yes, more nuclear means more mining for uranium, more manufacturing, etc. But like I said, nuclear plans generate a heck of a lot of power.

Digging out a few pounds of pitchblend to provide me nuclear power for a few years will cause fewer deaths than digging out several hundred pounds of cadmium, copper, etc. or whatever substances they use for Solar power.

a few pounds? depending on the deposit it takes 500 to 5000kg of ore to produce one lb of uranium...

this death thingy is BS, uranium mines don't have a magic potion to prevent death, exposure to radon gas in uranium mines result in deaths from lung cancer... but hey that's not really a mining death like coal mine explosion ...

then there is the very real damage caused by uranium mines to the environment by waste rock/tailings...the mining process you really want to pretend is inexpensive/clean/perfect

I personally think Chernobyl is irrelevant... it was a poor reactor design, run by idiots. Not saying the designs used in the western world are perfect, but they're a far better than the Chernobyl design.

ya it's so inconvenient, nuclear power is perfectly safe except for those that aren't and we can ignore those ...but then there the superior japanese designs like fukishima it couldn't possibly happen there...oh!....how many other nuclear power plants are built on fault zones? exposed to tsunami's?...are you saying fukishima is the only plant built on or near a fault zone ...

And yes, there were thousands displaced by the events at Fukishima. I believe they estimate that there will be something like 130 deaths due to it. But guess what? With dozens of nuclear power plants in operation over multiple decades, the overall number of deaths/displacements is, well, minimal. Yes, it would really suck to be some worker who dies of radiation poisoning, or ends up homeless because of the evacuation, but it would also suck to be a worker who dies in an industrial accident at the local solar panel manufacturing plant. (And there are more of them, on average, than people who die from nuclear accidents.)

you want to dwell on industrial deaths but deaths was never the big concern, just as they're not a huge concern with hydro or solar or turbines, industrial accidents will always happen...the concern with nuclear plants has never been masive loss of life due to nuclear explosion, it's always been meltdowns... Chernobyl and Fukishima, the permanent loss of a region through nuclear contamination and long term threats to heath, neither pf which can happen with solar, hydro, wind and geothermal... Edited October 3, 2012 by wyly

[TimG]

Fukishima, the permanent loss of a region through nuclear contamination and long term threats to heath, neither pf which can happen with solar, hydro, wind and geothermal.

The loss of land around Fukushima is largely due to anti-nuclear fear mongers like you. If science was actually used instead of rule of the mob the evacuated area would have been a lot less.

[madmax]

The loss of land around Fukushima is largely due to anti-nuclear fear mongers like you. If science was actually used instead of rule of the mob the evacuated area would have been a lot less.

You will get your answer soon

Unmanned Copter To Measure Fukushima Radiation

http://www.rttnews.com/1976577/unmanned-copter-to-measure-fukushima-radiation.aspx?type=gn&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=sitemap

"The United States had carried out an aerial survey immediately after the Fukushima accident and handed over a radiation map to the Japanese government, but the latter concealed it from the public."

[TimG]

You will get your answer soon

Don't see how that addresses the issue. My point is the 20km permanent evacuation zone is not justified by science.

[segnosaur]

Yes, more nuclear means more mining for uranium, more manufacturing, etc. But like I said, nuclear plans generate a heck of a lot of power.

Digging out a few pounds of pitchblend to provide me nuclear power for a few years will cause fewer deaths than digging out several hundred pounds of cadmium, copper, etc. or whatever substances they use for Solar power.

a few pounds? depending on the deposit it takes 500 to 5000kg of ore to produce one lb of uranium...

this death thingy is BS, uranium mines don't have a magic potion to prevent death, exposure to radon gas in uranium mines result in deaths from lung cancer... but hey that's not really a mining death like coal mine explosion ...

Once again, you miss the point...

I am not claiming that Uranium mining or nuclear power generation is not without risks. The point is, whatever deaths are are caused has been less than the deaths caused by supposedly "safe" technologies when you factor in the amount of energy generated.

then there is the very real damage caused by uranium mines to the environment by waste rock/tailings.

And there is also damage to the environment caused by the mining and processing of things like Copper that are used to produce solar panels. Only there is probably more of it, because you need many solar panels to generate the same power that a single nuclear plant generates.

Or do you think just because its 'solar power' that all the raw materials just appear out of thin air fully processed?

I personally think Chernobyl is irrelevant... it was a poor reactor design, run by idiots. Not saying the designs used in the western world are perfect, but they're a far better than the Chernobyl design.

ya it's so inconvenient, nuclear power is perfectly safe except for those that aren't and we can ignore those

you know, you seem to be quite keen on building up those straw men, aren't you.

First of all, I never said "nuclear power is perfectly safe". There will be accidents, there will be deaths. Its just that those deaths/accidents will probably cause less harm overall than attempts to generate the same amount of power using other means.

Secondly, I am a fan of nuclear power that's been properly regulated. Chernobyl should never have been built. If someone tried to say "lets build another Chernobyl-style reactor" I'd tell them they're idiots. I suspect pretty much anyone in the nuclear industry would have said the same thing even before they had their problems.

Trying to Lump Chernobyl in with the reactors in the U.S., France or Canada is no more relevant than saying "All cars are unsafe because the Ford Pinto had a reputation for exploding". Or saying "All fireworks must be banned because some idiot kid lost a finger when he set off a fire cracker".

...but then there the superior japanese designs like fukishima it couldn't possibly happen there...oh!....how many other nuclear power plants are built on fault zones? exposed to tsunami's?...are you saying fukishima is the only plant built on or near a fault zone ...

Now, Fukishma is fair game... it was a better reactor design, and had more competent people running it.

And yes, it was a horrible accident. But lets see... we've had nuclear power for roughly 5 decades. There are hundreds of civilian nuclear power plants in the world (and even more military ones). One "Fukishima scale" disaster every half century or so must be weighed against the number of deaths or environmental problems that would have occurred in the same time frame had we stuck to fossil fuels (or tried using Solar, Wind, etc.)

...you want to dwell on industrial deaths but deaths was never the big concern...

Ummm.. say what?

...just as they're not a huge concern with hydro or solar or turbines, industrial accidents will always happen.

And I would like to minimize those accidents, and the deaths that would result.

..the concern with nuclear plants has never been masive loss of life due to nuclear explosion, it's always been meltdowns... Chernobyl and Fukishima, the permanent loss of a region through nuclear contamination and long term threats to heath, neither pf which can happen with solar, hydro, wind and geothermal...

So, let me get this straight...

You're totally happy with people dying, as long as their home remains livable for other people after they're gone?

[carepov]

Hello wyly,

First, I will second segnosaur’s main point: the report compared apples to apples, ie: the total number of deaths/injuries caused by the generation of energy per unit of energy produced. This data strongly supports the claim that nuclear energy is as safe as, or safer, than the alternatives.

In addition, if you want to measure “displacement of people” then I fear that the flooding of lands for hydro would be much worse than nuclear or other alternatives.

And finally, you do not seem to be considering damage from greenhouse gasses, this a huge advantage of nuclear over most alternatives.

[wyly]

Once again, you miss the point...

I am not claiming that Uranium mining or nuclear power generation is not without risks. The point is, whatever deaths are are caused has been less than the deaths caused by supposedly "safe" technologies when you factor in the amount of energy generated.

no you miss the point...solar, wind, hydro can't have meltdowns and make entire regions unfit for human habitation for centuries and can't endanger the general population and environment...

And there is also damage to the environment caused by the mining and processing of things like Copper that are used to produce solar panels. Only there is probably more of it, because you need many solar panels to generate the same power that a single nuclear plant generates.

Or do you think just because its 'solar power' that all the raw materials just appear out of thin air fully processed?

and nuclear plants have no materials other than uranium? or to borrow your line-"Or do you think just because its 'solar nuclear power' that all the raw materials just appear out of thin air fully processed?"

you know, you seem to be quite keen on building up those straw men, aren't you.

First of all, I never said "nuclear power is perfectly safe". There will be accidents, there will be deaths. Its just that those deaths/accidents will probably cause less harm overall than attempts to generate the same amount of power using other means.

you're trying to deflect to industrial deaths as the only relevant factor, the relevant factor is potential of meltdowns/permanent contamination and resulting long term health risks to a larger population...

Secondly, I am a fan of nuclear power that's been properly regulated. Chernobyl should never have been built. If someone tried to say "lets build another Chernobyl-style reactor" I'd tell them they're idiots. I suspect pretty much anyone in the nuclear industry would have said the same thing even before they had their problems.

Trying to Lump Chernobyl in with the reactors in the U.S., France or Canada is no more relevant than saying "All cars are unsafe because the Ford Pinto had a reputation for exploding". Or saying "All fireworks must be banned because some idiot kid lost a finger when he set off a fire cracker".

every nuclear power plant is designed as safe according to it's engineers, including Chernobyl..Chernobyl didn't fail because of engineering it failed because of human error, operators overrode the reactors automatic safety shut down...the meltdown had nothing to do with the design...three mile island-human error, fukishima human error-design flaw

Now, Fukishma is fair game... it was a better reactor design, and had more competent people running it.

And yes, it was a horrible accident. But lets see... we've had nuclear power for roughly 5 decades. There are hundreds of civilian nuclear power plants in the world (and even more military ones). One "Fukishima scale" disaster every half century or so must be weighed against the number of deaths or environmental problems that would have occurred in the same time frame had we stuck to fossil fuels (or tried using Solar, Wind, etc.)

ya lets see, since 1945 there have been more than 60 known accidents at nuclear plants and processing facilities, number of regions permanently unfit for human habitation due to nuclear incidents-2...number of wind, solar, hydro, geo-thermal installations? I'm guessing thousands, number regions permanently uninhabitable due to those installations 0, chances of that ever happening? zero...potential long term health risks to the general population from green technology-zero...

Ummm.. say what?

ummm say what, industrial deaths was never the issue, that's what you want to deflect to

And I would like to minimize those accidents, and the deaths that would result.

bs you don't care about industrial deaths, their faceless statistics you use to sell nuclear power

So, let me get this straight...

You're totally happy with people dying, as long as their home remains livable for other people after they're gone?

you're deflecting again from the real danger of nuclear power....it won't work

[wyly]

Hello wyly,

First, I will second segnosaur’s main point: the report compared apples to apples, ie: the total number of deaths/injuries caused by the generation of energy per unit of energy produced. This data strongly supports the claim that nuclear energy is as safe as, or safer, than the alternatives.

oh ya segnosaurs report, did segosaur mention the report was published in 1978, before Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima...nor could it take into account long term cancer health risks of uranium mining, how could it include deaths of people who may not die for 20 years, if their cancer were even linked to their work place...and there is more than industrial deaths to be considered, potential for catastrophic accidents are inherent in nuclear power that just do not exist with green energy systems... the cost of deaths per unit of energy is a diversion from the much bigger potential for disaster that nuclear power presents...

In addition, if you want to measure “displacement of people” then I fear that the flooding of lands for hydro would be much worse than nuclear or other alternatives.

not at all the same, hydro dams have added benefits,flood control, irrigation, water reserves during drought, recreation, fishing, and the area flooded is not contaminated for centuries it can be restored if need be, there could very well be more people moving to the area than before the dam...the benefits far out weigh the inconvenience...

And finally, you do not seem to be considering damage from greenhouse gasses, this a huge advantage of nuclear over most alternatives.

solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal don't produce co2 other than in the production of components but that is also true of nuclear...and I'm not advocating coal generated power...

[wyly]

Don't see how that addresses the issue. My point is the 20km permanent evacuation zone is not justified by science.

says the conspiracy expert who also claimed there was no meltdown at fukishima, the entire incident was a mere inconvenience

[TimG]

says the conspiracy expert who also claimed there was no meltdown at fukishima, the entire incident was a mere inconvenience

Your obsession with a meltdown is part of the problem. Whether a meltdown occurred or not is quite irrelevant. The issue is how much radiation escaped and whether it is a danger to human health. The fact is anti-science panic monger like you have created an environment where any amount of radiation is presumed to be dangerous even if there is no scientific evidence supporting that assertion. Panic mongering like yours has harmed more people than the incident itself.

[Wild Bill]

Your obsession with a meltdown is part of the problem. Whether a meltdown occurred or not is quite irrelevant. The issue is how much radiation escaped and whether it is a danger to human health. The fact is anti-science panic monger like you have created an environment where any amount of radiation is presumed to be dangerous even if there is no scientific evidence supporting that assertion. Panic mongering like yours has harmed more people than the incident itself.

Some folks keep dragging out that old scary word - meltdown! Has anyone actually died or been injured from a meltdown?

I know that at Three Mile Island the total casualties were ZERO!

Seems to me like we are supposed to be frightened of an urban myth.

[carepov]

oh ya segnosaurs report, did segosaur mention the report was published in 1978, before Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima...nor could it take into account long term cancer health risks of uranium mining, how could it include deaths of people who may not die for 20 years, if their cancer were even linked to their work place...and there is more than industrial deaths to be considered, potential for catastrophic accidents are inherent in nuclear power that just do not exist with green energy systems... the cost of deaths per unit of energy is a diversion from the much bigger potential for disaster that nuclear power presents...

You are right the report was old, here are some newer sources saying the same thing, nuclear is generally safer than the alternatives:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf

Considering your language and lack of data/sources, you seem to be looking at his issue rather emotionally.

"Green energy" including hydro should be pursued but there are limits to their uses. In today's world, especially near large cities of the developing world where energy demand is growing fast, there are usually few options, nuclear, coal or maybe gas.

Assuming a capacity factor of 30 percent, it would take more than 2,300 three MW wind turbines to potentially match the output of a 2,300 MW two-unit nuclear plant. If placed offshore, this many turbines would require three separate rows spanning the entire coast of South Carolina.

Likewise, if we tried to match this same 2,300 MW plant with solar cells, given a 20 percent capacity factor and 6 acres of arrays to produce one MW of solar power, it would take up 69,000 acres, more than all of the land mass of Brooklyn, NY.

In order to match the total U.S. generation from all 104 nuclear plants, one would need enough solar cells to cover the total land area of New Jersey, or enough wind farms to cover an area equal to West Virginia.

http://www.nuclearinnovation.com/pdf/nuclear-techs-factsheet.pdf

[wyly]

Some folks keep dragging out that old scary word - meltdown! Has anyone actually died or been injured from a meltdown?

I know that at Three Mile Island the total casualties were ZERO!

Seems to me like we are supposed to be frightened of an urban myth.

ya myth that's why Chernobyl has this huge concrete sarcophagus build around it, and now need to construct another...chernobyl had 31 immediate deaths but estimates of long term deaths are difficult to determine, how many died from the effects of exposure and how many would have died regardless...upper estimates claim as many as one million...

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html

determining the true death toll would be very difficult but meltdown lethality is no urban myth

all of which throws doubt on segnosaurs 1970's saftey record report...no I take that back it completely negates segnosaurs link...

[wyly]

You are right the report was old, here are some newer sources saying the same thing, nuclear is generally safer than the alternatives:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf

Considering your language and lack of data/sources, you seem to be looking at his issue rather emotionally.

"Green energy" including hydro should be pursued but there are limits to their uses. In today's world, especially near large cities of the developing world where energy demand is growing fast, there are usually few options, nuclear, coal or maybe gas.

Assuming a capacity factor of 30 percent, it would take more than 2,300 three MW wind turbines to potentially match the output of a 2,300 MW two-unit nuclear plant. If placed offshore, this many turbines would require three separate rows spanning the entire coast of South Carolina.

Likewise, if we tried to match this same 2,300 MW plant with solar cells, given a 20 percent capacity factor and 6 acres of arrays to produce one MW of solar power, it would take up 69,000 acres, more than all of the land mass of Brooklyn, NY.

In order to match the total U.S. generation from all 104 nuclear plants, one would need enough solar cells to cover the total land area of New Jersey, or enough wind farms to cover an area equal to West Virginia.

http://www.nuclearinnovation.com/pdf/nuclear-techs-factsheet.pdf

I don't question nuclear powers effectiveness at producing energy there's no need to convince me of that...

I question the risk of using them, if/when they fail the consequences can be catastrophic...the total cost of nuclear energy isn't accounted for...where is inclusion for environmental damage? there are I believe 6 former uranium mines in australia that have very serious environmental contamination issues, where is the monetary calculation for that? how do you put a price tag on that? ...what price tag can you put on removing an entire region from safe habitation essentially forever in human terms..

this morning I read in the G&M quebec is shutting down a nuclear plant, a plant that was built on a fault line, then there is another in ontario that is also near a fault line...who plans these things? do they think that earthquakes don't happen in the same place twice? how can they be so arrogant to think they can out engineer nature...

[segnosaur]

And there is also damage to the environment caused by the mining and processing of things like Copper that are used to produce solar panels. Only there is probably more of it, because you need many solar panels to generate the same power that a single nuclear plant generates.

Or do you think just because its 'solar power' that all the raw materials just appear out of thin air fully processed?

and nuclear plants have no materials other than uranium? or to borrow your line-"Or do you think just because its 'solar nuclear power' that all the raw materials just appear out of thin air fully processed?"

What exactly will it take you to understand?

Whatever material is needed to build and run a nuclear plant (Uranium, concrete, steel, the tears of hippies, etc.) YOU WILL NEED MORE MATERIAL TO GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER THROUGH SOLAR PLANTS.

First of all, I never said "nuclear power is perfectly safe". There will be accidents, there will be deaths. Its just that those deaths/accidents will probably cause less harm overall than attempts to generate the same amount of power using other means.

you're trying to deflect to industrial deaths as the only relevant factor....

Nope, I'm doing something called risk management.

Its the same thing they do whenever they release a new drug or vaccine on the market, or engage in any sort of large-scale project. You look at the probability of a major problem, the possible effects, and weigh that against the cost of the alternative.

So, with nuclear power, I'm weighing the chance of a large scale disaster in the case of nuclear, and weighing that against the greater number of deaths (on a regular, year by year basis) by trying to build solar panels to generate the same amount of electricity.

Here's a simplified example... lets say we went all solar, and as a result 1000 people died (from mining accidents, from manufacturing accidents, from installation accidents.) Or lets say we went all nuclear, and 500 people died (for the same reasons). However, there is a 0.01% chance that there will be a major disaster that could result in a few thousand deaths. Is that 0.01% chance of a major disaster enough justify more deaths caused by solar on a year by year basis?

It took a frackin earthquake and sunami to cause Fukushima. Those don't exactly happen every day.

Secondly, I am a fan of nuclear power that's been properly regulated. Chernobyl should never have been built. If someone tried to say "lets build another Chernobyl-style reactor" I'd tell them they're idiots. I suspect pretty much anyone in the nuclear industry would have said the same thing even before they had their problems.

every nuclear power plant is designed as safe according to it's engineers, including Chernobyl..Chernobyl didn't fail because of engineering it failed because of human error...

Actually, there were several critical design flaws in the design of the Chernobyl reactor...manual control rods w/graphite, high void coefficient.

Furthermore, being Soviet-era Russia, people couldn't exactly discuss these sorts of flaws in public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Design_flaws_and_safety_issues

...operators overrode the reactors automatic safety shut down...the meltdown had nothing to do with the design...

Actually yes it did. Reactors in the western world are designed to be more stable, even when being run by brain-damaged idiots.

Re: Solar power causing more deaths due to industrial/installation accidents...

And I would like to minimize those accidents, and the deaths that would result.

ummm say what, industrial deaths was never the issue, that's what you want to deflect to

bs you don't care about industrial deaths,

Wow, you're psychic? Amazing that you can actually tell what exactly I'm thinking.

...their faceless statistics you use to sell nuclear power

Ummm... I'm "selling" nuclear power? Since when did I become Montgomery Burns?

So, let me get this straight...

You're totally happy with people dying, as long as their home remains livable for other people after they're gone?

you're deflecting again from the real danger of nuclear power....it won't work

Nope, it won't work because you're a frackin' idiot who chooses to use emotion rather than, you now facts.

"Oooo... meltdown. Big scary word!"

[wyly]

What exactly will it take you to understand?

Whatever material is needed to build and run a nuclear plant (Uranium, concrete, steel, the tears of hippies, etc.) YOU WILL NEED MORE MATERIAL TO GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER THROUGH SOLAR PLANTS.

Nope, I'm doing something called risk management.

Its the same thing they do whenever they release a new drug or vaccine on the market, or engage in any sort of large-scale project. You look at the probability of a major problem, the possible effects, and weigh that against the cost of the alternative.

So, with nuclear power, I'm weighing the chance of a large scale disaster in the case of nuclear, and weighing that against the greater number of deaths (on a regular, year by year basis) by trying to build solar panels to generate the same amount of electricity.

Here's a simplified example... lets say we went all solar, and as a result 1000 people died (from mining accidents, from manufacturing accidents, from installation accidents.) Or lets say we went all nuclear, and 500 people died (for the same reasons). However, there is a 0.01% chance that there will be a major disaster that could result in a few thousand deaths. Is that 0.01% chance of a major disaster enough justify more deaths caused by solar on a year by year basis?

It took a frackin earthquake and sunami to cause Fukushima. Those don't exactly happen every day.

Actually, there were several critical design flaws in the design of the Chernobyl reactor...manual control rods w/graphite, high void coefficient.

Furthermore, being Soviet-era Russia, people couldn't exactly discuss these sorts of flaws in public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#Design_flaws_and_safety_issues

Actually yes it did. Reactors in the western world are designed to be more stable, even when being run by brain-damaged idiots.

Wow, you're psychic? Amazing that you can actually tell what exactly I'm thinking.

Ummm... I'm "selling" nuclear power? Since when did I become Montgomery Burns?

Nope, it won't work because you're a frackin' idiot who chooses to use emotion rather than, you now facts.

"Oooo... meltdown. Big scary word!"

hey maybe you can find some more 1970's links to back up your current knowledge or another wiki link hey there's a reliable source

it's hilarious to watch the reaction (meltdown! ) from science challenged when they get their brilliant ideas picked apart and shot down...

[Wild Bill]

ya myth that's why Chernobyl has this huge concrete sarcophagus build around it, and now need to construct another...chernobyl had 31 immediate deaths but estimates of long term deaths are difficult to determine, how many died from the effects of exposure and how many would have died regardless...upper estimates claim as many as one million...

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html

determining the true death toll would be very difficult but meltdown lethality is no urban myth

all of which throws doubt on segnosaurs 1970's saftey record report...no I take that back it completely negates segnosaurs link...

Sorry, but Chernobyl doesn't really count!

It was a reactor designed and ran by idiot politicians and party members who over-ruled their engineers and technicians. They were azzholes extraordinaire and were so stupid as to be suicidal!

It is a worse example than comparing a 20 year old rusted out Lada with a brand new Volvo. At least the poor quality of a Lada wasn't radioactive!

What else ya got?

[wyly]

Sorry, but Chernobyl doesn't really count!

It was a reactor designed and ran by idiot politicians and party members who over-ruled their engineers and technicians. They were azzholes extraordinaire and were so stupid as to be suicidal!

It is a worse example than comparing a 20 year old rusted out Lada with a brand new Volvo. At least the poor quality of a Lada wasn't radioactive!

What else ya got?

hold on, you claimed meltdown myths were a urban myth? now meltdown deaths don't count if they're inconvenient to your myth meme?

Chernobyl meltdown was the fault of human error, a conflict between engineers during safety tests...virtually all nuclear accidents are caused by human error...the nuclear meltdown that was caused by design error was Fukshima, an american design if I'm not mistaken...

back to your original question, fly to Chernobyl and ask if you can take a walk through unit 4 in order to verify that meltdowns are an urban myth incapable of killing people

what else ya got bill

Edited October 4, 2012 by wyly

[segnosaur]

hey maybe you can find some more 1970's links to back up your current knowledge...

Here's something more recent...

From: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Death rate:

Solar: 0.44 deaths/TWh

Nuclear: 0.04 deaths/TWh

And here's another one: http://www.fas.org/blogs/sciencewonk/2012/01/whither-nuclear-power/

...nuclear energy is less deadly (in terms of annual fatalities per gigawatt year of energy produced) than are coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, or solar energy.

Of course, that's more evidence than you've provided. But then, why would you need facts and evidence when you can just wave a magic talisman and go "oooo.... meltdown!".

or another wiki link hey there's a reliable source

The only time I posted a link to Wikipedia was when I was discussing the design of the Chernobyl reactor. Given the fact that design specs have been widely available and not exactly controversial I didn't think it would be an issue.

However, since you seem to insist on other sources, there is this:

From: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf31.html

The combination of graphite moderator and water coolant is found in no other power reactors in the world. As the Chernobyl accident showed, several of the RBMK's design characteristics – in particular, the control rod design and a positive void coefficient – were unsafe.

(This is an article from a nuclear support organization, they should have a pretty good idea of what a "good" reactor design is.)

And just in case you don't trust information from a "nuclear" organization, here's an article from a university source:

From: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/cherno2.html

this positive void coefficient for the RBMK exists under most operating conditions and makes them particularly difficult to control at low power levels. It also has a slow scram system. These soviet reactors are missing such safety features as the 6 to 8 inch steel reactor vessel and the steel and concrete reactor containment dome of the US light water reactors.

it's hilarious to watch the reaction (meltdown! ) from science challenged when they get their brilliant ideas picked apart and shot down...

Actually, its more frustration at the idiocy of people making repeated claims without even attempting to understand material that has been presented to them.

[Wild Bill]

hold on, you claimed meltdown myths were a urban myth? now meltdown deaths don't count if they're inconvenient to your myth meme?

Chernobyl meltdown was the fault of human error, a conflict between engineers during safety tests...virtually all nuclear accidents are caused by human error...the nuclear meltdown that was caused by design error was Fukshima, an american design if I'm not mistaken...

back to your original question, fly to Chernobyl and ask if you can take a walk through unit 4 in order to verify that meltdowns are an urban myth incapable of killing people

what else ya got bill

OK, for purposes of argument, you are right and I am wrong.

A meltdown happened in a country run by arrogant dillholes. That country no longer exists. The situation there was totally unique and not likely to ever be repeated again.

It existed. I concede. Still, I submit that it was an anomaly and no longer germane to any argument. Can you point to any country existing today that has both a reactor as f'd up and stupid in design as Chernobyl, run by equally f'd up people?

The test that destroyed Chernobyl was caused by a commissar type who over-ruled his engineers, NOT because of a disagreement between engineers as YOU stated! You really should google up the history of that disaster. It is a perfect example of what can happen under a statist socialist government.

A lot of politicians everywhere are stupid enough to think they know more than engineers about engineering situations but can you give us any country in the world as an example that could repeat the Chenobyl error?

Edited October 4, 2012 by Wild Bill