This is sure to get some enviros in a tizzy.
From Chemical and Engineering News of the American Chemical Society:
Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes
Climate Change: Study estimates that nuclear energy leads to substantially fewer pollution-related deaths and greenhouse gas emissions compared with fossil-fuel sources
Using nuclear power in place of fossil-fuel energy sources, such as coal, has prevented some 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths globally and could save millions of more lives in coming decades, concludes a study. The researchers also find that nuclear energy prevents emissions of huge quantities of greenhouse gases. These estimates help make the case that policymakers should continue to rely on and expand nuclear power in place of fossil fuels to mitigate climate change, the authors say (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es3051197).
In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, critics of nuclear power have questioned how heavily the world should rely on the energy source, due to possible risks it poses to the environment and human health.
“I was very disturbed by all the negative and in many cases unfounded hysteria regarding nuclear power after the Fukushima accident,” says report coauthor Pushker A. Kharecha, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.
Working with Goddard’s James E. Hansen, Kharecha set out to explore the benefits of nuclear power. The pair specifically wanted to look at nuclear power’s advantages over fossil fuels in terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Kharecha was surprised to find no broad studies on preventable deaths that could be attributed to nuclear power’s pollution savings. But he did find data from a 2007 study on the average number of deaths per unit of energy generated with fossil fuels and nuclear power (Lancet, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61253-7). These estimates include deaths related to all aspects of each energy source from mining the necessary natural resources to power generation. For example, the data took into account chronic bronchitis among coal miners and air pollution-related conditions among the public, including lung cancer.
Read more here http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html
Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was interviewed by a snotty reporter about the expected radiation deaths from Fukushima. She nearly blew a gasket when I told her that it was unlikely that there would be any. I told her to get back to me in three years and tell me what she learned. I don’t expect to hear from her.
John K. Sutherland. (johnksutherland.com)
The Linear No Threshold dictum is truly bad science, but is loved by wackos who like to calculate body counts where they do not occur (eg. Greenpeace and the EPA).
As an example, using an aspirin analogy: We know that if one person takes 200 asprin at one time (an acute high dose of 200 aspirin) that the person is likely to die.
We then assume from this (at least some people do) that if 200 persons each take one aspirin (a population dose of 200 aspirin, but a low acute dose to those persons) that one of them will die, as 200 asprin to one or all is fatal; and so on (0.1 Aspirin taken by 2,000 people, or 0.01 aspirin taken by 20,000 people etc, ad nauseam). The LNT hypothesis also assumes that if one person takes 200 aspirin over the course of several years, that they will have received a fatal dose of aspirin and should be dead. (By this reasoning I have died about 50 times over) This is assumed to be the way it works with radiation too, no matter how low the dose, or the dose rate.
This is the way the EPA functions and various other scientificaly challenged groups.
If radiation were truly dangerous, we would have tens of thousands of people dropping like flies each year, after hospital radiation treatments that are thousands of times greater than maximum permissible occupational radiation doses. Radiation saves thousands of times more lives than it might place at risk.
John K. Sutherland.
re: bushbunny says: April 2, 2013 at 7:49 pm
The cooling water from a nuclear power plant isn’t at all contaminated – it never runs through the core of the reactor. Heat exchangers are used to transfer heat from water that loops through the core, to the separate system that uses cooling water from whatever water source is available. Then there are very strict regulations on the temperature of the discharge water also – typically it can’t be any more than 2 degrees (or less, depending on the site) warmer than the intake water. The discharge water is also constantly monitored, just as is the air around the station, to ensure that there isn’t any radioactive discharge from a leak developing or anything along those lines.
Re: Wayne Delbeke says: April 2, 2013 at 9:31 pm
I’ve never seen a single reputable source showing any cancer spike that could be attributed to above ground nuclear tests. Wayne, if it’s not too much trouble for you to dig out the references you note, I’d be interested in seeing them. Unless they’re from well known anti-nuclear activist fanatics such as Helen Caldicott, who makes absurd specious claims all the time that no reputable expert will support.
re: Jer0me says: April 3, 2013 at 12:19 am
Hi Jer0me,
It depends on what you include, and I’m assuming you mean from radiation, not common industrial type accidents that occur at any major facility. Commercial nuclear power has one of the best safety records of any industry – you are literally safer working in a USA nuclear power plant than being in your own home (darned those gutters that have to be cleaned using ladders we fall off of, kids toys to trip over, stairs to fall down…).
For commercial nuclear power, there have only been three major accidents. Chernobyl you already noted – I believe the death toll there, however, is still in the mid 50’s. Many of those wouldn’t have occurred had there been emergency planning in place like there is in the USA, and had the USSR not tried to cover up the accident. Also worth noting that it was a weapons facility that incidentally produced power too, so the deaths there aren’t attributable to commercial nuclear power.
Then of course, Fukushima; zero deaths, zero injuries from radiation. There were 6 workers exposed to far higher radiation levels than any others – those 6 have a calculated possible 1% increased lifetime risk of developing cancer. In other words because of their radiation exposure, instead of the 25% lifetime cancer risk everyone else in Japan has, they might have a 26% lifetime risk. That’s a big if, and a worst case calculation. There may be no increased risk at all.
The third major accident was Three Mile Island (TMI) of course, and there were no fatalities or injuries or even significant exposures there. Multiple massive epidemiological studies long after TMI occurred have also shown zero increase in any cancer rates. That’s actually true for any county adjacent to or downwind from any nuclear facility in the USA.
Apart from Chernobyl, there have been zero deaths from radiation exposure related to commercial nuclear power plants of any sort. That’s from over over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 32 countries.
If you add research reactors, however, there are a handful of deaths that have occurred in over 60 years of research. All of those fatalities were researchers who were immediately involved in the research.
If you expand and include medical and industrial uses of radioactivity, the numbers are much larger.
Here’s a starter article for any who are interested: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/#.UV0Lc6NvCK8
re: Steve Dekker says: April 3, 2013 at 12:32 am
Thorium as fuel for nuclear reactors has been tantalizing for many many years, but there are still some pretty major technological hurdles before it’s anywhere near ready to be used in commercial scale reactors. Frankly there’s not much impetus to wait or use it instead of Generation III conventional nuclear power reactors. There’s more than enough uranium available for fuel for hundreds of years, those systems are already fully developed and in use in large commercial facilities, they’re extremely safe, and we’ve got the technological and scientific ability to handle the spent fuel without problems.
Also note, there’s been more than just the single example you provided of thorium use in reactors. Here’s an article that lists those, and addresses both the merits and the drawbacks with thorium, along with how it could be used in many different types of reactors:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Thorium/#.UV0QfaNvCK8
re: johnmarshall says: April 3, 2013 at 4:32 am
I have a hard time faulting Fukushima power plant siting or design – consider that those were 40 year old plants, using 50+ year old designs, which were hit by the 5th largest earthquake EVER recorded, and then a 50+ foot high tsunami. The earthquake and tsunami killed almost 20,000 people, another 27,000+ injured, 1.2 MILLION buildings damaged, demolished over 200,000 buildings, including something like 200 that were specifically built to be earthquake/tsunami shelters!
Yet while Fukushima had a terrible accident for any nuclear power plant, it essentially withstood those impacts, right on the coast with the worst effects, with only two people who happened to be in the turbine building basement drowned by the tsunami. No one else was injured or killed during the event, and I think only two or three workers have died since, one or two of heart attack while working, one with a crane accident – and none injured or killed by radiation.
It’s also worth noting that some residents fled TO a nuclear power reactor which was also on the coast only 75 miles from Fukushima for safety from the tsunami. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/30/onagawa-tsunami-refugees-nuclear-plant
Frankly I think the fact that the Fukushima reactors survived as well as they did is a testament to robust design and construction (particularly considering that they were unable or unprepared to get help from outside with such a major disaster along the entire coast, until it was too late). This is even more true for the other multiple reactors along Japans western coast line that survived the massive earthquake and tsunami without any significant harm or accident. There are, after all, about 20 reactors along Japan’s western coastline, and problems only occurred with the three Fukushima reactors (3 others at the site were unaffected).
re: oldfossil says: April 3, 2013 at 10:33 am
There’s a latency period of many years between exposure to radiation, and any development of detectible thyroid problems. In other words, any cysts or problems they’re discovering now, didn’t come from exposure to Fukushima radiation. It’s far too early for anything to be seen that way yet. For just one example of research showing this delay between exposure and subsequent thyroid issues, see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1356259/
re: Steve Dekker says: April 3, 2013 at 11:31 am
Sorry Steve, but thorium fuel based reactors aren’t ready for prime time yet. I’ve already posted a link to an article that provides some of it’s problems and drawbacks.
re: oldfossil says: April 3, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Health Physics is the field of radiological safety and biological effects. Most health physicists don’t believe the Linear No Threshold theory to be correct – and that’s been true for decades. For example, see a 1998 article by Bernie Cohen: http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/cohen.htm
Consider also the latest United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) report, released Dec 2012, which “states that uncertainties at low doses are such that UNSCEAR “does not recommend multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or below natural background levels.” See:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/
There are thousands of studies which actually support the theory of radiation hormesis – e.g., that at low levels of exposure, health is actually improved, not harmed. There are virtually none that refute hormesis, although many simply state that below certain exposure levels (around 10 rem, acute dose) even long term epidemiological studies are unable to find any negative effect. Those, however, aren’t looking for possible positive effects, they’re just trying to find negative effects, and are unable to do so. This is even more true for exposures over longer time periods rather than acute exposures (minutes to hours).
re: jsuther2013 says: April 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Well said. The aspirin analogy is a good one – recall also that huge numbers of people are now routinely ordered by their doctors to take a baby aspirin a day for heart issues. If LNT were applied, that would massively increase deaths – instead, it saves lives by reducing heart attacks. Consider all the myriad things such as vitamins too – too little, you get sick or die, too much, you get sick or die. For most things, when it comes to interaction with biological systems, LNT fails dismally – there is almost always a threshold below which the substance doesn’t harm or is even essential.
[snip]
Rational Db8 says: April 3, 2013 at 10:01 pm “The cooling water from a nuclear power plant isn’t at all contaminated – it never runs through the core of the reactor.”
Primary cooling water is not significantly contaminated. Radiochemistry is done at high power with minimal PPE and no special precautions. The flow path is arranged to decay the significant nuclide and the internal polishers are very effective. Visual particulate contamination is usually less than detectable in units of parts-per-billion.
Back in the bad old days it was not unheard of to surreptitiously drink coolant to demonstrate its harmlessness to trainees. Of course, back then we were allowed to analogize dog-poo on a shoe to radioactivity and contamination.
First Hansen acknowledges that anthropogenic CO2 (and nitrate) is fertilizing plant growth and CO2 reduction, thus reducing the airborne fraction; now he makes this pro-nuclear statement. Are we seeing the beginning of a Damascus road conversion?
Dear Rational and phlogiston, I appreciate your informed comments but when it comes down to it really is the expense of nuclear. I can’t see Australia moving that way for a long time. However, if the coalition government get in next September, we might see some move in that direction, but we are heavily in debt right now. Now the Swan’s admission that superannuants will be taxed 15% on their super over $100,000 when it was previously free, we might have an earlier general election than September.
Cheers to all, at least CO2 has been given some extra life.
I wonder what Al has to say? James and the late Stephen were his scientific advisers.
Here is a good short review on the biological fallacy of the LNT (linear no threshold) hypothesis of radiation carcinogenesis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/
Thanks to Rational Db8, jsuther2013, Doug Huffman, bushbunny and others for some much-needed knowledge based common sense concerning nuclear technology and radiation risk.
The big thing now in Oz is fracking, or gas mining and the problem with contamination of water sources. I think a lot of the flames coming from water taps, comes from a CSI episode, Fracking, shown on TV. But the worry of Gas mining is a problem if there is a risk of contaminating water sources, particularly water tables, that are not renewable as people think. Seems the same problem has been experienced in UK and USA. Any thoughts on this, I am worried the rumours could have some scientific basis. We know or think chemical fertilizers can contaminate water wells. And Oz needs all the water it can count on particularly 150 miles inland from the oceans, where droughts are common. Usually followed by floods mind you.
re: bushbunny says: April 4, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Hi bushbunny,
Let me preface this by saying that I’m referring to lifecycle costs per unit energy produced. Nuclear is vastly cheaper, has far less environmental impact, and is far more reliable than solar (including thermal solar) and wind. Where coal and natural gas is plentiful and cheap as it currently is in the USA, then they are cheaper than nuclear – but fuel costs can have a large effect on the price of energy produced if fuel costs rise. I don’t have any idea how costs for coal and natural gas compare in Australia, however.
Otherwise, in terms of cost per unit energy produced, nuclear is well within the running. The initial capital expense is, of course, large – but then you have 40+ years of 90%+ capacity production, with low operating and maintenance costs (assuming reasonably good management). Most of our plants that have already operated 40 years, or are approaching that, have already obtained significant license extensions – which means cost per unit energy produced drops even further. Added bonus is that even if fuel costs double for nuclear, so little is needed it has very little effect on the price of the energy produced. Consider also that while inital capital costs are large, you are also getting a power plant that sits on almost no space environmentally speaking, has almost no emissions, and produces massive amounts of power. In other words, I think you will find that if you look at lifecycle costs per unit energy that can be reasonably expected to be produced, nuclear isn’t that expensive. Remember that with wind, for example, you’re lucky if you get an average of 25% of the installed capacity in actual production, and it’s very violative which causes massive grid problems. Similar issues exist with solar – and both do huge damage to the environment with a massive footprint.
re your April 5, 2013 at 7:30 pm comment. There has been zero evidence of any water table or well contamination from fracking in the USA, other than at wells next to the drill onsite. In the USA, the video’s and claims of gas in tap water that can be set on fire are all from areas where that was occurring long before there was any fracking – those areas naturally have large amounts of methane in the water supply. It’s also well worth noting that the fracking fluids are far less worrisome now than they used to be. One CEO actually drank pure fracking fluid to prove that it is safe.
Hydro can be a great option – if you have suitable locations for it.. and typically that’s very limited. Plus, the environmentalists have a huge problem with hydro because of the effect on fish migration etc.,caused by the dam, you also have a large risk to downstream populations should the dam break, and the necessary reservoir destroys huge swaths of the environment – tho you get an awfully nice lake to play on and fish. :0)
Geothermal I’m not terribly familiar with – but suitable sites are pretty limited, and I gather they are quite expensive.
Oil, well, we’re all familiar with oil – how expensive or cheap it is for electrical production all depends on where you live, and what it’s current price is… In the next decade or two fracking may completely change that whole situation too. The USA is virtually swimming in practically recoverable, competitively priced shale oil available to fracking, in addition to a lot of conventional sources that politics have placed off limits.
For those who are concerned about costs, environmental effects, waste disposal etc of nuclear, I shall direct your attention to these other papers that I wrote:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/author.cfm?at_id=283
This site is heavily travelled and although the papers are not peer reviewed, that does not mean that they get through unscathed as you can see by the comments (often uninformed, but many which are superbly informed) which follow them.
John K. Sutherland.
I would like to see more hydro, but in Australia we have to consider the impact of dams down stream. Actually I did an essay on the affects of the Lake Nasser on the Nile and Delta fishing particularly. The fishing industry failed for a number of years because of the decrease of micro planton that fed on the annual floods silt. Malaria and that snail infestation increased at first because of the increase of stagnated water. But vaccines became available. When I was in Egypt years ago before the Aswan dam project, it wasn’t uncommon to see people squatting in the Nile and they used human pooh to fertilize their gardens. Hence the need for chemical fertilizers now, to compensate for the lack of silt. But – nature adjusts, and the micro plantons came back, and the delta fishing industry recovered, but took 30 years. We have hot spots in Australia, mainly in SA and some near Melbourne. The SA project they stopped because of lack of funding and subsidized solar and wind instead. The government ignored an electricity plant somewhere that burned sugar cane refuse and supplied 500 homes with electricity. With less greenhouse gas contamination than coal. For dispersed communities in the bush, this was a viable project, but no subsidies of course. I don’t think it is still operating I will research.