Surefire Safety: Nuclear Power Sets Benchmark for Safe, Reliable & Affordable Power Generation

Climate alarmists railing about carbon dioxide gas and not talking about nuclear power generation, can’t be taken seriously. Nuclear power is the only stand-alone power generation source that does not emit carbon dioxide gas during the process.

The fact that, among climate warriors, those seriously promoting nuclear power are few and far between, speaks volumes about what’s really driving them. If CO2 really was about to destroy the planet, these characters would be talking about nothing else but nuclear power, and how to deliver it to all and sundry.

Instead, for reasons that escape the logical and rational, we’re told that the only way forward is backwards: ie a life dependent upon the time of day and the weather.

Of course, if anyone wants hot showers and cold beer, wind and solar haven’t a hope of delivering them on cue.

When the argument eventually turns to the obvious merits of nuclear power, the zealots start frothing at the mouth about Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nothing about the facts, mind. Just the usual emotional claptrap about the horrors of radiation, blah, blah, blah.

However, the well-worn meme about the dangers of nuclear power doesn’t stand first contact with reality.

As Ronald Stein documents, nuclear power not only delivers a reliable and affordable stream of electrons, it does so in a manner that’s a whole lot safer than anything else humans engage in. Ronald records the fact that a mere 200 people are counted as casualties for the nuclear power generation industry – which has been operating in a major way since the 1960s, and has generated vast volumes of power since then. The French, for example, get 85% of their power from nuclear plants and haven’t suffered so much as a scratch since they started in 1962.

Ronald might have usefully added the fact that the wind industry (which really only got off the ground in the late 1990s and still generates a trifling amount of electricity) has clocked up around 190 fatalities, so far (eg, see above).

A moral case for zero emission electricity for all
CFact
Ronald Stein
21 May 2019

New energy pundits and soap box orators would have you believe, would shout at the top of their lungs, how dangerous nuclear reactors, nuclear fallout and the number of nuclear power plant accident caused deaths are. It’s enough to scare anyone away from the mere thought of accepting nuclear energy as a way to help electricity deficient nations move up the economic ladder. I applaud their efforts. However, the opposite is actually true.

Let’s examine the numbers and you can draw your own conclusion from a reasonable and lucid argument. Fear not the value of mathematics as a proponent of logic. Fear the hyperbole of scare tactics. If I may, I humbly present the numbers as a stand-alone argument for the safety of nuclear generated energy versus other causes of death around the globe.

Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. More than 80 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where income differentials are widening. In 2005, the wealthiest 20% of the world accounted for 76.6% of total private consumption. The poorest fifth just 1.5%.

Incredibly, the poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income. Water problems affect half of humanity.

11,000,000 child deaths every year of which more than 70 per cent are attributable to six causes: diarrhea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth. About 29,000 children under the age of five – 21 each minute – die every day, mainly from preventable causes.

When you include fatalities of “other than children” the numbers get even worse…

After that slice of morbidity I’d like to present a tad of relatively good news by taking a look at the safety of nuclear power reactors.

From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials from generating electricity with nuclear power. As in other industries, the design and operation of nuclear power plants aim to minimize the likelihood of accidents, and avoid major human consequences when they occur.

Nuclear related deaths: Worldwide total (not annually, but from inception of nuclear) nuclear deaths including Three Mile Island (March 1979), Chernobyl (April 1986) and Fukushima (March 2011) are LESS than 200.

Let me repeat that, to put the above numbers into perspective, of the millions and millions that die each year from starvation, diseases, weather, air pollution, driving, working, walking, and overdosing, nuclear related deaths have been less than 200 worldwide, not annually, but from inception of the industry.

Yes, there have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Three Mile Island (March 1979), Chernobyl (April 1986) and Fukushima (March 2011). One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity. These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 17,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operations in 33 countries.

Today there are about 450 nuclear reactors operating around the world. Additionally, there are 140 nuclear powered ships that have accumulated 12,000 reactor years of “safe” marine operation.

The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be and have been avoided.

It befuddles me why the antinuclear Left wants to kill it when the world is doing such a bang-up job killing itself by many other means far and above what historically the nuclear industry is actually credited with, comparatively speaking.

When looking at energy production, nuclear is superior to other forms of energy because of its unsurpassed power density, i.e., the most energy on the least land used to create it.

Developed countries across the globe are steadily increasing their nuclear power generating capacity with more than 50 reactors currently under construction. China has launched the most aggressive nuclear program on the planet, with plans to add about 150 new nuclear reactors to its fleet, and about 300 more are proposed.

For the world to turn its back on preventable deaths of 11 million children every year in underdeveloped countries is morally irresponsible, especially when there is a proven safe and emission free source of electricity energy available to them. Maybe it’s time to seriously look at bringing zero emission electricity to undeveloped countries which would save millions of lives and start them on the road to the prosperity we enjoy in our developed nations.
CFact

China caps off another safe as houses nuclear plant.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. Great book to read:
    Merchants Of Despair, by nuclear PhD engineer Robert Zubrin.
    Clearly shows the safety stats of nuclear vs other power systems.
    Discusses both fusion & molten salt systems.
    Shows how nuclear has been demonised by the 1%s owned fake news MSM media, & held back by over-regulation & under-funding.
    Grimly, Zubrin also shows clearly the eugenicist & Nazi roots of the 1%s who have hijacked the worthy cause of environmentalism, using perverted forms of Darwinian & Malthusian “science”, & the depopulation & Communist agendas which they pursue through “environmental” groups such as Greenpeace & WWF.
    The US EPA, Emvironmental Protection Agency “banned” DDT,proven safe, & caused probably 100 million deaths via malaria in the 3rd world. A true holocaust.
    A must read.
    John Doran.

  2. Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  3. hermann bautzmann says:

    The vast majority of deaths from nuclear accidents were in a Socialist/communist country and they had to work really hard and do some really stupid things to make that happen

    Sent from my iPad, Hank

    >

  4. Not mentioned here is the development of Molton Salt modular Reactors which would remove the risks of radiative escape as witnessed in the three disasters since they operate at near atmospheric pressure.
    The safety of nuclear generation is quite apparent; but currently lies with a layer of green dust upon it.

    Robert Hargreaves’ s “THORIUM energy cheaper than coal” is a good start to get a picture on the potential and the minimal risks involved.

    • Indeed, & thorium (inherently safe) molten salt systems can use up existing nuclear “waste” as fuel, in safety.
      It’s a win-win.
      John Doran.

  5. Reblogged this on Climate- Science.

  6. Ertimus says:

    If Australia was lucky enough to have a similar affliction to the Fukushima deviance the cost could cripple Australia for decades.

    • If you are suggesting that moving to nuclear power would cripple this country by reason of its cost, the evidence is all against you. France gets close to 75% of its power from nukes and enjoys prices less than half those here. Pennsylvania gets 40% from nukes and enjoys prices around a third of those suffered here.

      https://stopthesethings.com/2018/03/20/power-vacuum-australias-energy-crisis-screaming-out-for-nuclear-option/

      So, we suggest you attempt another angle to attack the merits of nuclear power generation. Because the cost argument goes nowhere. But you keep trying!

    • Here in Oz Nuclear (current proven technology) would be more expensive than coal but nowhere near as expensive as is the current subsidised wind and solar madness.

      • Bon, part of the basis for STT’s support for nuclear is that the war on carbon dioxide gas, and by default coal fired power, will never end. At least not in our lifetimes. Accordingly, if Australia wants volumes of reliable and affordable power, the end game has to be nuclear. That fact that the climate alarmasists are not fighting for it says a lot about their actual objectives.

  7. Parts of Europe are progressing in the right direction, although sadly not the UK. https://www.fircroft.com/blogs/8-major-european-nuclear-power-projects-to-watch-in-2019-and-beyond-91492916433

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: