Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes

[Chippiewill]

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).
http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html

We may as well commence decommissioning all fossil fuel power plants and switch to good ol' nuclear.

[GommeInc]

I've never understood the fear related to Nuclear when there are so many benefits to using it as an energy source. We cannot survive on fossil fuels and renewables such as tidal, solar and wind energy as they are either unreliable, damaging or not powerful enough to supply the country. Nuclear is the only viable option. I'm amazed this study even needed to be done, given how nuclear power doesn't come with environmental hazards like pollution - disasters are very few and avoidable.

[Nistez]

Some people think that everything that says nuclear has to do with bombs and massive destructions. That's wrong. Nuclear energy has proven to be safer, cheaper, and less damageable to the environment.

[Grig]

Yes, it's just nuclear power when in the wrong hands can cause much more wide-spread destruction much quicker. That element is scary. This is especially true for countries who are rogue states.

Gomme, you claim that we can't rely on nonrenewable and that is very valid, but at the same time we will never have the whole world filled in angelic states that can be trusted with nuclear energy.

[Chippiewill]

given how nuclear power doesn't come with environmental hazards like pollution.
Nuclear Fission definitely results in a heck of a lot of pollution in the form of Nuclear Waste.

---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 06:35 PM ----------


Yes, it's just nuclear power when in the wrong hands can cause much more wide-spread destruction much quicker. That element is scary.

Actually it's not really the nuclear power which is all that bothersome, the concern is Terrorists getting a hold of some nuclear waste and making a dirty bomb.

[Grig]

Nuclear Fission definitely results in a heck of a lot of pollution in the form of Nuclear Waste.

---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 06:35 PM ----------



Actually it's not really the nuclear power which is all that bothersome, the concern is Terrorists getting a hold of some nuclear waste and making a dirty bomb.

The story behind the Chernobyl disaster were not a bunch of terrorists making a dirty bomb :P. Even without bad intentions things can go very wrong, very fast with very grave consequences.

[Chippiewill]

Chernobyl's main failing was a poorly designed reactor. Most modern reactors would struggle to actually 'meltdown' in this day and age.

[Grig]

Chernobyl's main failing was a poorly designed reactor. Most modern reactors would struggle to actually 'meltdown' in this day and age.

***ushima... 2011.


Dodgy reactors in dodgy locations will always be a problem, so it's not as safe as you may think.

[Chippiewill]

***ushima... 2011.


Dodgy reactors in dodgy locations will always be a problem, so it's not as safe as you may think.

***ishima was again poorly designed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that nuclear power and coal, gas, oil and shale gas are the only viable means of powering a nation. Sadly though, although that's clear to us with our heads screwed on properly - the EU commits us to having 20% of our energy come from renewables (which are utterly worthless) and our politicians go along with it.

The lights are destined to go off in a few years, but let it not be said that nobody warned us (http://ukip.org/media/policies/energy.pdf).

[GommeInc]

***ushima... 2011.
That arguably didn't have a melt down. External forces caused the problems - had there of been no earthquake and therefore no tsunami, there wouldn't of been any problems at the plant. However, as Chippiewill has said - it was poorly designed for the unstable environment it was built in.

[Grig]

***ishima was again poorly designed.

And this is the exact point.

I agree, nuclear energy is the most viable solution, but it would there would be rogue states getting hands on this energy and developing it into weapons technology, as well as things such as bad and fault designs. Although the probabilities of death is lower of that than nonrenewables, when it does happen, it is far more catastrophic. So no-one can sit here and preach it's all fine and dandy.

[Chippiewill]

***ishima was not a modern reactor which was my point. A well designed modern reactor, like most American ones, are not prone to failure from e.g. power loss.

[Ardemax]

I think 2 new ones have been proposed/planned in the UK? Is it in Somerset and Anglesey?