Everyone is going further and further up the chain in terms of the effect on the environment or health etc of Nuclear, Wind, Solar etc etc. So I thought I would throw in another missing number from the number of deaths in the industry dept.
Three points I would like to make (keeping in mind that I am generally pro nuclear over coal):
How many people are aware of the number of deaths each year just in Coal Mines alone.
Quoted from
China D-News:
"The figure for China is around 7,000 (Official figures indicate more than 7,000 workers die each year in China's coal mines, mainly from poor control of gas density, flooding and lack of safety awareness. However, Hong Kong-based human rights group China Labor Bulletin puts the number of industry deaths at around 20,000."
Secondly, I suspect that a lot of the hysteria and paranoia around nuclear fired power stations is because people relate fission power stations with Nuclear weapons. How many average Joes could tell you the difference between the two? I was shocked recently when I asked quite a few family and friends as to what sort of explosion occured in Chernobyl. Almost without exception they all replied matter-of-factly that it was a nuclear explosion (not hydrogen). Mind you who cares how the rasdioactive material ends up in the atmosphere, its the fact that its there that counts. However there is no blinding flash of radiation, or nuclear winds...etc etc that people associate with Nuclear weapons.
Thirdly, there seems to be a bit of a misconception that Nuclear is both cheaper and cleaner. I wont weigh into the cleaner debate, I have already chosen my horse on that one, but as for cheaper... I live in Australia which has some of the worlds largest uranium deposits however Coal is still a (shit load) cheaper than uranium here. Add that to the comparison between plant build costs and dont expect nuclear to give you a power bill reduction any time soon. -
The Nuclear Tourist lists the costs as slightly dearer for Nuclear than coal fired, however this would differ from country to country.
I know I only said three points...but some final things for consideration. In my mind (and I will state here once again that I am generally pro-nuclear) the real safet issues around Nuclear generation are those of politics not engineering or technology (those have for the most part been solved already). The real issue comes about when once responsible governments are replaced by irresponsible governments or economics change etc etc. Suddnely you have the issues of
:
reduced capital expenditure on equipment leading to aged plants
reduced focus on safety and controls as costs are cut
the possibility of enriched uranium being sold on black markets to help fund poorly managed economies
the possibility of uranium reactors and their resultant technology being used to research enrichment and possible weapons grade material
inability or unwillingess to deal with waste due to political or financial factors.
Like most things the biggest problem with technology is the people who use or abuse it.
I think there is far too much extremism in this debate (always has been). Until you can define problems both on your side of the fence and your enemies, you will never be able to actually work towards trying to solve them.
