People talk about nuclear power being deadly and dangerous. They can list some radiation leaks and spills.
Where are the deaths in those incidents ? How much is the radiation above background levels ? Did the leak have more radiation than an equal amount of wine or seawater ?
With my coal examples below plenty of deaths. I think things are more dangerous when they have a history of killing a lot more people. Not killing more then not more dangerous.
Price Anderson only kicks in for damage above $10 billion. No payouts by the government and no costs to this point. Only industry payments have been collected.
As of 2000, there were more than 600 coal sludge impoundments across the Appalachian coalfields. Chemical analyses of this sludge indicate it contains large amounts of arsenic, mercury, lead, copper, and chromium, among other toxins, which eventually seep into the drinking water supply of nearby communities. Even worse than this seepage, however, is the threat of a dam break. Several dam breaches have occurred, one at Buffalo Creek in West Virginia, which took the lives of 125 people, many of whom were children.
Buffalo Creek damage still from film: The Buffalo Creek Flood: An Act of Man
Directed by Mimi Pickering B&W, 40 minutes, 1975: On February 26, 1972, a coal waste dam owned by the Pittston Company collapsed at the head of a crowded hollow in southern West Virginia. A wall of sludge, debris, and water tore through the valley below, leaving in its wake 125 dead, 1121 injured and 4000 homeless. Interviews with survivors, representatives of union and citizen's groups, and officials of the Pittston Company are juxtaposed with actual footage of the flood and scenes of the ensuing devastation.
The 15- to 20-foot black wave of water gushed at an average of 7 feet per second and destroyed one town after another. A resident of Amherstdale commented that before the water reached her town, "There was such a cold stillness. There was no words, no dogs, no nothing. It felt like you could reach out and slice the stillness." -- quote from Everything in Its Path, by Kai T. Erikson
The most recent sludge dam breach was in Martin County, Kentucky, in 2000, which the EPA called the worst environmental disaster in the history of the Southeast. When the sludge dam breached, more than 300 million gallons of toxic sludge (about 30 times the amount of oil released in the Exxon Valdez oil spill) poured into tributaries of the Big Sandy River, killing virtually all aquatic life for 70 miles downstream of the spill.
Where was the insurance on that ? Where are the fish in that sludge ?
Mountain top removal coal mining : 800+ square miles of mountains are estimated to be already destroyed.
More than 7 percent of Appalachian forests have been cut down and more than 1,200 miles of streams across the region have been buried or polluted between 1985 and 2001.
FURTHER READING
Buffalo Creek Disaster at West Virginia division of culture and history
Names of the Buffalo Creek dead
All a drop in the ocean to the lives lost to coal and fossil fuel air pollution. 3 million per year Even though air pollution is the more deadly, the visuals of the coal sludge damage is more easy to relate and understand. Millions getting sick more often and dieing in hospitals is not as easy to comprehend.
Air pollution deaths have become somewhat more insidious than flagrant incidents like the London Fog of 1952By Sunday, Dec. 7, visibility fell to one foot. Roads were littered with abandoned cars. Cattle in the city's Smithfield market were killed and thrown away before they could be slaughtered and sold — their lungs were black. On the second day of the smog, Saturday, Dec. 6, 500 people died in London. When the ambulances stopped running, thousands of gasping Londoners walked through the smog to the city's hospitals. The lips of the dying were blue.
The death rate shot up during the week of the fog. A study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives indicates 12,000 may have been killed by the great smog.
April 24, 2008
Coal is more deadly and dangerous than nuclear power
April 22, 2008
EPA confirms the link between Ozone Air (smog) Pollution and Premature Death
Short-term exposure to current levels of ozone in many areas is likely to contribute to premature deaths, says a new National Research Council report, which adds that the evidence is strong enough that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should include ozone-related mortality in health-benefit analyses related to future ozone standards.
The Full text of the report, Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution, is here
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has tried to reduce controls on air pollution and argued against linking pollution with early deaths. One case involves the EPA's decision last month to tighten the ozone health standard and reduce the allowable air concentration. The OMB argued in the cost-benefit analysis that there was "considerable uncertainty" in the association between ozone levels and deaths. As a result, the EPA issued a cost-benefit range from an annual net societal cost of $20 billion to a savings of $23 billion, depending largely on whether the lives saved from ozone-related premature deaths are considered. Now that cost benefit would be $23 billion because of $3 billion in ozone related premature deaths.
Environmentalists and health advocates have long argued that multiple health studies suggest exposure to smoggy air not only aggravates respiratory problems, but also causes thousands of annual deaths.
April 02, 2008
Energy plan
Updating and synthesizing my articles on energy into an energy plan. I will update this article with more updates and synthesize past and new information that I have gathered.
Short term
Efficiency and drilling for regular and enhanced recovery, policy that discourages coal and fossil fuel and encourages nuclear and renewables. Try to reduce fuel usage 2-4% per year and try to increase oil from drilling and biofuels by 3-6% per year.
Mid Term
Big nuclear buildup and thermoelectric and transmission efficiency Triple nuclear power by 2020 by using new uprate technology and advanced thermoelectrics and some new plants. (25% from nuclear instead of 8.2% and 17% less fossil fuel. I would reduce coal first - 30,000 deaths from coal air pollution, 60,000 deaths from combined coal and fossil fuel air pollution in the USA. Plus moving 1.2 billion
tons of coal is 40% of freight rail traffic and 10% of diesel fuel usage.)
Can get up to six times more nuclear by 2030. Displace all coal and a lot of oil.
Mid-Long Term
Very advanced nuclear fission and nuclear fusion and better renewables (geothermal, wind [kitegen, superconducting wind turbines], solar [concentrated solar in municipal or rural power configurations. My favorite is CoolEarth's solar balloons], genetically modified organisms for biofuel)
BACKGROUND ON THE BIG ENERGY PICTURE
Oil and fossil fuels are clearly critical in the near and mid-term and any shift away or reduction in usage is a very difficult task. Of the 100 quadrillion BTUs that the US uses 85% comes from fossil fuels. (It coincidently means that 1 quad BTU is about equal to 1%. World usage is a little over 4 times more with a slightly different energy mix)
(Dept of Energy figures for 2006)
40% of that is from oil (20-22 million barrels per day about 12-13 million barrels per day imported, recent high prices have dropped oil usage by 400,000 or so barrels per day, which is more than all geothermal, wind and solar combined)
23% from coal (mainly supplying 50% of electricity)
23% from natural gas
8.2% nuclear
3.3% wood based mainly, waste and biofuel
2.9% hydro
0.35% geothermal
0.27% wind (3 year wait for a new turbine if you order today)
0.07% solar (years to make factories, roof systems do not pay back costs to buy and install)
Energy use is currently close to evenly split between residential home (electricity and heating), industrial and transportation.
EFFICIENCY, CONSERVATION AND POLICY
Home energy and industrial plant efficiency should be improved. Policy should be adjusted so that someone can more easily capture the return on efficiency investment. the problem is that I might not be motivated to put in more insulation and a better water heater [more cost effective and provides more energy savings than installing solar power] and appliances if I am selling the place in a few years or if I am renting it out and not paying for utilities anyway).
East coast homes using heating oil should be converted to electric heating.
Only 14-16 million new cars and trucks each year out of about 300 million cars and trucks in the USA (800 million in the world) We need to get the old cars and trucks that are driven on the highway a lot retrofitted with aftermarket adjustments to make them more aerodynamic. highway mileage can be increased 25% fairly easily. Maybe
10% of fuel for cars and trucks could be saved. This would mean 5% of total US oil or 1 million barrels per day. (5-10 years for a strongly supported program)
Reduce highway speed limits back to 55 or 60 mph and other policy modifications.
Hybrids and electric cars. Using ultracapacitors and batteries or all ultracapacitors.
Mixing folding electric bikes/scooters with public transportation.
[China is making 30 million electric bikes and scooters each year. In 5-7 years most of the 500 million bike riders in China could shift to electric bikes and scooters]
OIL
There is quite a bit of oil in Alaska but it would take 5-10 years once we started to try and drill to get up to 1 million or so barrels per day. They talk about 10-40 billion barrels of oil there. I view it is a secondary and larger strategic oil reserve. If things get desperate enough for whatever reason it will be drilled.
Nearer term and not controversial is the Bakken oil field. Known for quite a while but until recently with high prices and new drilling tech not thought to be economic. Now it is the hot and profitable new play in oil. USGS (geological survey) released a new study that confirmed the current recoverable oil as 3 to 4.3 billion barrels of oil in the US portion. Past estimates 200 - 800 billion barrels of oil in place. It is under North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It is a thin layer of light oil (the good stuff sandwiched between shale).
Many more agile oil firms are going after it (including what used to be called Enron.)
Many of the wells are paying back in 3-12 months. Costs double to drill the horizontal wells with stacked fracturing versus a traditional well.
About 140,000 barrels per day now from Sask and USA. Maybe 250,000 barrels per day by the end of 2008, Maybe double the year after. Saskatchewan in Canada is a bit ahead in drilling this play. North Dakota, Montana need to build refineries and pipelines to get the oil out in order to scale this up in say five years to million barrels per day plus.
New Gulf of Mexico oil find by Chevron will also have significant oil in 5 years. Mega oil projects worldwide will be the primary determiner of how much oil is available. The US has the Thunder Horse deep oil rig which should add 250,000 barrels of oil per day. The USA uses about 21 million barrels of oil per day and imports 10 to 11 million barrels of oil per day.
Enhanced oil recovery could tap more of the previously used wells. 300 billion barrels could be extracted from old wells in the USA. Enhanced recovery can help recover more oil in Canada's oilsands and the US oil shale in colorado (but those are longer term projects)
NUCLEAR
In spite of almost no new reactors being built in the USA for 2-3 decades, nuclear power has been increasing because of higher operating efficiency and power uprates (different kinds of traditional uprates +2%, +5% and +10-20%). Most gains from better operations.
There is technology (from MIT and other places will take about ten years to fully deploy, could be faster but regulatory issues) that would enable increasing the power from current reactors by 30-50% by changing the coating and configuration (shape of the nuclear fuel). The fuel also makes the reactors safer.
In 2015-2020 we should have built 10-20 of the 30-32 reactors that will have applied for licenses. New uprating technology could add the equivalent of 30-50 new reactors by making better fuel.
Idaho national labs plan for making current reactors better
McCain and Lieberman had a climate change bill that the EIA (DOE's energy information agency analysed). It could increase nuclear power by 20% by 2020 and triple it by 2030. Because any legislation that increases the cost of coal and natural gas means the next best option is nuclear for utilities. Coal plants are about as big and take several years to build similar to nuclear plants. China builds coal plants at 1 per week. 1984 there were 28 nuclear plants completed worldwide. 1974 there were 12 nuclear plants completed in the USA.
THERMOELECTRIC
Coal and nuclear reactors only use about 33% of the heat energy that they generate. Steam generator efficiency. Some plants are located where the low grade steam heat can be used for biofuel power input or new desalination.
New thermoelectric technology (electronics to convert heat to electricity) could increase efficiency from 33% up to 45-60%. Again a huge boost. Some of this work is funded as part of the Freedomcar project (GE, Catipillar and others working on it). The other way to boost thermo efficiency would be to switch to new high temperature nuclear reactor designs [Modular Helium reactor 47% thermal efficiency]. Higher temperatures allow for higher conversion.
Current nuclear reactors as good as they are basically reactors designed for submarines during the 1950s. There were and are nuclear reactor designs that could use 98% of the nuclear fuel instead of 5%. Thus 93% of the "nuclear waste" which is unburned fuel could be used for energy generation. It would mean completing new reactor designs and building out new reactors (7-10 to new reactors another 10-15
years to get significant build out.)
OTHER TECHNOLOGY
Possible breakthroughs with privately funded nuclear fusion projects.
5-20 year timeframes if they work out. I believe the Bussard and Tri-Alpha Energy project and the General Fusion project should work out. Even a ten fission reactor to one expensive nuclear fusion reactor would be important.
BACKGROUND READING
All external costs and internal costs compared for different energy sources
Current central power source analysis by the DOE
Specifics of the MIT 50% uprate with new fuel
Past standard uprates and operating efficiency gains, France is uprating about half of their reactors by 7%
Lifecycle CO2 analysis
EROEI comparison for different energy sources
A new centrifuge is 20 times more energy efficient at enriching uranium for reactor fuel.
Nuclear power build not materially constrained
Idaho national labs strategic plan for light water reactors would work out issues of preping the supply chain for 10+ reactors per year by the USA.
Staffing up nuclear power (other energy also has staffing and supply chain issues, 3 year wait for a wind turbine, grid buildout for serious shift to wind, new factories and supply chain for solar). Idaho national labs strategic plan for light water reactors also addresses staffing.
The EIA analysis of the effect of a climate change bill passing Two to three times more nuclear power from increased nuclear plant build. It does not consider the MIT work or the thermoelectrics.
Flex fuel substitution (which needs to be combined with genetically engineered biofuels)
Direct conversion of radiation into electricity and an alternative thermoelectric advance
Promising alternative private nuclear fusion projects (several have been privately funded
March 19, 2008
Fuji Molten Salt reactor, Ralph Moir Interviews and other nuclear news
Charles Barton has an informative interview with Ralph Moir posted at Nuclear Green and Thorium energy.
Dr. Ralph Moir was an extremely distinguished scientist at Lawrence-Livermore Laboratory, and a personal associate of Dr. Edward Teller. He first discusses fusion/fission hybrid reactors and then molten salt fission reactors.Fusion holds the promise--yet to be fulfilled--of providing a supply of neutrons that can be used to produce fissile fuel for fission reactors. Even if fusion cost twice that of fission per unit of thermal power produced, its fuel would be competitive with mined uranium at $200/kg. Fusion will be even more competitive as its costs come down. This produced fuel can be used in fission reactors to completely burn up the fertile fuel supply, that is depleted uranium or thorium. Its weakness is fusion is not here and past slow progress suggests future progress might be slow. Furthermore, we are not assured that fusion's costs will be less than twice that of fission.
This seems to suggest that even a partial success with inertial electrostatic fusion where for some reason a full scale commercial fusion reactor is not achieved or is slower in completing, that if it becomes a thousand or ten thousand times better at being a neutron source then it could be part of making completely burning fission reactors. [completely burning fission means no unburned fuel or almost no nuclear waste]A conventional molten salt reactor can produce almost all of its own fuel but needs initial fuel for start up and needs some makeup fuel and also some fuel to be used to burnout certain wastes. So the fusion/fission hybrid can be this fuel supplier. In this way the combination of a hybrid fuel supplier and molten-salt burners can supply the planet's power for many hundreds or even thousands of years at an increased nuclear power level enough to make a big impact in decreasing carbon usage. Such a combination might have one hybrid fusion fission reactor for every fifteen fission reactors.
Dr Moir favorite fission reactor was the molten-salt reactor whose program was terminated in the 1970s. It holds the promise of being more economical than our present reactors while using less fuel. I published a paper on this topic that the ORNL people did not feel they could publish. It can come in small sizes without as much of a penalty as is usually the case and can be in large sizes. It can burn thorium thereby getting away from so much buildup of plutonium and higher actinides.
The next step in molten salt reactor development should be the construction and operation of a small <10 MWe reactor based largely on the MSRE that operated at ORNL at about 7 MWth but without electricity production. The FUJI [MSR] project [which I covered in detail] has not gotten funding and is making no progress other than a paper here and there on some particular aspect.
A crash program for molten salt reactor development would only cost about $1 billion.
FURTHER READING
Dr Moir had a cost comparison of molten salt reactors to PWR and coal. Molten salt would be a bit cheaper than the other two.
He published detailed recommendations for a restart of a molten salt reactor program.
Dr Moir's papers and links to molten salt reactor resources.
Hoglund has a page discussing the benefits of molten salt reactors.
OTHER NUCLEAR NEWS
New energy and fuel has a good article that digs deeper into the work to get higher burn rates from nuclear fuel.The advantages of the research and development of coating technology offers more beyond the increase of burnup percentage. The effects yield that the total fuel used is reduced, the amount needed to produce a given output is reduced and most importantly, the operating temperatures can be raised which brings a dramatic increase in the efficiency, or much more electricity is generated for a given amount of fuel. Oakridge’s review offers that the increase in operating temperature would allow an increase of thermal efficiency from 31% of current plants to beyond 43% which equates to more than 38% more power should current plants be retrofitted. It may be probable that as plants are re-licensed with new reactor technology that new reactor designs are installed.
Florida state regulators Tuesday morning approved Florida Power & Light's request to build two nuclear plants at its Turkey Point facility.
Combined license applications have been filed for 11 reactors so far and do not yet include the two new reactors for Turkey point.
A total of 33 reactors from 22 applications are expected. Most will be filed by the end of this year. The anticipated timeline for licensing is for licenses to be issued in 2011 and 2012. Actually construction could start then.
March 14, 2008
Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl
Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources
Update: A superior form of solar power would be the Coolearth concentrated solar power system which would be installed on the ground or wires over a ground installation.
The ExternE calculation of death/TWh from different energy sources (not including global warming effects and is the average for European nations). 
This draws on data from 4290 energy-related accidents, 1943 of them classified as severe, and compares different energy sources. It considers over 15,000 fatalities related to oil, over 8000 related to coal and 5000 from hydro.
Deaths statistics from the fuel chain for coal and nuclear
Higher level of deaths from coal in public health would be related to the increased deaths from particulates. The deaths totals are more from coal occupation are mining.
The World Health Organization and other sources attribute about 1 million deaths/year to coal air pollution. Coal generates about 6200 TWh out of the world total of 15500 TWh of electricity. This would be 161 deaths per TWh.
In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh. 15 deaths per TWh.
In China about 500,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 1800 TWh. 278 deaths per TWh.
The construction of existing 1970-vintage U.S. nuclear power plants required 40 metric tons (MT) of steel and 190 cubic meters (m3) of concrete per average megawatt of electricity (MW(e)) generating capacity. For comparison, a typical wind energy system operating with 6.5 meters-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of 460 MT of steel and 870 m**3 of concrete per average MW(e). Coal uses 98 MT of steel and 160 m**3 of concrete per average MW(e); & natural-gas combined cycle plants use 3.3 MT steel and 27 m**3 concrete.
Wind power generation was 95 GW at the end of 2007.
1 MW produces 3,066 MWh if 35% efficient.
20 GW in Germany generated 30 TWh in 2006.
95GW would be generating about 150TWh.
95000GW would have taken 43.7 million tons of steel and 82.7 million tons of concrete. 3% of one year of global steel production. 4% of one year of the world’s concrete production. Half of one year’s production in the US for steel. About 15 deaths if corresponded to half of one years metal/nonmetal mining fatalities. 0.1 deaths per TWh. If the metal and concrete had come from China about 2700 metal/nonmetal mining deaths per year for 5 times the amount of steel. 270 deaths to get the metal for the wind turbines. 1.9 deaths per TWh. These construction related deaths are amortized over the life of the wind turbines of 30 years. Other wind power deaths need to factor in dangers associated with working with very tall structures (50 stories tall) and with deep water work associated with building and anchoring offshore. Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation. By comparison, hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996. This includes the Banqiao Dam collapse in 1975 that killed thousands.
Metal/Nonmetal fatalities in the USA (iron and concrete components mainly)
(3.1 GWp generated 2TWh in Germany for solar)
Coal and fossil fuel deaths usually do not include deaths caused during transportation. The more trucking and rail transport is used then the more deaths there are. The transportation deaths are a larger component of the deaths in the USA than direct industry deaths. Moving 1.2 billion tons of coal takes up 40% of the freight rail traffic and a few percent of the trucking in the USA.
Uranium mining is a lot safer because insitu leaching (the main method of uranium mining) involves flushing acid down pipes. No workers are digging underground anymore. Only about 60,000 tons of uranium are needed each year so that is 200 times less material being moved than for coal plants.
But what about Chernobyl ?
The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous.
He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."
Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients.
The safety issues with Rooftop solar installations
Those who talk about PV solar power (millions of roofs) need to consider roof worker safety. About 1000 construction fatalities per year in the US alone. 33% from working at heights.
Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. An average of 362 fatal falls occurred each year from 1995 to 1999, with the trend on the increase. 269 deaths (combined falls from ladders and roofs in 2002). UPDATE: Based on a more detailed analysis of the fatal fall statistic reports I would now estimate the fatal falls that would match the solar panel roof installations as 100-150. Only 30-40 are classified as being a professional roofer but deaths for laborer or general construction worker or a private individual count as deaths.
Roofing is the 6th most dangerous job. Roofers had a fatality rate in 2002 of 37 per 100,000 workers.
In 2001, there were 107 million homes in the United States; of those, 73.7 million were single-family homes. Roughly 5 million new homes are built each year and old roofs need to significant work or replacement every 20 years. So 9-10 million roofing jobs in the US alone. In 2007, Solar power was at 12.4 GW or about 12.6 TWh. The 2006 figure for Germany PV was only 1TWh from about 1.5GW from $4 billion/yr. The German rate of solar power generation would mean 12.4GW would generate 8TWh. 2.8GW generates 2 TWh for Germany, assuming other places are 50% sunnier on average, then the 9.6GW would generate 10.6 TWh.
$4 billion is about the cost of one of the new 1.5 GW nuclear power plants, which would generate 12 TWh/year. Nuclear power plants (104) rated at a total 100GW generated 800 Twh in 2007.
The world total was from about 1.5 million solar roofed homes. 30% of the solar power was from roof installed units. 1/6th of the 9 million roofing job accidents would be about 50 deaths from installing 1.5 million roofs if other countries had similar to US safety. The amount of roof installations is increasing as a percentage. 4 TWh from roofs PV. So 12.5 deaths per TWh from solar roof installations. Assuming 15 years as the average functional life or time until major maintenance or upgrade is required. The average yearly deaths from rooftop solar is 0.83/TWh. Those who want a lower bound estimate can double the life of the solar panels (0.44deaths/TWh). This is worse than the occupational safety issues associated with coal and nuclear power. (see table below). 12 to 25 times less safe than the projected upper bound end effect of Chernobyl (from WHO figures). The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents.
Maintenance and Functional life of solar panels
[Q26. Do they require any maintenance?
A26: Only an occasional wipe to ensure optimal performance of the solar panel.]
15. How long will the panels last?
Generally, systems last 20-30 years since the waterproof seals on the panels tend to deteriorate over time.
16. If I move home, can I take the solar panels with me?
You could take your solar power system down and re-install it at your new house provided the roof of the new house is suitable. Or, you could include it in the selling price of your house. If your house is in a remote area and the solar power system is the sole source of power, the purchaser of your house would be wise to make sure the solar power system is included in the price, or they’ll be left without electricity.
[Generally hail resistant but a storm big enough to damage a regular roof would also damage a rooftop solar panel system.]
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/solar/en/faqs/resid_sys.htm#faq24
http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/solar/en/faqs/resid_sys.htm#faq28http://www.heatmyhome.co.uk/pv-solar-panels.htm
The 10 most dangerous jobs
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000
Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5 [also, solar power related]
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002
Conclusion:
Nothing is perfectly safe. Chasing perfection can cause us to ignore just improving and trading worse for a lot better. Non-roof installations of solar is safer than roof installation. Nuclear, wind, non-roof solar and hydro are a lot safer than coal and oil. Natural gas is safer but not as much as nuclear and those others. The focus needs to be on getting rid of the most dangerous energy sources which are coal and oil first. Then after that decades long project is done to look at the other energy sources. Safety and improvements for all energy sources should be made as we go.
UPDATE:
Rooftop solar is still a hundred times safer than coal and oil power because of air pollution deaths. Other ways to make solar power safer:
1. Increase safety for all rooftop work (can reduce deaths by half or more)
2. Rooftop solar tiles installed on new buildings might not have any more incremental deaths as opposed to panels that are separate from the roof tiles or systems installed that replace roof tiles before they would normally be replaced.
3. Create some new installation system where people stay on the ground using some forklift or crane to raise and place a solar power system onto a roof. Have to ensure that the heavy machinery system is safer than the roofing process being replaced.
Some responders online are in denial that people who work on a roof can fall off regardless of the reason they went up there. If I go up there to replace roofing tiles or go up there to install solar panels, the risk of falling is pretty much the same especially when the number of times being compared heads to large numbers like millions of times for each. As I noted in the comments, statistics show that 70% of fatal construction falls occur at height of 3 stories or less.
Some have also claimed that someone who went up onto a roof to install a solar panel but then fell is not a death associated with solar power. Similarly then if someone is killed in a coal mine then that is not a coal power death because the coal was not in the power plant yet or they might have some other reason for being underground and would have been crushed anyway.
FURTHER READING
189 page pdf from the 1997 Externe analysis of energy sources and fuel cycles.
RELATED NEWS
Canada is increasing the planned number of nuclear reactors in Alberta to 4 plants generating 4 GW. The plan is to complete them by 2017.
Southern California Edison (SCE) plans to spend $875 million over the next five years putting solar panels onto commercial roofs to generate 250 megawatts of solar capacity. The panels will be on 65 million square feet of roof.
San Jose has a 15 year green vision to install 100,000 solar power roofs.
San Jose was chosen a Solar America City by the U.S. Department of Energy and will share $2.4 million in funding with 11 other cities. Other cities designated as Solar America Cities include Sacramento, Santa Rosa, Seattle, Wash.; Houston, Texas; Knoxville, Tenn.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Minneapolis & St. Paul, Minn.; Orlando, Fla.; Philadelphia, Penn.; and San Antonio, Texas.
Severin Borenstein, director of the U.C. Energy Institute and a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's business school, called existing technology "a loser" in a research paper. "We are throwing money away by installing the current solar PV technology," he said.Borenstein calls for more state and federal money to be spent on research into better technology, rather than on subsidies for residential solar power systems. In his analysis, Borenstein found that a typical PV system costs between $86,000 and $91,000 to install, while the value of its power over its lifetime ranges from $19,000 to $51,000. Even assuming a 5 percent annual increase in electric costs and a 1 percent interest rate, the cost of a PV system is 80 percent greater than the value of the electricity it will produce. In his paper, Borenstein also factored in the value of greenhouse gas reductions into his calculations, and found that at current prices the PV technology still doesn't deliver.
California's Million Solar Roofs Plan, signed into law in 2006, which will provide 3,000 megawatts of additional clean energy and reduce the output of greenhouse gases by 3 million tons. The 2.9-billion-dollar incentive plan for homeowners and building owners who install solar electric systems will lead to 1 million solar roofs in California by the year 2018.
FURTHER READING
Sample solar power installation instructions
More rooftop solar panel installation instructions
Solar thermal panels for hot water heating are typically 36-75kg in weight per panel.
Solar PV panels are currently about 40-60 pounds (20-30kg).
US energy use by source
February 26, 2008
the Moving target for energy dominance
Members of the [NAE Engineering Grand Challenges] panel are "confident that we are not that far away from a tipping point where energy from solar will be [economically] competitive with fossil fuels," Kurzweil said, adding that it could happen within five years.
"We also see an exponential progression in the use of solar energy," he said. "It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we'll meet 100 percent of our energy needs in 20 years."
I reviewed the 14 21st century engineering grand challenges and MIT's ten emerging technologies for 2008
The National Academy of Engineering has a page that discusses the challenges for economical solar power.
The US DOE has an analysis of projected energy costs until 2030 The chart shown does not have the adjustment for operating load factors. It takes three times as much wind MW to generate the same as 1 MW of nuclear power.
The total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant.
In January 2007, the approx. US $ cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel at likely contract prices (about one third of current spot price):
Uranium: 8.9 kg U3O8 x $53 472
Conversion: 7.5 kg U x $12 90
Enrichment: 7.3 SWU x $135 985
Fuel fabrication: per kg 240
Total, approx: US$ 1787
At 45,000 MWd/t burn-up this gives 360,000 kWh electrical per kg, hence fuel cost: 0.50 c/kWh.
If assuming a higher uranium price, say two thirds of current spot price: 8.9 kg x 108 = 961, giving a total of $2286, or 0.635 c/kWh.
Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.
50 GWd/t standard burn up could go up to 65 GWd/t while still 5% enrichment Up to 100GWd/t burnup could be reached with existing reactors but would need 8-10% enrichment.
Accelerator enhanced constant reprocessing would enable Ultra high burnup of 700 GWd/t. [pg 96-102 discusses Possible Transmutation Strategies Based on Pebble Bed ADS (accelerator driven systems) Reactors for a Nuclear Fuel Cycle without Pu Recycling in Critical Reactors.]
There are many advanced fission reactor designs that are in development There are several possibilities for reducing the DOE estimated overnight construction cost in half and for reducing fueling and operating costs by four times by 2015-2020. It will take several completions of any new power plants and a few years of operations before cost reductions are recognized. China has ordered four AP1000 plants for $5.3 billion. However, until several are completed the new cost savings will not be recognized. Utilities are also continuing to order other plants which may be more expensive because Westinghouse is only able to build at a certain maximum rate.
South Africa's Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) aims for a step change in safety, economics and proliferation resistance. Production units will be 165 MWe. They will have a direct-cycle gas turbine generator and thermal efficiency about 42%. Up to 450,000 fuel pebbles recycle through the reactor continuously (about six times each) until they are expended, giving an average enrichment in the fuel load of 4-5% and average burn-up of 90 GWday/t U (eventual target burn-ups are 200 GWd/t) [start two times as effiencient with fuel and then four times]. This means on-line refuelling as expended pebbles are replaced, giving high capacity factor.
Overnight construction cost (when in clusters of eight units) is expected to be US$ 1000/kW and generating cost below 3 US cents/kWh. A demonstration plant is due to be built in 2007 for commercial operation in 2010. A design certification application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected in 2008, with approval expected in 2012, opening up world markets.
UPDATE: More recent estimates suggest that production costs could be US$2500-3500/kW for pebble bed reactors. Inflation in the cost of steel, cement and other materials is increasing the cost of all energy production.
According to Business Report, it could cost between $9.9 billion (R67 billion) and $13.8 billion to build 24 reactor installations, which together could generate 3,960 megawatts. That's expensive power coming in at $3,500/Kw at the upper end of the cost estimate.
A larger US design, the Modular Helium Reactor (MHR , formerly the GT-MHR), will be built as modules of up to 600 MWt. In its electrical application each would directly drive a gas turbine at 47% thermal efficiency, giving 280 MWe. It can also be used for hydrogen production (100,000 t/yr claimed) and other high temperature process heat applications. Half the core is replaced every 18 months. Burn-up is up to 220 GWd/t, and coolant outlet temperature is 850°C with a target of 1000°C.
The Westinghouse AP-1000 has received several design certifications. Overnight capital costs are projected at $1200 per kilowatt and modular design will reduce construction time to 36 months. The 1100 MWe AP-1000 generating costs are expected to be below US$ 3.5 cents/kWh and its has a 60 year operating life.
Another US-origin but international project which is a few years behind the AP-1000 is the International Reactor Innovative & Secure (IRIS). IRIS is a modular 335 MWe pressurised water reactor with integral steam generators and primary coolant system all within the pressure vessel. It is nominally 335 MWe but can be less, eg 100 MWe. Fuel is initially similar to present LWRs with 5% enrichment and burn-up of 60,000 MWd/t with fuelling interval of 3 to 3.5 years, but is designed ultimately for 10% enrichment and 80 GWd/t burn-up with an 8 year cycle, or equivalent MOX core. The core has low power density. IRIS could be deployed in the next decade (2015), and US design certification is at pre-application stage. Multiple modules are expected to cost US$ 1000-1200 per kW for power generation. They expect that construction of the first IRIS unit will be completed in three years, with subsequent reduction to only two years.
The Remote-Site Modular Helium Reactor (RS-MHR) of 10-25 MWe has been proposed by General Atomics. The fuel would be 20% enriched and refuelling interval would be 6-8 years.
Another full-size HTR design is Areva's Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) being put forward by Areva NP. It is based on the MHR and has also involved Fuji. Reference design is 600 MW (thermal) with prismatic block fuel like the MHR. HTRs can potentially use thorium-based fuels, such as HEU or LEU with Th, U-233 with Th, and Pu with Th. Most of the experience with thorium fuels has been in HTRs. General Atomics say that the MHR has a neutron spectrum is such and the TRISO fuel so stable that the reactor can be powered fully with separated transuranic wastes (neptunium, plutonium, americium and curium) from light water reactor used fuel. The fertile actinides enable reactivity control and very high burn-up can be achieved with it - over 500 GWd/t - the Deep Burn concept and hence DB-MHR design. Over 95% of the Pu-239 and 60% of other actinides are destroyed in a single pass.
Nuclear fusion success offers the possibility of $500/kw to $20/kw of installed power. However, there is still great uncertainty of any success with nuclear fusion.
Thermoelectrics could boost the efficiency and total power generated from high heat central power such as nuclear, coal and natural gas power plants Increasing the efficiency of power plant heat conversion to 150-200% of what they are now would greatly reduce the costs of existing plants and these types of plants. The thermoelectrics have many commonalities with advanced solar power. Broad success with solar power should also mean broad success with thermoelectronics for alternative power plants. Thermoelectronics could provide an across the board boost of 30-50% in cost efficiency for nuclear, coal and natural gas by 2020.
Kitegen offers the possibility of greatly reducing the cost and increasing the total power generated by wind while reducing the materials used in construction per MW
The Uranium hydride [nuclear battery] could be mass produced at factories starting with $1400/kw prices in 2012
So there are several possibilities getting into the range of $1000/kw overnight costs for new nuclear reactors. Advanced thermoelectronics and further advances in nuclear fuel and nuclear design could provide $500/kw prices in 2020-2030 and would have far lower variable and operating costs. Nuclear fusion could push off the day of solar power price supremacy indefinitely into the future. This will not matter if we are building nuclear fission with far less waste and no air pollution, or clean aneutronic nuclear fusion or efficient wind power. Any future with clean and abundant power would be a pretty good future.
January 18, 2008
Energy costs with externalities
Anti-nuclear people like to talk about the lack of complete business insurance coverage of nuclear power plant accidents. They ignore the uncovered external costs of other energy sources. They also ignore the disproportionate subsidies for wind and solar power. I will review research related to the subsidies, research, external costs and fatalities. I adapted this from a discussion I had on the Oil Drum.
ANOTHER UPDATE
I have a new article with a closer look at Feed in Tariff support of renewable energy
UPDATE:
Geoffrey S. Rothwell of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research examined the nuclear insurance issue
In economics, a subsidy is a "payment made by the government (or possibly by private individuals) which forms a wedge between the price consumers pay and the costs incurred by producers, such that price is less than marginal cost" (The MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics, 4th Edition, 1992). Here, the "consumers" (of insurance/indemnification) are firms in the nuclear power industry and the "producer" (of insurance/indemnification) is the federal government. However, there is no subsidy payment unless there is an accident and damages are above the PAA liability limit. Because there is no payment, there is no "direct subsidy," although there is a
potential (or expected) subsidy.
Opponents of the PAA have used these estimates to argue for the ending of the "PAA subsidy" to the nuclear power industry. Without questioning the probability distribution assumption, they have followed the advice in Heyes and Heyes (2000, p. 99): "The implications for how anti-nuclear lobbyists should go about persuading regulators and governments that the extent of the subsidy which current law confers is unacceptably high are that it is likely to be more fruitful to ‘argue up’ consequences rather than probabilities." This has been done by claiming that the costs of a Chernobyl-like accident in the US would be more than $300 billion, without any discussion of the probability of such an accident in the US. See, for example, www.citizen.org/cmep. By focusing on one assumption (consequences) without considering other assumptions (probabilities), the anti-nuclear argument is incomplete.
In regards to government support and subsidies for different energy sources
A 2002 Cato Institute report showed that in the previous 20 years renewable technologies received $24.2 billion in US federal R&D expenditure, compared with $20.1 billion for nuclear and $15.5 for coal (adjusted 1996 dollars). The result of this was minimal electricity contribution from non hydro renewables, and 20% and 50% respectively contribution from nuclear and coal.
A 2006 study from Management Information Services on The US Energy Subsidy Scorecard showed that total federal incentives (of which R&D expenditure is only a part) from 1950 to 2003 totalled $63 billion for nuclear power, $111 billion for renewables, $81 billion for coal and $87 billion for natural gas (2003 dollars), lining this up against the resultant contribution to US energy.
Government support versus actual delivered electricity
R&D versus electricity generation
Focusing on R&D alone over 1994-2003, the study showed coal got $3.9 billion and nuclear $1.6 billion - both commensurate with their contribution to US electricity, while renewables other than hydro received $3.7 billion - vastly more than their foreseeable contribution.
Germany applies a mixture of incentives for renewables, such as a feed-in tariffs. The average feed-in tariff apart from solar PV is 8.5 c/kWh, or 16.4 cents including solar PV in 2006 (solar PV being 49 cents). The combined subsidy from consumers and government totals some EUR 5 billion per year - for 6% of its electricity.
Germany also provides producer subsidies to its coal industry amounting to EUR 68 per tonne for 34 Mt coal in 2000 - total EUR 2.3 billion.
EU energy subsidy analysis from 2004
External energy costs totals for energy. In the notes a discussion of the hypothetical severe nuclear accident. Chernobyl cost $370 billion. Equal to 10-20 years of excess coal or oil costs for the EU15 only. 2-6 years for world (US, China, India etc...) excess coal or oil costs.
Paul Scherrer Institut (swiss) for the study of energy costs with impacts and externalities included
333 final report on energy external costs
External energy costs added to costs of energy. High estimate on top and low estimate below. Nuclear price looks good.
Top ten energy related events for evacuees and costs
Chernobyl is put at US (2000) $370 billion. $6 billion for three mile island. when compared to the annual higher external costs for coal and oil. Then 10-20 years of EU only external costs balances out one Chernobyl. The coal and oil damage for the US and china and other non-EU countries would balance out the one time Chernobyl Chernobyl 3-5 times faster. Chernobyl happened once in 50 years with a particularly dangerous reactor.
The risk assessment for the modern reactors that we would be building should be considered This is important - no one is suggesting that we make more Chernobyl style reactors. Even all of the old Chernobyl style reactors now have containment domes. This would limit almost all of the worst case scenarios to Three Mile Island level accidents.
The AP1000 has a maximum core damage frequency of 5.09 x 10-7 per plant per year. The Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) has a maximum core damage frequency of 4 x 10-7 per plant per year. General Electric has recalculated maximum core damage frequencies per year per plant for its nuclear power plant designs:
BWR/4 -- 1 x 10-5
BWR/6 -- 1 x 10-6
ABWR -- 2 x 10-7
ESBWR -- 3 x 10-8
This means you would multiply the 1 in 100,000 to 3 in 100 million chances against the potential costs. All insurance risks and costs are calculated in this way. (Frequency times cost)
In the footnotes of one of the references there is a high range estimate of 5.5 trillion euro for a worst case damage event. How could a 5.5 trillion damage event happen ? I do not believe it is possible. Even blowing up like a nuclear bomb (which is impossible since the uranium is not pure enough) reactors are not close enough to population centers with the blast radius.
The world only has $140 trillion in financial assets.
Even estimates for the nuclear bombing of New York do not have direct economic damage at that 5.5 trillion level.
A worst case analysis for a terrorist attack on Indian point reactor. Has damage of 1.1 trillion to 2.1 trillion, where everything goes exactly to maximum damages. (700 to 1.5 trillion euro). All reactors are not near important financial centers, so the value of the surrounding areas would be less for all other reactors. However, the analysis has been that nuclear reactors would not release radiation if hit by a plane. So even that worst case scenario would not happen or it would involve several dozen people planting massive explosives or firing missiles to breach the containment dome while at the same time causing the reactor to meltdown before they could be stopped.
I believe the core damage event not breaching containment would cost $6 billion max (loss of reactor,that level of damage is covered under the insurance) and for the current reactors and processes 1 in 100,000. So once every 200 years for a slightly larger than current reactor fleet.
5 billion euro / 200 years = 25 million euro/year (covered under paid insurance)
1 in a million for some kind of containment breaching event
500 billion euro / 2000 years = 250 million euro/year
500,000 euro/year/reactor
A discussion by Heyes in 2003 about his 1998 estimate of nuclear insurance.
Heyes and Liston-Heyes noted an error in the way in which Dubin and Rothwell interpreted current insurance arrangements, and reapplied their methodology corrected for the reinterpretation. Heyes and Liston-Heyes’ correction reduced the estimates
of the subsidy substantially to $2.3 million/reactor/year.
I [ANTHONY HEYES] will let you in on a little secret: The two estimates and the methods used to generate them are, at best, unreliable and, at worst, deeply flawed. I can say that because I am one of the authors. I know squat about nuclear power. Do not get me wrong, the two papers are competent pieces of academic research and they deserved to be published in the reputable peer-reviewed academic journals in which they appeared. But the approach that they utilized is very much an experimental one, and one whose results can be highly sensitive to changes in underlying assumptions.
New reactors are 20 times safer. So one event in 4000 years for the same number of reactors.
Immediate fatalities counts by energy source. Latents for Chernobyl not counted [Latent estimate for Chernobyl 200-4000 total] and latents for fossil fuel air pollution not counted (4.5-6 million/year, World Health Organization statistics). Latents for oilwars not counted. Some of China's immediate coal deaths not counted.
Some anti-nuclear people talk about the importance of the speed of release of radiation. I say that speed of release of pollutants by itself is meaningless. It is what happens damage and death wise with the release. If speed effects the damage and death then it matters, but speed by itself is meaningless. Plus all pollutants need to be considered not just radiation.
The Ivy Mike nuclear bomb test of 1951 released 100 times the radiation of Chernobyl and it was released faster, but no one died from Ivy Mike.
I consider the 1.2 million global deaths from cars an outrage. More should be done to reduce those fatalities. Systematical adjustments like getting off of coal is a factor here. 6 billion tons of coal is moved (rail and trucks). Getting off of coal would reduce traffic accidents by about 3-10% and freight rail by (20-40%).
Social risk: A lot of wind power could have environmental effects. Drying out of peat bogs. Enough wind could effect weather. [Note: I am not against wind power, but people should not pretend that solar and wind are pristine and without some issues. They are very good, just like nuclear is very good. We need to not get lost in debating details of solar, wind and nuclear and then forget of the orders of magnitude difference for coal and oil.]There is the clear deaths from coal and oil as I have described, for some reason this is socially acceptable.
Uranium from seawater is often ridiculed, but it should not be. They dip the polymer adsorpant netting into the ocean and let the ocean currents flow by. They then pull out the netting and extract the uranium. It is like fishing with nets. You would not pump the water because the water is already moving.
If 2g-U/kg-adsorbent is submerged for 60 days at a time and used 6 times, the uranium cost is calculated to be 88,000 yen/kg-U, including the cost of adsorbent production, uranium collection, and uranium purification. When 6g-U/kg-adsorbent and 20 repetitions or more becomes possible, the uranium cost reduces to 15,000 yen. This price level is equivalent to that of the highest cost of the minable uranium. The lowest cost attainable now (2006) is 25,000 yen with 4g-U/kg-adsorbent used in the sea area of Okinawa, with 18 repetition uses. This is about $220 per kg (114 yen to 1 US Dollar in 2007) The price of Uranium is currently in the $80-120/kg range.
Note: that is the one thing is that we will only have to go to uranium from seawater in any big way in 50-500 years. The timing depends upon how quickly we make nuclear reactors that 50-100 times more fuel efficient and how well we develop more economic sources of Uranium.
It does take 1000 three MW wind turbines to equal one single 1 GW nuclear reactor. It takes ten times the steel and concrete to make those wind turbines. Plus the wind turbines and blades need to be built in massive factories. The wind turbines are 30-40 stories tall and the blades are larger than the wings of a jumbo jet.
FURTHER READING:
More papers examining energy subsidies
January 02, 2008
Overrated nuclear weapons and underrated conventional weapons
In response to the 2008 Edge question "when did facts change your mind", Freeman Dyson describes the facts that changed his mind about the role of nuclear weapons in ending world war 2 I agree with the assessment that nuclear weapons are overrated and excessively feared. Nuclear weapons are devastating but conventional weapons and all out conventional war needs to be feared more that it is.
When facts change your mind, that's not always science. It may be history. I changed my mind about an important historical question: did the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bring World War Two to an end? Until this year I used to say, perhaps. Now, because of new facts, I say no.
The August 9 [1945] session of the Supreme Council resulted in the decision to surrender.
The Emperor, in his rescript to the military forces ordering their surrender, does not mention the nuclear bombs but emphasizes the historical analogy between the situation in 1945 and the situation at the end of the Sino-Japanese war in 1895. In 1895 Japan had defeated China, but accepted a humiliating peace when European powers led by Russia moved into Manchuria and the Russians occupied Port Arthur. By making peace, the emperor Meiji had kept the Russians out of Japan. Emperor Hirohito had this analogy in his mind when he ordered the surrender.
The Japanese leaders had two good reasons for lying when they spoke to Robert Butow. The first reason was explained afterwards by Lord Privy Seal Kido, another member of the Supreme Council: "If military leaders could convince themselves that they were defeated by the power of science but not by lack of spiritual power or strategic errors, they could save face to some extent". The second reason was that they were telling the Americans what the Americans wanted to hear, and the Americans did not want to hear that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria brought the war to an end.
In addition to the myth of two nuclear bombs bringing the war to an end, there are other myths that need to be demolished. There is the myth that, if Hitler had acquired nuclear weapons before we did, he could have used them to conquer the world. There is the myth that the invention of the hydrogen bomb changed the nature of nuclear warfare. There is the myth that international agreements to abolish weapons without perfect verification are worthless. All these myths are false. After they are demolished, dramatic moves toward a world without nuclear weapons may become possible.
Conventional weapons can match nuclear weapon destruction but only a little slower
I do not suggest that conventional weapons should be used in the way that I will describe, but I illustrate how simple it is to achieve total devastation without using nuclear weapons. The lack of willingness by many to recognize that nuclear weapons are not unique in being able to cause complete devastation encourages bad decisions to be made which cost millions of lives every year. The wrong decision is to restrict and underdevelop nuclear power and fail to displace coal and fossil fuels for electricity and transportation. Outdoor air pollution from fossil fuels kills 3 million people every year and indoor air pollution kills 1.5 million people every year (World Health Organization statistics. Recent WHO statistics indicate the deaths from air pollution could be as high as 6 million. Over 10% of deaths from any source).
Modern conventional weapons can be used in an unrestricted way that would provide a more controlled destruction of an enemy nation. What is required is air superiority and the willingness to use conventional weapons fully. A military with air superiority can impose a Carthaginian solution upon its enemy. Rome destroyed its enemy Carthage at the end of their third war. Rome killed or sold into slavery the Carthaginians. They salted the land. Something akin to Stalin's scorched earth tactic except it would be scorching the opponents land.
1. First use your air force to destroy the opponents air force and air defences
2. Then use your air force to destroy bridges, airports, ports, and key parts of rail and roads to hinder movement within and out of the enemy territory. Blockade the country with Navy and Army forces.
3. Use your air force to destroy medical and emergency response infrastructure.
4. Drop poisons into water and food supplies or bomb food and water supplies and distribution. Use the air force to help spread certain diseases (Cholera and Malaria etc...) that devastate refugee populations but which do not effect populations with proper medical facilities.
The percentage of the target population that would be killed with this approach would equal the devastation of a nuclear attack. The devastation could be achieved in a matter of weeks and there would not be the risk of fallout and other spillover effects that come with the use of nuclear weapons.
In the 20th century, about 216 million people died from conventional war and violence and less than 200,000 died from nuclear weapons and nuclear causes. Air pollution and conventional coal mining killed over 300 million people in the 20th century.
The focus of policy should be on saving the lives lost to air pollution and on preventing wars in general. Far higher use of nuclear power (like the 80% of electricity from nuclear power in France) can reduce tensions and risks of war over limited oil resources. Higher usage of nuclear power can reduce air pollution and reduce the annual costs of medical coverage with fewer people getting sick from air pollution.
Lives will be saved and public health and national budgets and economies would be improved by using more nuclear power.
Note: Renewables can be used as well but there is 20 times as much nuclear power versus non-hydroelectric renewable power. Hydroelectric power is good but there are limitations on increasing it significantly except in China. So renewables should be developed as well but increasing electricity from nuclear power will have more impact over the next 20-30 years. From 2010-2020, a big boost to nuclear can come by using new thermoelectric devices to convert 50+% of the waste heat from nuclear into electricity. Also, in that time frame MIT power uprating technology could be deployed to generate another 50% increase in power from existing reactors. Those changes and a few more reactors that are likely to be built in the USA would increase nuclear power from the current 800 billion kwh up to 2000 billion kwh by 2020. This would be a move from 20% of electricity up to nearly 50% of electricity.
SOME OTHER NUMBERS:
Number of Americans killed by nuclear weapons since WW2 : 0
Number of Americans killed by conventional weapons since WW2: almost 100,000
Number of Americans killed by commercial nuclear reactors since first US commercial nuclear plant (1957): 0
Americans killed by fear of nuclear power since first commercial nuclear plant (1957): 2 to 3 million mostly from air pollution.
The more accurate numbers would be what if the US had a strong nuclear power build after interest rates subsided by the 1980's and built standardized reactors:
Number of Americans killed by commercial nuclear reactors since and including Three Mile Island (1979): 0
Americans killed by fear of nuclear power (if the USA was not afraid and had copied France's strong nuclear power buildup of the 1980s. 78% electricity from nuclear power instead of 20%. Displacing coal and some natural gas and heating oil): 600,000 deaths from air pollution and 15,000 transportation and mining deaths avoided
Number of people killed by commercial nuclear reactors since first commercial nuclear plant (1956): 57 to 4000 and most likely about 400 (Mainly chernobyl).
Thyroid cancer mortality rates are about 5%. 200 deaths might be expected from 4000 cases.
People killed by fear of nuclear power since first commercial nuclear plant (1956): 150+ million mostly from air pollution. The strong build through the (1980s) to displace coal: 60 million excess deaths
SUPPORTING LINKS FOR THE STATS
1000 coal mining fatalities since 1957. 500 annual transportation deaths (rail and truck moving nearly 1 billion tons of coal per year, air pollution deaths in the USA about 70,000 per year. About 30,000 per year from coal air pollution. Air pollution and air quality was worse in the USA prior to the Clean air act of 1970, but there was half the population in the USA.
Air pollution causes 12% more cardiopulmonary deaths and 16% more lung cancer deaths Around 30-40 percent of cases of asthma and 20-30 percent of all respiratory diseases may be linked to air pollution in some locales.
A pdf with US Coal mining injuries and fatalities 1930-2006
Coal mining fatalities by state, 1993-2006
Most of the several thousand figure are for people who are expected to die from increased incidence of cancer.
Among the residents of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there had been up to the year 2002 about 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents who were exposed at the time of the accident, and more cases can be expected during the next decades. Notwithstanding problems associated with screening, many of those cancers were most likely caused by radiation exposures shortly after the accident. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure
The first commercial nuclear generator to become operational in the United States was the Shippingport Reactor (Pennsylvania, December, 1957).
The world's first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall in Sellafield, England was opened in 1956 with an initial capacity of 50 MW (later 200 MW).[
On June 27, 1954, the USSRs Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant became the world's first nuclear power plant to generate electricity for a power grid, and produced around 5 megawatts electric power.
December 18, 2007
Energy bill passes and spending bill has load guarantees for better energy sources
Separately, Congress reached a tentative agreement on a major energy package that it plans to enact outside the energy bill. The agreement, to be included in a broad government spending bill, would authorize the Energy Department to guarantee loans for various energy projects, making financing far easier.
The agreement would guarantee loans of up to $25 billion for new nuclear plants and $2 billion for a uranium enrichment plant, something those industries had been avidly seeking. It would also provide guarantees of up to $10 billion for renewable energy projects, $10 billion for plants to turn coal into liquid vehicle fuel and $2 billion to turn coal into natural gas.
December 12, 2007
McKinsey plan and analysis for offsetting climate change has pro-nuclear aspect
The McKinsey plan (107 page report) for lowering climate change gases in the United States
1. Energy efficiency in buildings and appliances (710-870 megatons of carbon)
2. More fuel efficient vehicles (340-660 megatons of carbon)
3. Industrial efficiency (620-770 megatons)
4. Bigger carbon sinks (like more forest) (440-580 megatons)
5. Less carbon intensive power generation (800-1570 megatons)
This last one is more nuclear power and renewables and cl