Deaths per terrawatt hour by energy source.

[Tychomonger]

Code: Select all

Energy Source              Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China                       278
Coal – USA                         15
Oil                                36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                    12
Peat                               12
Solar (rooftop)                     0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Say what you will about nuclear power, but the deaths directly caused by nuclear power are by far the lowest (coal power in the US causing 375 times more deaths per megawatt hour than the deaths per megawatt hour that nuclear power causes).

Additionally, the waste products of nuclear power come in convenient liquid form which is much much easier to contain than the gaseous waste products produced by many other energy sources.

Why do we hate nuclear power again?

[Coda]

Why do we hate nuclear power again?

Well, for the sake of debate, I was trying to find the thread where we discussed the matter previously, but I can't find it and the search function on the board seems to be disabled.

[mwchase]

I just gave it a shot, and I think it was here. (Didn't look over it too closely, because I should be doing... so much work.)

[RaharuAharu]

Thorium is the Answer btw, Thorium and Pebble Bed Reactors.

Im going to cover Thorium with some links first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php

Please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk
This is a cut down versions with links to the longer versions in the beginning.
Only 16 mins long, and I think it is worth your time.

I like thorium, its far cleaner, cant melt down, is more available, and one of the best things, you can not make it in to a weapon, and it wont make weapons, like all CURRENT US Nuclear plants currently do.

While it does make waste, it makes significantly less waste, which is also only dangerous for about 300 years, not tens of thousands.


The Reason humans went with Uranium, it makes weapons, and Money. Pure and Simple.

[Brilliand]

Looks like thorium stands to improve nuclear power, but it isn't quite true that uranium would be out of the picture - apparently the plan is to use thorium to make uranium, then use the uranium for power. While an improvement, I wouldn't consider it "the answer"; just an improvement to the leading competitor. Fusion still stands a good chance of replacing fission when it becomes practical, and I suspect that antimatter will become relevant at some point in the distant future, seeing as how matter-antimatter annihilation is far more powerful than fusion. The ideal power source would come by discovering a readily available source of antimatter, and mastering the technology to harvest that antimatter and use it for power.

[Coda]

Matter-antimatter annihilation isn't particularly helpful for power generation because antimatter doesn't really occur naturally in sufficient amounts to make use of -- it takes more energy to produce the antimatter than we can harness from the annihilation event. (And we DO have antimatter in commercial production in the modern world: ever heard of a PET scan? That's antimatter in action!)

Raru, did you copy-paste your post from that other thread? XD

Max, that's not the thread I was looking for; specifically, the thread I have in mind included posts by Jennifer first supporting and then later doubting thorium power. That thread had a whole lot of information and critical analysis that I thought was insightful, but I can't find it now.

[RaharuAharu]

I did.

It holds the same relevance now that it did then.