Damik Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The point is that deaths associated with wind power and solar are almost exclusively occupational and thus easy to measure and monitor. Guy falls off wind turbine whilst cleaning the blades it is an occupational accident so in most countries gets reported and features in statistics. But that is as far as it goes because unless you believe in wind turbine syndrome (along with pixies, unicorns, and the tooth fairy). In contrast most of the likely victims of Chernobyl are non occupational - ie the people exposed to varying levels of radiation in the region and suffer ill health or prematurely mortality due to that exposure. These do not appear in any occupational injury / ill health data. Kurt, the report provided by me includes these type of radiation death in the statistics. You are barking on wrong tree here ... or you just made it up as you always do ... as you never reference any sources, just your pure opinions ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The point is that deaths associated with wind power and solar are almost exclusively occupational and thus easy to measure and monitor. Guy falls off wind turbine whilst cleaning the blades it is an occupational accident so in most countries gets reported and features in statistics. But that is as far as it goes because unless you believe in wind turbine syndrome (along with pixies, unicorns, and the tooth fairy). In contrast most of the likely victims of Chernobyl are non occupational - ie the people exposed to varying levels of radiation in the region and suffer ill health or prematurely mortality due to that exposure. These do not appear in any occupational injury / ill health data. At the risk of appearing to support Damik, I'd point out that deaths due to lack of energy or expensive energy would also come under 'non-occupational', and if you look at winter excess deaths in cold countries, or summer excess deaths in very hot countries, the numbers would hit perhaps 1 person in 5000 per year (for developed countries). The potential consequences of a blocking event like Winter 2010 in the UK (little wind/sun for a couple of weeks at high demand), if wind and solar were the main sources of electricity, would outweigh pretty much any feasible nuclear accident. Of course, if someone can show how you have a cheap and reliable electric grid without fossil fuels or nuclear power, this argument becomes moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 At the risk of appearing to support Damik, I'd point out that deaths due to lack of energy or expensive energy would also come under 'non-occupational', and if you look at winter excess deaths in cold countries, or summer excess deaths in very hot countries, the numbers would hit perhaps 1 person in 5000 per year (for developed countries). The potential consequences of a blocking event like Winter 2010 in the UK (little wind/sun for a couple of weeks at high demand), if wind and solar were the main sources of electricity, would outweigh pretty much any feasible nuclear accident. Of course, if someone can show how you have a cheap and reliable electric grid without fossil fuels or nuclear power, this argument becomes moot. I'm not anti nuclear. I'd put myself in the cautiously supportive camp. What I get fed up with is Damiks mantra of nuclear is the only answer and dismissal of all other technologies. Clearly nuclear is no the most cost effective form of power generation on economic grounds but he continues this diatripe. I won't bother mentioning the issue of climate change As you are are aware I support a broad based approach to the issues of climate change and fossil fuel depletion that includes a mixed approach using renewables, nuclear and end use efficiency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Kurt, the report provided by me includes these type of radiation death in the statistics. You are barking on wrong tree here ... or you just made it up as you always do ... as you never reference any sources, just your pure opinions ... AlexW has already done this in regard to the widespread and deffuse nature of ill health as a result of Chernobyl (as an extreme example) As regards under reporting of occupational ill health this is a prevalent world wide even in well regulated economies like the UK, USA , Australia , Germany. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leroast Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Bumping this question, interested in the views of those who know more, people often compare one with the other but what about nuclear vs all of the above? Sustainable Energy - Without the hot air looks at various scenarios. Here's a quote that Fluffy tries very hard to ignore. So I'll mention it again. The energy put into mining, processing, and shipping uranium, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning is roughly equal to the energy a nuclear plant can produce in its lifetime. In other words, nuclear energy does not add any net energy. Not counted in that calculation is the energy needed to store nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years. Nuclear Power Is Expensive and Bad for the Environment … It’s Being Pushed Because It Is Good For Making Bombs Edited February 6, 2013 by Leroast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Kurt, the report provided by me includes these type of radiation death in the statistics. You are barking on wrong tree here ... or you just made it up as you always do ... as you never reference any sources, just your pure opinions ... Your reference is from a publication primarily dedicated towards comabting climate change Surely in Damik World anything disseminated from such a site is greeny scam propaganda. Thanks for that - I laughed for a long time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Sustainable Energy - Without the hot air looks at various scenarios. Here's a quote that Fluffy tries very hard to ignore. So I'll mention it again. The energy put into mining, processing, and shipping uranium, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning is roughly equal to the energy a nuclear plant can produce in its lifetime. In other words, nuclear energy does not add any net energy. Yet France still exports electricity. EDIT: From that 'Without the Hot Air' site, the Nuclear section http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml The problem is that the studies trying to demonstrate this quite deliberately load every single assumption in favour of nuclear power using more energy and producing less. They use the worst reactor designs, lowest fuel burnup, no reprocessing, most energy intensive enrichment and fuel fabrication techniques, high estimates for mine energy use, requirements that mining sites are fully restored, and large estimates for the energetic cost of waste storage. By doing this, you can probably demonstrate that there are no net energy sources available and the industrial revolution didn't happen. It's actually a technique used by the 'lukewarmer' school of AGW-denier - for a given chain of reasoning, take the estimates that best suit the case you want to make. Then multiply them together. This gives you a number that strongly supports your case and appears to be legitimately derived. Dosen't make it right, though. Edited February 6, 2013 by fluffy666 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 AlexW has already done this in regard to the widespread and deffuse nature of ill health as a result of Chernobyl (as an extreme example) As regards under reporting of occupational ill health this is a prevalent world wide even in well regulated economies like the UK, USA , Australia , Germany. And I have already shared with you the report of the World Health Organisation about the Chernobyl deaths: maximum, if ever 4000; currently under 50 I am sorry it does not fit your green propaganda about 100 000s of radioactive zombies walking around Pripjat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Your reference is from a publication primarily dedicated towards comabting climate change Surely in Damik World anything disseminated from such a site is greeny scam propaganda. Thanks for that - I laughed for a long time so please show us some resource, which documents your point that nuclear kills more people per generated TWh than any other electricity simply you can not as it does not exist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Yet France still exports electricity. EDIT: From that 'Without the Hot Air' site, the Nuclear section http://www.inference.../page_161.shtml The problem is that the studies trying to demonstrate this quite deliberately load every single assumption in favour of nuclear power using more energy and producing less. They use the worst reactor designs, lowest fuel burnup, no reprocessing, most energy intensive enrichment and fuel fabrication techniques, high estimates for mine energy use, requirements that mining sites are fully restored, and large estimates for the energetic cost of waste storage. By doing this, you can probably demonstrate that there are no net energy sources available and the industrial revolution didn't happen. It's actually a technique used by the 'lukewarmer' school of AGW-denier - for a given chain of reasoning, take the estimates that best suit the case you want to make. Then multiply them together. This gives you a number that strongly supports your case and appears to be legitimately derived. Dosen't make it right, though. [edit: sorry this is comment to "Leroast"] after all your green talk, propaganda and theories you can not despite a simple documented fact that French electricity is half the price of the German one and the reason is that you have to subsidise wind or solar with at least 10p per kWh, what is going to almost double the price Edited February 6, 2013 by Damik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) And I have already shared with you the report of the World Health Organisation about the Chernobyl deaths: maximum, if ever 4000; currently under 50 I am sorry it does not fit your green propaganda about 100 000s of radioactive zombies walking around Pripjat *sigh* I already posted why those numbers are total nonsense, but not surprisingly you either didn't read it or just ignored it. So let me explain it once again. WHO picked out of its metaphorical hat an arbitrary number for what would count as 'contaminated', that number being over 37,000 Bq/m2 of radiation. Highly contaminated being over 555Bq/m2. They then conveniently said we are not going to bother calculating excess deaths in area's with less less than 37,000 Bq/m2, which is most of europe, and all of everywhere else that got some Chernobyl fallout. I find it ironic that somewhere that got 37,001 Bq/m2 will have additional cancer deaths but somewhere that got 36,999 Bq/m2 will apparently have none. But that 37,000 limit is entirely bogus anyway, there is no 'safe' exposure limit. Radiation induced cancer follows a linear no threshold model, this means the likelihood of cancer increases linearly with each additional unit of exposure, and that there is no lower limit where cancer risk falls to zero. Thus there will be cancers caused from chernobyl fallout in the UK, spain, france, asia, united states, etc, etc. If we properly calculate the additional cancer's caused, and don't use the WHO's arbitrary 37,000 Bq/m2 limit, we get not 4,000 additional deaths caused by chernobyl but 27,000. The next number you quote is "50" directly attributable deaths. Given the previous WHO propaganda of 4,000 it's no surprise that this "50" number is total garbage too. Lets say in a region the background radiation doubles due to chernobyl fallout. Lets also assume this causes 20% more deaths from cancer. Now which specific cancer deaths do you attribute to the fallout and which to pre-existing causes that exist within that area. The answer of course is that you cannot attribute any specific death to the fallout. You can't determine that. But you know that it's caused some of them due to the 20% jump in cancer deaths. This is why the WHO nonsense is phrased as "fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster". A totally misleading figure.... Normally the WHO do good work, but here they have been told to print some pro-nuclear propaganda so that is exactly what they have done. Edited February 6, 2013 by alexw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 *sigh* I already posted why those numbers are total nonsense, but not surprisingly you either didn't read it or just ignored it. So let me explain it once again. WHO picked out of its metaphorical hat an arbitrary number for what would count as 'contaminated', that number being over 37,000 Bq/m2 of radiation. Highly contaminated being over 555Bq/m2. They then conveniently said we are not going to bother calculating excess deaths in area's with less less than 37,000 Bq/m2, which is most of europe, and all of everywhere else that got some Chernobyl fallout. I find it ironic that somewhere that got 37,001 Bq/m2 will have additional cancer deaths but somewhere that got 36,999 Bq/m2 will apparently have none. But that 37,000 limit is entirely bogus anyway, there is no 'safe' exposure limit. Radiation induced cancer follows a linear no threshold model, this means the likelihood of cancer increases linearly with each additional unit of exposure, and that there is no lower limit where cancer risk falls to zero. Thus there will be cancers caused from chernobyl fallout in the UK, spain, france, asia, united states, etc, etc. If we properly calculate the additional cancer's caused, and don't use the WHO's arbitrary 37,000 Bq/m2 limit, we get not 4,000 additional deaths caused by chernobyl but 27,000. The next number you quote is "50" directly attributable deaths. Given the previous WHO propaganda of 4,000 it's no surprise that this "50" number is total garbage too. Lets say in a region the background radiation doubles due to chernobyl fallout. Lets also assume this causes 20% more deaths from cancer. Now which specific cancer deaths do you attribute to the fallout and which to pre-existing causes that exist within that area. The answer of course is that you cannot attribute any specific death to the fallout. You can't determine that. But you know that it's caused some of them due to the 20% jump in cancer deaths. This is why the WHO nonsense is phrased as "fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster". A totally misleading figure.... Normally the WHO do good work, but here they have been told to print some pro-nuclear propaganda so that is exactly what they have done. even United States effected by Chernobyl? excellent. and this is the reason why nobody takes you seriously ... Good Lord that these guys in Iran do not know about "your" research as they would have to self terminate immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran Ramsar's Talesh Mahalleh district is the most radioactive inhabited area known in the world, due to nearby hot springs and building materials originating from them.[3] A combined population of 2000 residents from this district and other high radiation neighbourhoods receive an average radiation dose of 10 mGy per year, ten times more than the ICRP recommended limit for exposure to the public from artificial sources.[4] Record levels were found in a house where the effective radiation dose due to external radiation was 131 mSv/yr, and the committed dose from radon was 72 mSv/yr.[5] This unique case is over 80 times higher than the world average background radiation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) even United States effected by Chernobyl? excellent. and this is the reason why nobody takes you seriously ... Good Lord that these guys in Iran do not know about "your" research as they would have to self terminate immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran Ramsar's Talesh Mahalleh district is the most radioactive inhabited area known in the world, due to nearby hot springs and building materials originating from them.[3] A combined population of 2000 residents from this district and other high radiation neighbourhoods receive an average radiation dose of 10 mGy per year, ten times more than the ICRP recommended limit for exposure to the public from artificial sources.[4] Record levels were found in a house where the effective radiation dose due to external radiation was 131 mSv/yr, and the committed dose from radon was 72 mSv/yr.[5] This unique case is over 80 times higher than the world average background radiation. Exactly what does this prove? Do you even understand kindagarten level maths? If Chernobyl causes 4000 deaths in highly contaminated areas (WHO's own estimate, with 27k deaths being the global total). That's 4000 deaths out of 6.5 million people. That's 1 additional death per 1625 people in those area's. Ramsar, the region you quote has a population of 2000. Applying chernobyl's numbers we on average have 1.23 extra cancer deaths. Of course that's an average and needs a large sample size to be accurately measured. There's no way you can do that in a population of 2000. So stop posting nonsense. You do way too much of it. Edited February 6, 2013 by alexw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Exactly what does this prove? Do you even understand kindagarten level maths? If Chernobyl causes 4000 deaths in highly contaminated areas (WHO's own estimate). That's 4000 deaths out of 6.5 million people. That's 1 additional death per 1625 people in those area's. Ramsar, the region you quote has a population of 2000. Applying chernobyl's numbers we on average have 1.23 extra cancer deaths. Of course that's an average and needs a large sample size to be accurately measured. There's no way you can do that in a population of 2000. So stop posting nonsense. You do way too much of it. very simply just for you: 1/ if Chernobyl kills in USA the people in Ramsar would be all dead 2/ but as people do not drop dead in Ramsar, the WHO estimations about Chernobyl deaths seem to be valid BTW your post above confirms the WHO numbers; thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The energy put into mining, processing, and shipping uranium, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning is roughly equal to the energy a nuclear plant can produce in its lifetime. In other words, nuclear energy does not add any net energy.Not counted in that calculation is the energy needed to store nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years. Nuclear Power Is Expensive and Bad for the Environment … It’s Being Pushed Because It Is Good For Making Bombs What a load of tosh - poor even for a tin-foil hat site. The amount of fuel used for Nuke plants is several orders of magnitude greater the amount used in the few bombs still being made. If it took more energy to extract it than it produced it wouldn't be done, and the claim is so obviously BS that I'm amazed you had the balls to even post it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 very simply just for you: 1/ if Chernobyl kills in USA the people in Ramsar would be all dead 2/ but as people do not drop dead in Ramsar, the WHO estimations about Chernobyl deaths seem to be valid BTW your post above confirms the WHO numbers; thanks 1/No. You do not seem to understand basic maths. The radiation doses of those in the U.S.A were very small relative to europe. But the population of the U.S.A is large. Thus though the effect would as a proportion of the population be small in percentage terms it would be significant in numerical terms. As an example lets say it killed 1 in every 1 million U.S. citizens that means 300 odd deaths. In a population of 2000 such as in Ramsar with an equivalent kill rate, it would cause 0.002 additional deaths. 2/You appear to have no clue whatsoever about basic statistical maths. Read my previous post. If you still don't understand it, then I suggest you find some online resource that can educate you on kindergarten level statistics. If that still doesnt help, well I suggest you refrain from posting on threads such as these as you simply don't have the mental capacity to post intelligently. BTW.... it does nothing of the sort. By saying what you are, you just reconfirm your lack of understanding of basic statistics. I refer you to 2/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChumpusRex Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 What a load of tosh - poor even for a tin-foil hat site. The amount of fuel used for Nuke plants is several orders of magnitude greater the amount used in the few bombs still being made. If it took more energy to extract it than it produced it wouldn't be done, and the claim is so obviously BS that I'm amazed you had the balls to even post it. He's quoting a very widely publicized "study" by a couple of anti-nuke campaigners - Smith and Storm van Leeuwen. This study is widely discredited as every assessment it makes is "worst case", but beyond that, many of the figures for energy consumption used are based on outdated estimates or unrealistic measures and the use of long-obsolete technologies. For example, so unrealistic are their estimates for mining, that when applied to a major Uranium mine in Namibia, their study estimated the energy consumption of the mine as being several fold larger than the entirety of the country of Namibia (and nearly 2 orders of magnitude more than the documented energy consumption of the mine). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) If nuclear is so 'clean', why does it cost £67bn and counting to clean up the mess? Nuclear isn't clean. Nuclear energy can be produced much more cleanly than a) in the past and without the need to modify the nuclear fuel cycle for weapons purposes. The argument is over whether it is still a price that's too high. Arguing over the cost of clearing up sellafield with regard to new build power generation is rather moot. Is anyone denying that this spend at all our nuclear sites for decommissioning is necessary? Edited February 7, 2013 by SeeYouNextTuesday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Nuclear isn't clean. Nuclear energy can be produced much more cleanly than a) in the past and without the need to modify the nuclear fuel cycle for weapons purposes. The argument is over whether it is still a price that's too high. Arguing over the cost of clearing up sellafield with regard to new build power generation is rather moot. Is anyone denying that this spend at all our nuclear sites for decommissioning is necessary? plus if you compare the nuclear cleaning costs (1p per kWh) with the green subsidy (10p per kWh) the similiar green costs are £670 billions again, it is a documented fact that French electricity is the half price of German one and will be for quite a long Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snugglybear Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 plus if you compare the nuclear cleaning costs (1p per kWh) with the green subsidy (10p per kWh) the similiar green costs are £670 billions again, it is a documented fact that French electricity is the half price of German one and will be for quite a long Depends what it is included in the cost of the electriticy. If nuclear clean up costs are not included in the price of French electricity, but the costs of green technology are included in the price of German electricity, there you're not comparing like with like. The French population may be paying the costs of nuclear generated electricity in other ways, such as through taxes, exactly as we are in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 1/No. You do not seem to understand basic maths. The radiation doses of those in the U.S.A were very small relative to europe. But the population of the U.S.A is large. Thus though the effect would as a proportion of the population be small in percentage terms it would be significant in numerical terms. As an example lets say it killed 1 in every 1 million U.S. citizens that means 300 odd deaths. In a population of 2000 such as in Ramsar with an equivalent kill rate, it would cause 0.002 additional deaths. Some might argue that the death of 300 Americans is a worthwhile end in itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 1/No. You do not seem to understand basic maths. The radiation doses of those in the U.S.A were very small relative to europe. But the population of the U.S.A is large. Thus though the effect would as a proportion of the population be small in percentage terms it would be significant in numerical terms. As an example lets say it killed 1 in every 1 million U.S. citizens that means 300 odd deaths. In a population of 2000 such as in Ramsar with an equivalent kill rate, it would cause 0.002 additional deaths. Well, you seem unwilling to do the maths on relative risks. Putting the bar for nuclear power much, much higher than that for any other energy source does not make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Depends what it is included in the cost of the electriticy. If nuclear clean up costs are not included in the price of French electricity, but the costs of green technology are included in the price of German electricity, there you're not comparing like with like. Are the end-of-life costs included for Green energy? I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) Are the end-of-life costs included for Green energy? I doubt it. No need really. If a wind farm operator went bust then there is sufficient steel, copper, aluminium, and neodymium in the towers to pay for the restoration of any site. In any case many developers are required to deposit a sum of cash with the Local Authority to deal with such an event. I recall £50K being the going rate for a 5 x 2-3MW turbine farm Edited February 7, 2013 by Kurt Barlow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Depends what it is included in the cost of the electriticy. If nuclear clean up costs are not included in the price of French electricity, but the costs of green technology are included in the price of German electricity, there you're not comparing like with like. The French population may be paying the costs of nuclear generated electricity in other ways, such as through taxes, exactly as we are in the UK. yes, the 1p/1ct per kWh is included in the French electricity price to provide funds for the clean up later on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.