Died of fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79496
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11113

Died of fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro




by Christophe » 04/04/11, 20:01

The human cost following the primary energies to generate electricity. In number of deaths for 10 GWh ....

I feel that it will be controversial :)

The human cost of our energy choices

As surprising as it may seem, so far fossil fuels kill more than nuclear. The New Scientist explains how fossil fuels are far more deadly than nuclear.


Following the nuclear crisis in Japan, Germany decided to temporarily stop 7 from its reactors and China, which builds more nuclear power plants than all the countries in the world combined, has suspended any approval of new facilities. But these reactions may be motivated more by political considerations than by fear of the number of deaths that a disaster could cause. This is probably a very poor consolation for all those living near Fukushima, but nuclear power kills significantly fewer people than other sources of energy, according to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

"There is no doubt about that," says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington. "Nothing causes more deaths than fossil fuels. "

In an 2002 analysis, the IEA had compiled existing studies to compare deaths among the major energy sources per unit of electricity produced. The Agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from its extraction to the downstream phase of its use, and included accidental deaths and long-term exposures to emissions or radiation. It was nuclear that got the highest rating, while coal was the source of energy that made the most victims.

Graph of Deaths by Energy Source

Image

This is explained by the large number of deaths due to pollution. "It's the whole life cycle that causes injury, illness and death," says Paul Epstein, deputy director of Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the Global Environment. The fine particles released by coal-fired power plants would make about 13 200 victims a year in the United States alone, according to the Clean Air Task Force in Boston (The Toll from Coal, 2010). In addition, there are deaths occurring during the extraction and transport of coal, and those from other forms of pollution related to this fuel. The International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations estimate that the number of cancer deaths following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 will eventually be around 9000.

In fact, the numbers indicate that catastrophic events do not cause the most deaths in the nuclear industry. Indeed, more than half of these occur during the extraction of uranium, according to the IEA. But even when we take into account these deaths, the number of victims remains well below those responsible for other sources of energy.

Why, then, do we focus on nuclear power? "For coal, we see year after year a steady increase in the number of deaths, for example by cardiac arrest, but these deaths have no visibility. Whereas when there is a large-scale release of radioactivity, it is a disaster that we are afraid of, "says James Hammitt of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis in Boston.

Once again, the public perception of events is not the right one. When in 1975, about 30 dams broke down in China due to terrible floods, some 230 000 people died. If we take into account even this single event, we realize that hydropower is much more deadly than any other source of energy.


sources:
http://www.goodplanet.info/Contenu/Poin ... rgetiques/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... power.html

Too bad it misses the most important: the oil ... nevertheless it is used in thermal power stations ... Maybe because it is not obvious to distinguish its electric use of the others? But it has been done with gas so ??

And then, the premature deaths of nuclear workers are taken into account how? Because in France after 10 years it is not / more ... cf: Nuclear documentary RAS

Concerning the deaths of atmospheric pollution, read: https://www.econologie.com/forums/les-morts- ... t1901.html

And some info on the what is the balance sheet of the Chernobyl disaster? to relativize these figures ...
0 x
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 04/04/11, 20:14

Easy to advance this if we do not count the workers of the subcontractors!

Counting the dead of the dam in China also makes me go! : Evil:

Zont not yet compiled the nuke of Japan because, it will hurt, the nuclear bombs and the dead nukes bomb tests all over the world!

Not to mention the depleted plutonium bombs dropped in Iraq and all over the Arab countries!

The nuke is secret state while the rest is available and verifiable!


What a cons!
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.
Criticism is good if added to some compliments.
Alain
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79496
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11113

Re: Dead of fossil energies, nuclear and hydroelectric




by Christophe » 04/04/11, 20:19

Thank you Alain, you confirm my:

Christophe wrote:I feel that it will be controversial :)


: Cheesy: : Cheesy:

Good for the scale of the diagram, I could not find what represented the 3 parts (clear, dark, hatched ...) ... if kk1 found?
0 x
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 04/04/11, 20:31

What kills me is that they claim to be scientist by adding the deaths caused by a bad design of a dam by the Chinese that stems more from an accident than the effective relationship of the dams.

We can also say that if we had planned the coup with nuke plants there would have been no accident! Even if we try to minimize aircraft accidents, they always fall!


The difference is that an accident nuke it will continue to kill and not a hydro dam! : Evil:
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.

Criticism is good if added to some compliments.

Alain
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12311
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2973




by Ahmed » 04/04/11, 21:18

I would add that these fossil fuels are not opposed to nuclear energy (which is not fossilized, certainly, but is not renewable either), since the exploitation of uranium relies on fossil fuels .
In Niger, the Chirozérine coal mine is used for extractive activities, as is oil (obviously vehicles, but also generators).
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79496
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11113




by Christophe » 04/04/11, 23:37

Ahmed wrote:I would add that these fossil fuels are not opposed to nuclear energy (which is not fossilized, certainly, but is not renewable either), since the exploitation of uranium relies on fossil fuels .
In Niger, the Chirozérine coal mine is used for extractive activities, as is oil (obviously vehicles, but also generators).


I would add that carbon-based fossil energies, transformed into CO2, are, with the help of the sun, renewable energies if we help them a little: https://www.econologie.com/forums/microalgue ... 10514.html
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28792
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5581




by Obamot » 04/04/11, 23:53

Yes it's true Ahmed! As reported by one Liberal Green and chemist of his condition (in my corner). Much of the concentration / enrichment of uranium is "thanks" to coal plants!

This is very little documented. But coming from "liberals" must be taken into account absolutely. It can be seen that nuclear power is just a means to avoid energy blackmail from emerging countries or due to political instability of any kind in the countries that supply minerals, and that will inevitably fudge the law of supply / demand. different angles ... For example in Niger:

astrotophe.fr wrote:To obtain natural uranium, mines are mined to extract minerals that contain uranium. It takes about 1 ton of rock to extract 500 g of natural uranium (the yellowcake). This is done around the mine to limit the transport of a large amount of materials. (Wikipedia source)

Natural uranium comes mainly from Canada, Australia and Niger. (source CRIIRAD) Niger's annual production of natural uranium is 2 900 ton (France imports 8 000 tons / year - source Ministry of Sustainable Development).

We will go to the mines of Niger because the electricity used is from coal (there is also a lot of coal in Niger)
Another CRIIRAD report states that 85% of the 2 18,8 MW power generation units are used to operate both uranium mines.

It is assumed that the plants operating 24h / 24h and 365j / an is 330 GWh electric which corresponds to an emission of 330 000 tons of CO2 for the electrical production of these units. So for the extraction, concentration of the uranium, one takes 85% of CO2 is 280 000 tons. This gives 100 tons of CO2 per ton of natural uranium.

For the enrichment of an 1 kg of enriched uranium, 8 kg of natural uranium is required. (Wikipedia source and Futura24)

So that gives 800 tons of CO2 per ton of enriched uranium for the extraction and concentration phase. 1000 tonnes of CO2 per ton of enriched uranium will be rounded up to account for transport and other forgotten items.

For the production of one electric kWh, 3,3 mg of enriched uranium is required. Therefore, the addition of CO2 for the nuclear electric kWh is 3,3 g of CO2.

According to the information provided by Dan1 (see commentary), the actual value would be close to 1 at 1,3 g of CO2 / kWh.

http://www.astrotophe.fr.nf/environneme ... h_nucl.php

There are also other reasons relating to chemistry for which they use coal (for questions 'secret defense', they would use coal for other purposes ...), we understand why this green MP has not wanting to develop this theme too much ... Apparently this subject is taboo!

I take this opportunity to make a first update of the diagram published above, which takes into account the actual deaths due to Chernobyl ... Obviously we should migrate deaths from the use of coal to concentrating / enriching uranium ... If someone can do the math (as long as we find stats ... I'll do it one more time).

I have evaluated that because of its low hazard, solar and mainly solar thermal should cause half as many deaths as natural gas, in a "high range":

Image

In any case, I find it so outrageous not to have taken into account long-term deaths, and to blame a dam for the risks of energy production stricto sensu, which I wonder if the number of death due to the nuclear, which turns the planet into a nuclear bin (fallout, storage, arbitrary ...) that I wonder if it is comparable! But I left to have an idea ... On the other hand I put the number of deaths / disabled according to one of the best people to know, Viatcheslav Grichine, President of the Chernobyl Union ( the main association of liquidators) ... on 600 000 liquidators [UP dated 26 APRIL 2011]:
- [375 000] died and [90 000] remained disabled in Russia [anc. figure dumped 25'000 dead].
- 25 000 are dead and 70 000 remained disabled in Ukraine.
- 10 000 are dead and 25 000 disabled "in Belarus
[This makes a total of 400 000 dead (66% 600 000 liquidators) and 90 000 invalid in stay ...]
Source of the update: ...> (Also on Euronews: Chernobyl: commemoration)

... and here the graph tells us something else ... The question mark symbolizes Fukushima and the nuclear side-damage. There is also an average of 500 and 1000 deaths per country for leukemias, thyroid cancer and other cancers, all over Europe, see elsewhere ... What does not appear in the original chart. So I think that one in the other, the 250'000 very sick or finally deceased nuclear related are below the reality. Besides, it misses the first Russian nuclear disaster (reported in another thread) and which one will probably never know the count macabre (under the USSR).
Last edited by Obamot the 26 / 04 / 11, 07: 09, 2 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79496
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11113




by Christophe » 05/04/11, 00:04

Obamot wrote:I take this opportunity to make a first update of the diagram published above, and which takes into account the real deaths due to Chernobyl ...


I did not know you had faussair skills ... uh of graphic designer : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: Not bad !! But where do you get the number on the solar? :D

For CO2 and nuclear, we have a dedicated topic that goes around the question: https://www.econologie.com/forums/nucleaire- ... t8139.html
https://www.econologie.com/forums/rejets-de- ... t9500.html
and an older one by jonule (the activist): https://www.econologie.com/forums/nucleaire- ... t5658.html

Beware the conclusion that you quote only concerns the Uranium Mine ... not even its enrichment!

Therefore, the addition of CO2 for the nuclear electric kWh is 3,3 g of CO2.


Anyway this reasoning includes too much uncertainty, prefer the figures of this topic:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/nucleaire- ... t8139.html

Image
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28792
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5581




by Obamot » 05/04/11, 00:22

As long as we are in evaluations "with the ax", I cut in the pile!

Christophe wrote:
Obamot wrote:I take this opportunity to make a first update of the diagram published above, and which takes into account the real deaths due to Chernobyl ...


I did not know you had faussair skills ... uh of graphic designer : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: Not bad !! But where do you get the number on the solar? :D


I'm serious, Môssieur => I said: "update" hi, hi, hi ...

By the way, who is it? "Counterfeiters" (?) if we look at your last chart? : Mrgreen:

My sources for solar? Bein diwouar, solar does not explode, does not leak, does not pollute ... etc. So normally there should not be any ... But since we cannot put "0", I used this good old infallible calculation method, widely used by scientists in the drug sector, R&D (request at Thales ^^) and other nuclear safety design offices: ...>

Since we do not have much "visibility" in this area, I took what is common in these cases, the rule of: 80% // 20%, you know?

So I would normally fall to 20% of those for gas (?) And then I weighted by doubling this value, to get to ~ 40%, to be sure to be below reality ... Why something as complex as gas and not as the electricity transmission sector? Because there will still be risks associated with complex installations of fluid circuitry, to store energy in the ground (sand or molten salt, large cubes of concrete or other all by circulation of a fluid...).

And we never know ... there's also the famous ones "Sun burn" in the desert ... and lost bullets ... : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:
0 x
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 05/04/11, 01:00

My dear Christophe, do not forget to put hydro dams in your last chart! : Shock:

I was afraid to show the reality! 8)

Or not calculable! : Mrgreen:
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.

Criticism is good if added to some compliments.

Alain

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Google Adsense [Bot] and 174 guests