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
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 ...
