Priligy online now, save money

JUL 13

Recent Comment

"These estimations also neglect the all important heredity effects of C..."

View all Comments

Evaluating Energy Sources by Human Deaths

In all the buy cialis next day delivery furor during the Fukushima Reactor Complex crisis, there has been a lot of generic cialis without a perscription discussion about whether or not nuclear power is a good option and, more generally, what kinds of power should be used to meet increasing demand. An unusual piece that was making the rounds on best way to use cialis this topic was an article about the number of deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) for different kinds of power production. It's an interesting metric to use to cialis cialis weigh different methods of generating power.

Nuclear power, interestingly, is at the bottom of the list, with only 0.04 deaths per TWh, while coal tops the list with a world average of 161 deaths per TWh. The numbers for this were calculated looking at not only at direct impacts from power station accidents, but also indirect effects, such as coal miners' deaths and levitra dose deaths due to air pollution, as well. The list gets difficult, though, when it starts to ascribe deaths in supporting industries to the total. Steel and concrete are needed to construct wind turbines, and the calculations extend to include industrial deaths in the mining and manufacture of those components, as well as transportation deaths. While it's not unreasonable to ascribe those fractions to super cialis the overall calculation, it does make it start to get a bit tenuous.

Rather than take any of cialis no prescription these numbers as hard and fast conclusions (any two reasonable people could have long arguments over any number of assumptions in these statistics), the general trends and relative scale of each could instead be given consideration in weighing options. Although nuclear power may have a low associated death rate, the economic cost of the energy produced this way is price of levitra quite high, and there is a great deal of public opposition and NIMBY reaction to new nuclear power plants.

A lot of the investment in nuclear power goes to safety and security, rather than to producing power. The money spent on backups and redundant safety systems for a nuclear plant isn't increasing power efficiency. A nuclear plant might cost as much as $8,000 (or more) per kW of electrical generating capacity (though this number is speculative, since no new nuclear plants have been built for many years), while a wind turbine might cost $1,200 to $2,600 per kW. A wind turbine won't necessarily generate power as steadily as a reactor, but it's a lot less expensive to build.

Operating costs are another big, but rarely discussed element in favor of many renewable power systems. Actively operated electrical generating facilities need many full-time employees operating the plant's various systems. However, solar and wind power facilities do not typically need the same active management. While the construction and installation costs may be higher, the operating costs might be far lower.

Construction costs, environmental costs, operating costs, financing and regulatory costs all enter into the power generation equation. All of these factors need to be taken into account to the best site viagra injectable make more reasonable decisions about power generation.

link: Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants (Wikipedia)

images: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported by KEI at ja.wikipedia; Wikimedia Commons

Hits: 16019
Comments (8)Add Comment
Interesting perspective....
written by Jake Jackson, July 13, 2011
It's a refreshing view to take all the different costs into account. It is, however, hard to quantify all of them. For example; how exactly do we take human lives into account? Is it worth the viagra online sales small (overall) number of deaths caused by nuclear reactors to secure a more consistent source of energy?
Good article
written by Jeff, July 14, 2011
Nice job with this one. I like the balanced, big-picture perspective provided. Well done.
More lies from nuclear lobbies
written by Seb, July 14, 2011
It's dissapointing to see such incorrect information spreading on the Internet and Ecogeek to relay it. It doesn't take a PhD to see nuclear number are wrong!
As per EIA data, nuclear has roughly generated 70.000 TWh since it started producing civil electricity. 70.000 x 0.04 = 2800 death in nuclear history. Low figures of Chernobyl disaster from WHO already state 4.000+ death for this disaster ALONE. The 2006 TORCH report suggest 30 to 60.000, Greenpeace claims 200.000 and a Russian publication concludes to visit our site soft cialis 1 million!
So even taking the low WHO death toll, numbers are already wrong by 30% issue Chernobyl data alone!
Good to see this information spread
written by Edouard Stenger, July 18, 2011
Many people still think that nuclear is dangerous. But compared to coal and oil, it is much safer.

George Monbiot in the Guardian stated something that I would like to share :

" You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of cheapest cialis prices nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology."

For more reflection on this, please check out my blog post, cf.
I wrote the various deaths per twh hour articles
written by Brian Wang, July 19, 2011
the 4000 deaths for Chernobyl from the purchase tramadol online World Health Organization is an estimate of how many people are expected to die based on a statistical increase in cancer. They have not died yet. If you go into the future then more nuclear power will have been generated.

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.

Also, the comparison would be with the estimated deaths and estimated generation for other kinds of energy (oil and coal will also have high estimates for expected cancer and heart disease.)

Lifetime deaths per twh

I propose a cutoff of 2 years of life shortening, which equates to being 15% overweight. If we were playing the maximum Chernobyl numbers, then any statistical shortening by days then has the same issue for pilots and stewardesses who lose about 30-60 days from increased lifetime exposure to buy propecia in canada radiation.
I wrote the deaths per twh articles
written by Brian Wang, July 19, 2011
the World Health Organization calculations of 4000 deaths from Chernobyl are for people who have not died yet but are expected to die from increased cancer risks. The deaths per twh are for people who have already died. I have a lifetime deaths per twh which looks at expected deaths with a minimum of 2 year life shortening. Most of web site for cialis the higher counts have an estimated reduction of 30-60 days. 2 year life shortening is like being 15 pounds overweight.

The russian publication of 1 million assumes that any increase in deaths was because of chernobyl. Even if it was increased alcoholism because the collapse of the soviet union stopped anti-drinking controls. The 30,000- 60,000 estimates applied to air travel would mean would be 200,000 excess cancers and 100,000 excess deaths from commercial aviation over the last 25 years.

Note however that, because exposure only increases the probability of developing cancer, we should keep in mind that no given cancer can be attributed to flying. Moreover, because these additional cancers will be distributed among hundreds of millions of pharmacy no prescripition tramadol capsules people, it is practically impossible to discern them among all the other cancer cases. (About 42% of the general population have cancer at some point in their lives, and about 20% of the population die because of cancer or complications that result from cancer.)
Wind turbine deaths
written by Billy, March 11, 2012
Bad article,no report on wind farm deaths. Why not? 99 deaths in the UK alone up to the end of 2011. The USA has had more.
Wrong casualty estimations
written by BasM, December 27, 2013
These estimations also neglect the all important heredity effects of Chernobyl as a.o. proved by the viagra online drugstore German environmental institution.

After Chernobyl some districts in Germany (1000mile off) got fallout (~0.5mSv/a) and nearby similar districts did not.
Research in the population registrations found a big jump upwards in the frequency of serious birth defects after Chernobyl. But only in the districts that got fallout (local rainfall from the passing radio-active cloud)!

The jump upwards was bigger the higher the Chernobyl fallout (extra radiation) level!
The increased levels in contaminated districts continued as expected because the contamination stayed as it is caused by Cs-137 (half live 30years).
Significance levels better than 0.001

The increased birth defects concerned stillbirth, Down syndrome, congenital malformation (heart deficiencies, etc), neural tube defects (Spina bifida), etc.

The study report is canadian levitra for sale published in a special number of peer reviewed journal ESPR:

It was also shown by several studies that in great parts of W-Europe the male-female ratio suddenly changed after Chernobyl.
That implies DNA damage. It has been shown that in general that type of damage ends in more vulnerable and less intelligent individuals.
Those DNA faults are transmitted in next generations!

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles