Science Forum: nuclear power in Asia

Play
Download

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

M. V. Ramana (courtesy of Princeton University)

Many Asian nations have big plans for nuclear power. Marco Werman talks about the trend with nuclear analyst M. V. Ramana of Princeton University. Download MP3

What do you think about the tradeoffs of nuclear power? And should the U.S follow Asia’s lead? Bring your thoughts and questions to our online Science Forum discussion with Dr. Ramana, and his colleague, Dr. Alexander Glaser.


Discussion

2 comments for “Science Forum: nuclear power in Asia”

  • Chuck in Los Angeles

    The US invented nuclear power, and shouldn’t be afraid to use it as an alternative to coal. Compared with the dangers of coal mining, nuclear power saves lives. While only dozens die in mining accidents in the US, thousands develop respiratory problems (4000 cases of black lung a year). The sheer bulk of transported coal – a billion tons a year, or 20 million train carloads – contributes to industrial and transportation accidents.

    Then, there’s the environmental dangers. Coal mining produces billions of tons of tailings – millions of times as much as tailings from uranium mining. Burning coal not only creates huge amounts of greenhouse gases (40% of US total carbon dioxide emissions), it creates huge amounts of other pollutants – most of the particulate pollution in the US, most of the mercury pollution in the US, most of the sulfur dioxide emissions, and (most damning in comparison) most of the radioactive material emissions in the US. Yes, if you’re hurt by radioactive waste, it’s more likely from a coal powerplant than a nuclear one.

    I’m not a tree hugger – I don’t care how pretty the scenery is or if some woodland species goes extinct. But I care that 24,000 American lives are ended per year by coal burning powerplants, according to the American Lung Association. 38,000 extra heart attacks per year in the US are caused by coal powerplant pollution – at $280,000 cost to the healthcare system per heart attack, that’s an $11 billion per year from one condition. Add in the costs of strokes, lung cancer, COPD, asthma, and we’re potentially talking about a hundred billion dollars a year in health damages from coal power.

    Number of people killed per year by uranium mining, nuclear waste, and nuclear powerplants? Well, there were 3 deaths in 1961 when the Army was researching nuclear power plants. How many injuries were there from Three Mile Island? None at or near the plant, though probably some traffic accidents from the evacuation. As many as 16 Navajo uranium miners in the 1960′s and 1970′s may have died from improper safety standards. Some have speculated that hundreds have died from increased radiation or pollution from uranium mining, or non-nuclear accidents in nuclear powerplants in the last fifty years. But 20 to 500 deaths in 50 years is not comparable to over a million who have died prematurely in the US from coal in the same time frame.

  • http://www.SafeEnergyAnalyst.org Russell Lowes

    Nuclear energy is very expensive, I agree, but to say that nuclear energy is low in CO2 emissions is not correct. If you compare the emissions to wind, you have about 120 grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour of electricity for nukes to 10 grams of CO2 for wind power, on a life-cycle basis. For energy efficiency, averaging 5 or fewer grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour saved, the difference is even greater. Sure coal is much higher than nukes at about 960, until you start counting the cost of waste management (mine and mill tailings, reactor spent fuel, etc.) over the centuries. Additionally, as uranium is becoming harder to mine, with all the best ore bodies mined out, CO2 produced per ton mined is mushrooming. See http://www.SafeEnergyAnalyst.org for more information on this.
    Thanks!