Relative Dangers of Nuclear Power

It's commonly believed that nuclear power plants are unsafe, unstable, frightening. This perception can be blamed primarily on a few movies and the public revulsion at Hiroshima. But the truth is, nuclear power is surprisingly safe, with hardly any deaths and hardly any pollution. Consider the following:

In 2006, 47 American miners died in coal mining accidents; many others were killed by mining-related diseases like black lung and cancer. Add to this untold deaths from the sooty pollution put out by coal, and you have a fairly large number.

Many more people each year die from oil-related accidents, primarily on ocean-based drilling rigs. In addition, with oil there's always the risk of a terrible leak that can lead to poisoning of the ocean and the death of a wide swath of marine life. Oil is also associated with greenhouse gases, refinery fires, and deaths from pollution -- not clean energy.

Hydroelectric power, which is perhaps the cleanest bulk power available, has a rate of approximately 2 ½ times the deaths related to coal in accidents -- so over a hundred deaths a year related to hydroelectric power in the US.

But in the United States, there has never been a death related to a nuclear power accident -- not at a plant, not due to a leak, not due to the disposal of nuclear waste.

Put it another way; worldwide, for the electricity gained, per billion megawatt-hours, there have been:

* 101 hydroelectric deaths.

* 39 coal-related deaths

* 10 gas-related deaths

* Less than one nuclear-related death -- and that's in spite of the Chernobyl accident.

Pollution and Other Energy Drawbacks

Nuclear power is relatively pollution-free. So is hydroelectric power, though it takes up an enormous amount of space when done properly and may flood places we'd rather keep free (the Aswan Dam in Egypt, for instance, flooded a wide plain filled with dozens of fascinating ancient ruins, and today is changing the salinity of the soil in such a way that other Egyptian monuments are at risk of damage or destruction).

Coal, however, is both our most common form of power and the dirtiest form. In my home state, Kentucky, coal is a critical element for the economy and for the production of energy -- but those who live downwind from coal-based electric plants complain of acid precipitation, ashy fallout, and bad coughs. You'll find similar situations with oil and gas electric plants.

There are other forms of power generation, but all have their drawbacks:

Wind: a wind farm that produces adequate energy takes up an enormous amount of space, and often this space is in a scenic area we'd rather not spoil.

Solar: without taking up huge amounts of space, solar energy is inefficient on a large scale. It's best used as a supplement for home energy, with roof-mounted solar panels used to heat water or to do other sunlight-to-energy conversions that don't lose too much energy in the conversion

Geothermal: while this form of power generation is very effective, it's also very localized and quite dangerous.

Nuclear Power: A Cleaner Alternative

More of the power you use today is generated from nuclear plants than you might imagine -- 15% in the United States, and 17% worldwide. While the mining and purification of nuclear ores has been a very polluting process in the past, in modern countries today this has been cleaned up nicely. Transporting nuclear fuel is dangerous, and the disposal of depleted fuels has been and will continue to be a real challenge. But there is no dispersal of greenhouse gases or other pollutants into the air from a nuclear plant, and with the hundreds of safeguards in place, risks of meltdowns and other accidents have been reduced to as close to nil as is possible.

(Chernobyl was a horror. But Chernobyl was a flawed plant run by improperly-trained technicians, and crews running a safety check did not adequately communicate with others. It was an accident waiting to happen. American plants have safeguards to prevent exactly this sort of thing. As for Three Mile Island -- there were no deaths, very little radiation was released, and the accident was completely contained very quickly.)

The public distaste for nuclear power has been heavily shaded by emotion. Hiroshima will always linger in the public conscience, and be linked with nuclear power. The movie The China Syndrome, though based on remarkably bad science, will also color our perception of nuclear power.

But the truth is, we already use nuclear power extensively, both on land and at sea (in over a hundred naval vessels). In the forty or fifty years nuclear power has been used, there has been one major accident (that is, an accident that probably would lead to core meltdown -- Three Mile Island did have a core meltdown), but no actual meltdown. This safety record compared to any other form of large-scale energy is almost unbelievable.

Sure, it would be better to switch to solar power, wind power, and microbial fuel cells. But that's an unrealistic possibility given today's technology. In fifty years, perhaps, we can throw out our electric bills as we all provide our own energy. Until then, nuclear power may be our best overall bet for safety, cleanness, and stability.