Fail-Safe


No energy technology should strive to label itself as fail-safe because... it would be setting itself for failure.

Nothing is safe in an absolute sense. Hundreds of persons die every year in airplane accidents and yet plane travel is the safest mode of transportation.

More than a million persons die every year in car accidents (and close to 20,000,000 are harmed) and yet nobody is seriously considering banning the automotive industry. 

Even if we focus on electricity itself, just in the USA, ~60 persons die every year in accidental electrocutions.** Are we going to ban electricity? I don't think so. 

So, nuclear should label itself as what it really is: the safest energy source our civilization has access to, bar non.*

And yes, just like the aviation industry has gotten dramatically safer over the years, nuclear will certainly continue to improve to maintain, long term, its badge as the safest energy we have.

Today nuclear accounts for 4.8% of the world's total primary energy supply (IEA data).  If nuclear participation eventually reaches, say 50%, in absolute terms we may see more accidents although in relative terms it will probably continue to improve.


Somebody once said: "there is nothing more risky than taking too many precautions."

We need loads and loads of low carbon, scaleable, dense, reliable, constant energy. And nuclear fills these requirements better than any other energy we have. Sure, even better and safer designs are in the pipeline and they should soon hit the market.

Conclusion: nothing is perfectly safe but in reality nuclear is and will probably continue to be the safest energy humanity has access to. 

Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram


*http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

**http://www.esfi.org/index.cfm/page/Injury-and-Fatality-Statistics/pid/12015

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starved for CO2

Image
This article is speculation, and yet, it is something to ponder about. During millions of years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been dropping. Actually the drop had been quite dramatic between the late Jurassic (more than 2,000 ppm) to recent times (less than 400 ppm). This is no fine tuning, the difference is in the range of five to one. Important reserves of carbon in the form of ancient life remains had been trapped "forever" inside the Earth. These reserves were in the form of coal, oil and natural gas. No natural mechanism could pump back to the atmosphere those "forever" sequestered amounts of carbon. No natural mechanism...  but could the Earth naturally create unnatural occurrences to return to the biosphere that long lost carbon or, would the Earth itself slowly starve due to insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere? It was inconceivable for any plant or animal species of the time to actually extract billions of tons of ca...
Read more

550.org

Image
We are launching an alternate organization to 350.org because we believe that just wishing for something to happen (in other words for the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to go back to 350 ppm) is absurd in the light that we break a new CO2 emissions record every year. So, it makes no sense to invest time, effort and money in pursuing an impossible objective.  Let's state here in what we firmly believe: nobody alive today will ever see again 350 ppm. So, if not 350, where are we headed?  We are "easily" headed for 550 ppm, thus the name of our non-profit. Before we proceed further, let us state why we believe our non-profit will be more attractive than 350.org: We will not, ever, under any circumstances ask for donations. Hell, we won't even accept them even if somebody volunteers some money. We won't be dogmatic. We won't believe blindly in models, organizations (e.g. IPCC) or the Pope. We will strive to actually list...
Read more

Going Solar

Image
Some people insist that solar PV has achieved "grid parity" but to claim this they obviously have to consider grid connected PV. The real cost of solar PV is masked when grid connected. In order to better understand the real cost of solar PV, let's make a simplified exercise here. What would be needed to go off grid? The following: Obviously, the solar PV panels. Storage batteries A gasoline electric generator (unless you plan to store heroic amounts of electricity, you would need the backup generator). We'll consider the following parameters in our installation (feel free to substitute your own numbers): Annual solar capacity factor: 18%. Cost of the PV installation (including inverters, installation, etc.): $3 per Watt. We'll use Tesla storage batteries (the 7kW version) at a cost of $6,000 including installation. Solar panel useful life: 20 years. Batteries useful life: 10 years. Annual electricity usage: 8,400 kWh. So, this ho...
Read more