Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(37,968 posts)
8. Yeah, let's burn the planet because we have paranoids afraid of clean energy.
Wed Jul 5, 2023, 05:38 PM
Jul 2023

The nuclear industry is over 70 years old, and has been attacked by lots of morons who couldn't care less about climate change, air pollution deaths, and the lives saved by nuclear energy.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

How about it? After 70 years of nuclear paranoia, how many people were killed by it?

As many as will die today from air pollution? (Where, exactly, does nuclear energy deaths appear in this comprehensive publication?)


Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here is what it says about air pollution deaths in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Survey, if one is too busy to open it oneself because one is too busy carrying on about Fukushima:

The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).


Obsessive ignorance is not neutral. It kills people.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

So, out of curiosity, if say you were making giant solar grid Hugh_Lebowski Jul 2023 #1
probably twice as big Blues Heron Jul 2023 #2
You're dreaming. NNadir Jul 2023 #3
This is actually a more complex question than you would think. NNadir Jul 2023 #4
Not asking you to do something crazy complex like a paper to submit to a bank for a loan Hugh_Lebowski Jul 2023 #5
If nukes are the only way, then this can't be possible. There is no numerical answer to this. Blues Heron Jul 2023 #6
Yeah, let's burn the planet because we have paranoids afraid of clean energy. NNadir Jul 2023 #8
OK,I have a few minutes; I'll propose a new energy unit, "A California" corresponding to "homes..." NNadir Jul 2023 #7
Thanks for doing that, but not really my question :) Hugh_Lebowski Jul 2023 #9
He answered it - 1 solar exajoule is 8 californias, 1 H2 exajoule is 13.4 californias Blues Heron Jul 2023 #10
It's relatively easy to calculate those numbers from the numbers in the post I provided. NNadir Jul 2023 #11
Let me ask what I'm wondering in the simplest terms possible Hugh_Lebowski Jul 2023 #12
He gave you the ratio - its 13.4 to 8 Blues Heron Jul 2023 #13
All I saw him speaking about is what (I interpreted as) the MAKING of the Hydrogen piece Hugh_Lebowski Jul 2023 #14
I think that is included in the calculation. Blues Heron Jul 2023 #16
Nothing in that post's verbiage suggests it does to me Hugh_Lebowski Jul 2023 #17
pretty sure the reference to: liquid hydrogen having an energy content of roughly 120 MJ/kg. Blues Heron Jul 2023 #18
And without further clarification I assume 'energy content' refers to a theoretical maximum Hugh_Lebowski Jul 2023 #20
good article on fuel cell efficiency here Blues Heron Jul 2023 #22
Let's stick with Exajoules (1) and Californias, since CAISO gives Solar Output every day. NNadir Jul 2023 #23
Yup. I was just curious about the scale involved if you tried to use hydrogen Hugh_Lebowski Jul 2023 #24
Yeah, it's more or less a theoretical lower limit. Reality would... NNadir Jul 2023 #26
You don't have to work on that scale to get a feel for the problem. hunter Jul 2023 #15
Thanks for that, and it's more or less as I assumed 'things to be' Hugh_Lebowski Jul 2023 #19
Here's the argument I've used previously: hunter Jul 2023 #21
Thanks mate, trenchant points :) nt Hugh_Lebowski Jul 2023 #25
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Elevated Radium Activity ...»Reply #8