My answer is an emphatic ‘yes.' Radiation is
part of our natural environment and we can leave with it. We are all exposed to
radiation from rocks and the soil (Readers Digest, March 2005).Presently, Mother
earth is in trouble, every time we click a light switch or start a car,
something sinister happens. From power stations chimneys and car tail-pipes,
immense release of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) are pumped into the sky
polluting the environment causing overheating. This overheating is nearing its
threshold and which could cause climate change. The benefit of using Nuclear
energy is overwhelming and it is safe, clean and effective. France for example
generate 78% of it power through Nuclear reactors, thus reducing CO2 pollution by 90%.

Reference

Readers Digest, March 2005

According to two studies carried out, the fatality rate for the Nuclear industry is generally no worse than other competing forms of energy generation and is significantly lower than some when measured in fatalities per GWy [1].

Two human perceptions hold back the nuclear industr:
1) the amount of waste caused by producing nuclear power which requires long term storage - this has it's own serious safety implications however the quantities are not actually as vast as one might suppose.

2) The threat of repeating another Chernobyl scale disaster - Lessons have been learnt and plants are designed differently today with more inherent safety features.

[1] Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air, David JC MacKay, 2009

Hi Haroon,

You have made a couple of good points there.

I agree with both you and Ernest that nuclear energy has been given such a bad name by modern press hysteria that is ever so prevalent in the UK. It seems that the media and most of the campaigners against nuclear need to be educated on its benefits. The same applies to other energy sources that they know little about..fraking for instance.

I am certain that in the UK, nuclear energy is the way forward. I believe that the government will use natural gas to get us through the interim period before starting a programme of nuclear power station programme.

However, there are certain elements that concern me.

Sellafield has been mentioned a couple of times in this forum. Sellafield is a nuclear waste dump. It is made up of huge bomb proof warehouses, where nuclear waste is imported from around the world to be stored underground where it is left to reach its half life. The amount of waste that is produced from the power stations and the fact it is being imported by the UK is a worry.

My second concern is that if nuclear energy is the way forward, it does not seem fair that only the Western countries with the capability are allowed to benefit from it. I cannot see a nuclear plant being built in Kenya for instance. So how are we to meet the energy needs of the developing world if nuclear is the way forward?

I guess the answer is, we will need to wait and see.

Andrew Carss - MSc Subsea Engineering (DL)

Currently, the interest in nuclear power has increased by
increasing energy demands in developing nations as well as the need to reduce
use of fossil fuels in response to climate change. However it has some negative
impact on human and environment. I would like to elaborate on this issue by
discussing some contributing factorss

Meltdowns and Accidents: such as Fukushima incident and Chernobyl explosion which
have irrecoverable harms in some countries.

Nuclear Waste: Short-
term and long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel has been a challenge for the
industry and countries. Such as radioactive element which has detrimental effects
on environment and human life.

Natural Disasters: The
earthquake and tsunami that damaged the Fukushima plant has some questioning
the sensibility of locating plants

All of all, what I would like to stress is that although
concerns about nuclear safety are high, its advantages outweigh its
disadvantages.

Source:

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/thorium-fuel-for-nuclear...

Nowadays, increasing in the number of world’s population, draws global attention to supply sufficient energy as well as meets the people demands. However these challenges are also accompanied by enormous concerns such as environmental and humanity impacts and their consequences. Pursuant to these supply and demands, there are various producing energy method have been introduced during previous decades. Nuclear power can be exemplified as a main source of energy, particularly electricity generation. [1]

Figure 1: illustrate world electricity generation by source of energy for the U308 crop website [2]
Albeit it has its own advocates, there are myriad opponents who oppose utilizing nuclear power due to its disadvantages.
Undoubtedly, one of the most significant drawbacks of nuclear power usage is its waste disposal. These wastes are categorized to high level, medium level as well as low level, according to emission of radioactive materials. Taking no account to each category and their magnitude, it is worth understanding that after several years they have not been lost their influence and cause many negative aspects such as chromosome aberration and leukemia. This contributing factor emerges an important issue about storage of nuclear waste. Burying beneath the earth, storage in special container on the surface, even though launching them to the other planet are some debatable ideas among the scientists.
On the other hand, the probability of proliferation and also military threats due to producing nuclear weapon is the other remaining subjects. Remember the 6th of august 1945, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagazaki. Approximately 200.000 Japanese people died. Nonetheless, the survivors suffered from explosion.[3]
My recommendation is change our attitude toward the conventional fuels and also those that have environmental impact. Developing and expanding the renewable source of energy, particularly the green ones, and also introducing them among the people may assist in decreasing the amount of pollutants. However, taking into account that utilizing nuclear energy is inevitably today,technically we have to endeavour to keep on the process more efficiently with less by product and wastes.

REFERENCES:

[1].ASSOCIATION, W. N. 2011. Nuclear Energy [Online]. Available: http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/intro.htm [Accessed 22/11 2012].
[2].U308CORP. 2012. World electricity generation [Online]. Available: http://www.u3o8corp.com/main1.aspx?id=97 [Accessed 22/11 2012].
[3].BBC. 2005. Warning on Nuclear [Online]. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4407421.stm [Accessed 22/11 2012].

Liu, I understand your doubts and apprehensions about nuclear energy
and the potential risk they possess. But the point to be noted here is that the
level of safety or the SIL level for nuclear power plant equipment is SIL4 that
is the highest level of safety and it is designed and managed with the highest
level of care. The personnel working in this plan is highly trained and during
emergency can act accordingly. Extensive risk estimation is carried out before
the site for a nuclear plant is selected and thus I would like to end by saying
that nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy available. The
developments in nuclear fusion as a source of energy is also being evaluated

Rohit C Nair
Subsea Engineering
Student id- 51231896

I would like to respond to adavis that nuclear reactors have been a target for wars for a long time. I will quote some examples where some countries have ended up in attacking one another due to construction of nuclear reactors: Israel attacked Syrian nuclear reactor named Al Kibar [1]. The USA has been worried about Syria coming up with nuclear reactor; USA during the invasion of Iraq attacked several nuclear reactors.[2] Nuclear reactors can also be a target for terrorists because some of the nuclear reactors are situated in populated areas and an attack can lead to the meltdown of the core and a large release of radioactive wastes. The consequences you are familiar too. WE know that we can never have absolute safety …but nuclear reactors can be disastrous and they will have a long effect on human life. Safety associated with all those you have been mentioned can be controlled if they happen but accidents related to nuclear are a big challenge.

1. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/17/120917fa_fact_makovsky
2. http://www.suzytkane.com/read-article-by-suzy-t-kane.php?rec_id=3

FELIX MAIYO

Discussion Topic 2: Is nuclear power safe for humans and the
environment?

Nuclear Energy/power is produced in nuclear
reactors by radioactivity in a process known as nuclear fission where by a
large fissile nuclide splits into lighter nuclei resulting in the production of
kinetic energy, gamma radiations and neutrons. The heat produced is then used
to run a steam generator to generate power.

Nuclear power may referred as a clean source of
energy to some extent because it does
not produce greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
but it does also have its effects to both humans and the environment. First and
foremost, the radiations emitted during nuclear power generation if inhaled or
if they penetrate a human body can cause long term effects such as damaging the
body cells/tissues, DNA which damages may lead to cancer, other diseases and
mutations (2) however this can be mitigated by ensuring that workers have
proper protective gear that are resistant to radiations. Another challenge
affecting nuclear power stations is radioactive waste such as old/used fuel
rods from reactors which is a source of radiation hazard (1). The current
practice is to burry these wastes or
store them in large water cooled pools or dry storage casks however this is not
a sustainable solution. It poses environmental concerns/pollution.

There is need to consider recycling/reusing of
nuclear waste to overcome their impacts on the environment. According to
Galen(2),fuel reprocessing would recover Uranium which would again be used as
fuel and the process can be categorised into three steps namely (a) recovery of unused fuel which include
heavy metals, (b) waste minimization, and (c) full use of uranium/thorium as
fuel.

There is also a risk of radioactive leakages or explosion/rupture
of the nuclear reactors in case of a meltdown resulting into radioactive
vapours escaping to the atmosphere and causing radiation poisoning of the earth
just like it was for the case of
Chernobyl nuclear power plant on April 26, 1986. To achieve optimum
safety in nuclear power; high quality designs and constructions, comprehensive
monitoring & regular testing of the reactors to detect equipment or
operator failure, physical barriers between the reactor core & the environment
and safety systems should be in place.

Regards

John Bosco Aliganyira

Msc.Oil and Gas Engineering.

References:

1. Nuclear energy by Chris Oxlade , 2012

2. Sustainable nuclear power by Galen
J Suppes; Truman S. Storvick, c2007

3. The future of nuclear power by J.
N. Lillington , ScienceDirect, 2004

I agree Ernest, nuclear energy has been given a ‘bad’ name tag by the media and environmentalists, who are dedicated to eradicating nuclear energy, and back energy technologies such as renewable and biofuels - which are not economically feasible or sustainable. Biofuels for example have to be grown, and raises the argument of food vs. fuel which has been debated in a separate blog on imechanica.

I suppose it is down to safety engineers such ourselves to raise the ‘safe’ profile of nuclear energy, when it is clearly the energy source for the future alongside renewable energy. It has the potential, in nuclear fusion power to be a source of energy that is cheap, safe and sustainable. And also the fuel material for fusion power, deuterium, is in abundant supply as it is found in seawater.

Haroon Latif
MSc Oil and Gas Engineering

I agree with Thomas that while it is possible to detect correlations of increased sickness and disease in areas subjected to nuclear leaks, it is not possible to conclude a direct causation. The two decades of leaking radioactive material in the Dounreay area will have a permenant effect within the region and the world. ROV's have been attempting to recover the radioactive particles, but it would seem that the scope of the spill is indefinable. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is no longer even considering cleaning the area up, it simply isn't possible. So while the safety statistics, mentioned above, may show nuclear energy to be vastly safer than coal and oil, it is not possible to define what safe is. If radioactive materials have half-life defined in hundreds of thousands of years, how can we measure the impact that even a minute amount of leakage will have?

Edwards, R. Scottish nuclear fuel leak 'will never be completely cleaned up'. The Guardian. 21 Sep 2011.

Liu, I respectfully disagree with your comment. I understand your argument that other industries have had more fatalities than nuclear energy because there is more workers in the Oil and Gas industry for example. But nuclear energy is as safe as any other energy technology, and with fossil fuel energy sources diminishing and renewable not yet ready to meet global demands, nuclear energy definitely has a role to play within the future energy mix and has the potential to become the dominate source of energy supply.

The Fukushima accident has definitely damaged nuclear energy’s legacy and reputation, but as with the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, engineers and physicists will learn the lessons from the tragic accidents, and with time will improve the overall standard of the next generation of nuclear power stations. France is a country that generates over 40% of its energy needs from nuclear energy, and has not had a major accident, with numerous fatalities at their plants.

Haroon Latif
MSc Oil and Gas Engineering

If someone is hit by a bus and killed it is very easy to say ’the bus killed him!’ with nuclear power it isn’t that easy.. Unless someone was killed at the moment of the disaster it is hard to quantify the overall deaths caused by nuclear power plants while operating or when there have been disasters. The population that lives around Dounreay in the North of Scotland have a higher than usual number of people suffering from oesophagus and stomach cancer and Childhood leukaemia is also very high in the areas around Sellafield. Is this due to the nuclear power plants?? Nuclear power is looked at as a quick fix for or energy problems, charging forward with more nuclear power stations without fully understanding the potential risks to the environment and to the population is probably one of the most irresponsible things that we could do.

Nuclear power can be described as harnessing energy from controlled fusion or fission reactions to generate power. Nuclear energy has been safely harnessed but the reliability of the process and the impact of it’s by product to the environment has been the concerns. Looking at the nuclear accidents that have occurred in the history, over a period of 100 years we can see that the AFR is just 0.68. This is a far lower figure when compared to other industries like the Aerospace or oil & gas industry. the nuclear power industry is a sustainable safe industry which also can help maintain our planet ecosystem by helping reduce the carbon footprint gotten from energy generation. However, the challenges if its accidental impact can be devastating but if properly handled nuclear energy is safe for humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

Uhunoma Osaigbovo

Subsea Engineering D/L

Is nuclear power safe for humans and the environment?

Commercial nuclear power plants in the United States have produced electricity for over half a century, and there have been no radiation-related deaths linked to their operation. Studies by numerous health entities, including the National Cancer Institute and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, show that US nuclear power plants effectively protect the public's health and safety.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the commercial and institutional uses of nuclear energy, including nuclear power plants. These plants are designed, licensed, constructed, and operated to rigorous requirements established by the NRC. Additionally, the NRC has a continuing inspection and oversight process with on-site resident inspectors and periodic inspection teams to ensure compliance with regulations and associated programs

In practice, radiation protection is based on the understanding that small increases over natural levels of exposure are not likely to be harmful but should be kept to a minimum. To put this into practice the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) has established recommended standards of protection (both for members of the public and radiation workers) based on three basic principles:

• No practice involving exposure to radiation should be adopted unless it produces a net benefit to those exposed or to society generally.

• Radiation doses and risks should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), economic and social factors being taken into account.

• The exposure of individuals should be subject to dose or risk limits above which the radiation risk would be deemed unacceptable.

These principles apply to the potential for accidental exposures as well as predictable normal exposures.

According to (EG50S1 & EG501D 2012-13), Fundamental Safety Engineering and Risk Management Concept, nuclear power has the lowest Deaths per Terawatt Hour.

With the level of safety recorded in the United of America, the recommended practice by ICRP and the information from EG50S1 & EG501D, I would say it is safe to use nuclear power.

References

1. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf24.html

2. EG50S1 & EG501D 2012-13 - Fundamental Safety Engineering and Risk Management

Nuclear power is clean, environmental friendly and safe source of power supply.
The only problem is the nuclear fuel waste and exposure to radiations from the core of the reactors.
There has been a lot of misunderstanding on how dangerous radiation is since most people do not know that they are exposed to minimal levels of radiation daily with no proven health sickness or associated death.

Most of the fear of nuclear energy comes from the propaganda of the media and environmentalists who constantly preach about a total meltdown and mass destruction of communities in the area of these reactors.
There are only two cases of nuclear accidents in the world and the amount of radiation released by one of these accidents was no more than what could naturally be found and absorbed.
The waste from the reactors are properly being treated and stored.
In general, from all other power supply facilities, nuclear power is the safest.

Liu, I have to agree, the issue is around the scale of the disasters if and when they happen. The contamination caused by the Chernobyl disaster affected not just local communities but also affected us here in the UK. The food standards agency still has a radioactive contamination control in place for upland sheep farmers in the UK as a result of the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago. No other industry or power source would have had the same far-reaching effect, and require the same control measures to prevent contaminated food sources being consumed.

Although it appears a quick fix to our ever-increasing power requirements, I’m with you. Nuclear power is not the answer.

I really cannot agree that nuclear power is safe. The supporters said nuclear power is safer than oil, gas and coal as they killed more people than nuclear plants. Indeed, we can hear about a lot of accidents happened in fossil fuel industries. However, the reason is there are more oil and gas wells, coal mines than nuclear plants. The more matters we did, the more mistakes we made. Thus, the number of fatalities does not mean nuclear power is safe. Actually, the radioactive materials could be harmful to human beings in long term. We all know that the nuclear accident happened in Japan is tragic. The nuclear industry must learn from it. As when things go wrong at a nuclear power plant, they can go wrong on a massive scale.

Every form of energy generation has some or the other advantages or
disadvantages. If implemented efficiently, then I would say that nuclear energy
is the cleanest form of energy since it generates no pollution or emission
unlike thermal power plants, which are responsible for increased CO2 emission
that leads to global warming. I would like to state the following advantages of
nuclear power that cannot be ignored:

·
28gm of uranium can produce the
amount of energy that 100metric tonnes of coal produce so it is highly
efficient

·
The cost per KWhr for energy
produced is the lowest for nuclear power

·
They are very reliable source
of energy with a life span of about 50 years

·
The quantity of waste produced
is also very less

And there are many more. So I think in the current scenario where
there is huge demand for energy across the world, nuclear power is here to stay
unless a better and efficient form of energy generation is not discovered. If
the nuclear waste management is done efficiently and the nuclear reactors are
built with the highest safety standards then I think it is one of the safest forms
of energy.

Rohit C Nair
Subsea Engineering
Student id- 51231896

A Nuclear power plant which is under operation will produces radioactive gases, liquids and also direct radiation. According to US Nuclear Regulatory Commision, 0.01 milirem per year dose of radiation is recieved by a person living 50 miles from a nuclear plant.

Radiation can cause cancer in humans, it can also cause adverse health effects like genetic defects and mental retardation in the children of exposed parents

A nuclear reactor has the potential to destroy the region at which it is operating. The capacity of the plant depand on the radioactive fuel rod. It should be cooled always. Else melting down will occur which will lead mass destruction. So the regions select for the nulear power plant should be a safe one. Because any natural disaster can cause big problems. Any Accident in a nuclear power plant will create high risk of release of radioactive material.

Reference:

www.alternativeenergy.procon.org

With the rapid research and development of fusion power technologies, this has the safety advantages over the current fission methods. But, only a small amount of fuel can be used at anytime and requires an accurately controlled measure to generate any net energy. Furthermore, the fuel itself is considered to be very safe at any temperature outside that of a working fusion reactor and just a small quantity is used. However, if the reactors were to be damaged or the fuel supply stops, or control impaired, the reactions and heat generation would stop immediately. Fusion reaction processes are so delicate that safety measures are inherent and no elaborate failsafe methods are essential.

In other words, fusion reactions have no risk of thermal runaway or nuclear meltdown because any significant change could render the reactions to be unable to generate excess heat. However, in the current fission reactor it requires loading enough fuels for one or several years in a suitably small space that will generate thermal runaway or meltdown, and hence, requiring no addition fuel in keeping the reaction going. In the event of fire, calculations recommend the total quantity of radioactive gases in a fusion plant to be small as1kg, as they would have diluted to legally acceptable limits by the time they blew as far as the plant's protective fence.

So, with this new fusion technology in Nuclear power generation, it will help to create less radioactive materials which are less damaging biologically and within time period that is in existing engineering capability [1].

References

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety

Nuclear power is considered to be a safe technology in that; they generate power without any air pollution on the environment [1]. But the risk and impact of its design in the case of a catastrophic accident can affect thousands or even millions of people which could lead to human, environmental and economic consequences [2]. Therefore, regulatory bodies should ensure that proper safety regulations or regimes are taking into account in the design and during operations to reduce the high risks to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). To reduce the risks, a proper balance between risk and cost should be analyzed to ensure the safety and also enhancing the use of safety factors in the design and operations of Nuclear power plants [3].

More so, there are other concerns that are needed to be considered to ensure the safety of Nuclear power these include: human and mechanical errors, the ageing of technologies, terrorist attacks and natural disasters. All these possible effects need to be accessed in the safety legislation to ensure minimal risk on the environment in order to avoid the major accidents such as the Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accident that brought about lots of concern in the Nuclear power industry [3].

References

[1] http://www.howitworksdaily.com/science/is-nuclear-power-safe/

[2] http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safety

As being said by others, the technology itself should be refined in order to make it safer. In my opinion, we should move to artificial intelligence technology that could predict disaster and recommend initial measures.

Several technologies from other industry could be utilized. For instance, Flowserve Valvesight gives us the health of each control valves and preventive measure could be mitigate earlier before failing. Such technologies could be extrapolate for better plant management. Emerson also have wireless technology that overall will improve plant management. The only down side is all this technologies are expensive and such condition might prevent broad application of such beneficial technologies in the end impact on safety issue.

References:

1. http://www.flowserve.com/files/www/Literature/ProductLiterature/FlowControl/Flowserve/valvesight_brochure.pdf
2. http://www2.emersonprocess.com/siteadmincenter/PM%20Central%20Web%20Documents/SmartWireless_B-00034.pdf

Most of the posts above seem to support the fact that Nuclear power is one of the safest means of generating energy. This may be the case if one looks at the table in Derek Porter’s post and this table of serious nuclear accidents since 1952[1].

However, I’ll like to add that no matter how safe a system has been declared, the issue of not being able to fully eliminate risk is a problem. This, coupled with the fact that a system can never be fully tested till it has been subjected to an unforeseen, highly catastrophic event such as the tsunami that led to the fukushima accident. Now, though there have been zero deaths reported from the Fukushima Nuclear disaster of present, but the long term effects of radioactive leakage from the incident is yet to be registered as there may be cancer related deaths in the future, like those reported in the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Based on this, I’ll conclude that the issue of Nuclear energy being safe is one which is subjective.

References:

1) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06app.html

I strongly agree with Allan’s view on the poor design plan
that resulted to the Fukushima Nuclear incident. The need for a comprehensive
risk and hazard analysis is of key importance in every front end engineering
design as well as the evaluation of all viable HAZIDs, HAZOPs and FMECA in any future process
modifications.

The Nuclear sector has high risk and hazard potentials but modern
engineering design and technology have been upgraded to reduced or eliminate
the likelihood of any possible accident. The Fukushima incident was not a
technological problem since the plant process was programed to shut down in case
of any emergency but the power supply link for the complete cycle of the shutdown
process was interrupted due to the flooded emergency generation which failed due to
poor detailed design of the plant emergency response plan.

This slag in safety mitigation and control has impacted
negatively on the Nuclear industry and has also given room for lessons to be learnt on the
need for best process safety design practices with committed compliance to
appropriate “DUTY DESIGN CODES” which is an intricate part of the HSE
regulatory act that serves as bedrock for future Nuclear plant designs and
existing plant modifications.

VICTOR ITA ETIM

51126236. OGE.

.

History agrees with Victor's opinions above on the origin of Nuclear energy sources, but it must be noted that the effectiveness and viability of a technology cannot be solely judged by its genesis, nor even by its occasional negative impacts on lives and the environment, for its general applicability and positive impact on human existence must be duly considered.

Although, Nuclear energy was first applied as a source of death and destruction, over the past few decades, it has brought smiles to the populace, providing electricit and a source of income for multitudes, and has grown steadily on the global energy roadmap, providing about 5.2% of global energy. With 5.2% of the global energy mix modestly estimated as 26.156 ExaJoules/yr, can this really be considered a "modest" degree? I vehemently disagree.

Although recent disasters (due to natural occurences and human negligence) have caused a few countries to veto future investments in Nuclear energy exploitation (Germany etc), it must be noted that the 2 major energy and economic superpowers (USA and China) have shunned this decision, and instead, have decided to increase Nuclear energy investment over the next few decades,
and an increasing number of growing economies have also indicated
interest in joining the league of peacetime nuclear producers/consumers
(Nigeria etc).

Conclusively, with an estimated Nuclear production of 46 ExaJoules/yr estimated in year 2050, it is obvious that except unforeseen circumstances arise, Nuclear energy would not be relegated to the background, and woud remain a major energy source on the Global Energy Mix.

Oluwatosin Oyebade

Msc Oil and Gas Engineering

.

I have read a lot of the posts on this topic and I understand that:

nuclear energy accidents have the lowest fatality rates relative to alternative energy sources However, the public perception of nuclear energy is still somewhat negative. By public, I mean the general population that have not taken time out to do research on this subject matter. As part of my research, i took this questions "Do you consider nuclear energy to be a safe energy source for the future" to 10 people and I got some interesting views. Most of them considered it as unsafe and provided the following reason:

They felt that it was risky. By risky, i gathered they were of the opinion that while the probability of accidents getting out of control may be low due, The severity and impact in the cases where they do are extremely high. This is a view I came to share also. Yes there are numerous and thorough safety measures in place, In a situation where these measures are compromised, the impact of accidents could be too catastrophic and potentially disastrous.

Furthermore, they raised the the concernthat future dependence on nuclear energy would provide limitless availability of these potentially disastrous nuclear materials to terrorist. I also acknowledge this concern and somewhat share the same view.

Reference:

personally drafted questionnaire.

I completely agree with your point Trevor regarding the safety of nuclear in the UK. As of now there have been no accidents or fatalities minus a few issues regarding the dumping of waste. The safety procedures clearly work.

By referring the debate to the developed and non-developed countries we can compare the stats (Ref 1). The OECD has had 0 accidents and 0 fatalities before 2000 in the nuclear sector where as oil and gas accidents total 255 and 4756 fatalities. These stats are taken from before 2000. This promotes the case for the UK to continue generating nuclear energy. The negative point is the indirect deaths caused by chernobyl alone tops 33000 fatalities and fukushima now adds aprox 100-1000). Can the UK guarantee an accident of this magnitude will never occur????? This is where the public can have their say.

Industry had set out its plans to develop up to 16GW of new nuclear power in the UK by 2025 in several sites in England thus creating jobs and a sustainable energy future. This introduces the new generation of nuclear reactor. (Ref 2) From Ref 1 we can confirm the new generation has alower accident rate but the public may feel the risk is too high. In my opinion I believe if managed, nuclear will be a dominant part of the UK and world's future energy mix.

Ref 1: OECD, 2010, Comparing nuclear accident risks with those from other energy sources, Nuclear development

Ref 2: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/nuclear/nuclear.aspx

OECD Non-OECD
Energy Accidents Fatalities Accidents Fatalities
Coal 75 2259 1044 18017
Oil 165 3713 232 16505
Natural gas 90 1043 45 1000
Hydro 1 14 10 29924
Nuclear 0 0 1 31

Hi Neil, this is to back up your point that no members of the public have died as a result of exposure to radiation (excluding Chernobyl). The table above summarises the severe (> 5 fatalities) accidents that occurred in the energy sectors in the period 1969-2000. This mentions immediate fatalities only but fails to include the 33000 delayed fatalities from chernobyl and 100-1000 that may result from fukushima. This does significantly change the statistics although to counteract this stat, the OECD environmental directorate estimates 960,000 have died prematurely due to particles in the air related to fossil fuels in one year alone.

In my opinion, if we take into account the delayed fatalities of chernobyl and fukushima, nuclear energy, although has a very low probability of occurring can have a very severe impact where as if we exclude the deaths due to fossil fuel particles in the air we can presume oil and natural gas, although have a higher rate of probability, the impact is far less.
If the safety considerations of nuclear is breached a few more times (after fukushima) then nuclear generation will struggle to remain as a main player in the worlds energy generation.

Ref: OECD, 2010, Comparing nuclear accident risks with those from other energy sources, Nuclear development