On 26/06/2013 17:15, newshound wrote:
On 26/06/2013 16:27, news wrote:
I think most of this has been said already but if you have 5 minutes it
is an interesting article.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...o-nuclear.html



A quote from it.

One recent paper estimated that nuclear power has prevented 1.84 million
air-pollution-related deaths globally.

and from one of the responses

More people have died in America installing rooftop solar, than have
ever died from commercial nuclear power.
(although there is no reference quoted for this)

See the link below



As the article says, there were (small) working molten salt reactors
back in the '60s. The fact that no-one building large commercial plant
ever went down that route should tell you something.

Generation IV designs include molten salt reactors. They are also
proposed as the basis for thorium reactors.

It's not trivial to work out total deaths associated with nuclear power.
You need to include lung cancer in uranium miners, and these are not
sudden deaths like falling off a roof, it's about reduced life expectancy.

I'm confident that nuclear has provided big benefits in air pollution,
but splitting air pollution "deaths" (or more exactly reduced life
expectancy) between transport, the chemical industry, and electricity
generation is complex.

This site has done the work:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html

Colin Bignell