So what happens when the brakes fail in high winds on a 200 ft wind turbine?
What happens when the brakes fail on a 300 ft wind turbine in just low winds?
Would you want to live anywhere near one of these things?
I have lived my entire life within a few miles of a nuclear power plant. Now I work at that same nuclear plant. In all that time, I have never heard of anything like this. Yet when I turn on my TV, I see environmentalists telling me that the nuclear reactor I work on is too dangerous and we should build more of these wind turbines instead. Truth be told, wind energy is far more dangerous than nuclear energy.
In 2008, wind provided just 1.5% of the worlds electricity. In that same year, nuclear energy generated 16.0% of all electricity.
41 people died in 2008 as the result of accidents involving wind turbines. Most of these deaths were the result of falling from the turbines, which can be up to 400 feet tall. Considering how many people have died to produce such a small amount of electricity, it is a wonder why the general public looks at wind power as a “safe” means of generating electricity.
Now consider the hypothetical case if wind power were to produce the same amount of energy as nuclear power. If 41 people died to produce 1.5% of the worlds electricity, then it is logical to extrapolate that 437 people would be killed by windmills every year if they produced 16% of the world’s electricity.
But what about Chernobyl?
In 2005, the World Health Organization did a study that concluded 50 people had died as a direct result of the Chernobyl Disaster. The study also concluded that as many as 4,000 people might die earlier but not directly due to the accident. Considering that this is the only fatal Nuclear accident in nearly 40 years of otherwise safe operation, this means that even considering Chernobyl, nuclear energy is far safer than wind power even at current levels. This doesn’t take into account that the reactor design at Chernobyl was inherently flawed and lacked even a basic containment structure. The reactors currently in service around the world are far safer than the reactor destroyed at Chernobyl.
However, If wind power were to expand to produce as much energy as nuclear power, the death toll would be so immense that it would dwarf the Chernobyl disaster every single year! Think about this the next time someone tells you we need more wind energy.
~Man Overboard
33 Comments
The fear of nuclear plants is definitely irrational. Chernobyl was a clear sign of stupidity and bad design — that would never happen at a modern plant. Most modern plants, in fact, are incapable of melting down to that extent.
However, accidents with wind towers like these shouldn’t discourage us from wind. As oil diminishes, it’s going to take a combined effort of energy sources for us to even come close to maintaining our lifestyle. It’s not like these wind towers were in large cities — they were out in open fields. Yes, it’s bad that they can fall, but as technology improves they’ll become safer and safer.
Jack – you know I am all on board with the need to expand our Nuclear energy generation. What I don’t get is your hate campaign against other sources of energy generation. Is it because Nuclear is cheap, clean and safe and yet people still ignorantly rally against it and this angers you into attacking other types of power generation?
If you think Nuclear electricity generation is the only answer to our energy needs you are sadly mistaken. It should be an integral part, but the problem is larger than any one means of electricity generation can handle. A collaboration of ANY AND ALL safe, clean, and affordable technologies should be employed, including Wind Power. Not to be callus, but so what if some people fall off a turbine? More people die in car accidents everyday than all of the wind power fatalities in a year. I don’t see you walking to work, that must mean you are willing to accept a greater degree of risk than that posed by the wind turbines….
This is not anger, it is merely fact. Wind is more dangerous than nuclear. But our elected officials and genral public live in a fantasy world were windmills make all of our problems magically disappear.
My reasoning is simple – every second we kid ourselves claiming windmills and solar panels are going to solve our energy problems is another second the problems get worse. All of this stuff sounds great on paper, but people ignore the science and jump behind any cause on the table and it is a testament to the cattle mentality of environmentalists.
Our dellusions about wind energy only make things worse. On top of that, the reasons that environmentalists tout are the same reasons we SHOUDLN’T use wind.
I havn’t even mentioned how many people are going to die falling off of their roofs becuase they need to clean their solar panels twice a year. So this is far from the end of my rant on this matter.
Well then can we challenge you to a scientific treatise devoid of emotion and politics that delves int0 a point for point analysis as to why an exclusive nuclear energy program is the only way to go?
To Jay’s point, I don’t know if bashing the competition to bolster your own convictions is going to win over anyone who is on the fence. Generally speaking, those people are looking for an educated learning experience that will convince them of why nuclear energy is superior.
In my opinion Jack, you are only convincing people that already agree with you. Does those people really need convincing?
I don’t see the flaw in this. I apply the same logic used by opponents of nuclear power to the alternative they suggest. In doing so, I completely disprove their assumption.
The reason these people are currently acheiving their goals is because no one in the scientific community dares stand up to them. So I will continue to counter their arguments as long as we have politicians who repeatedly and intentionally refuse to use the world “nuclear” in any conversation opting instead to list “wind, solar, tide, and biofuel” as our national energy policy. We spend tens of billions of dollars indulging these people just so they can add to our energy problems by ignoring the obvious solution.
Why is it suddenly “emotional” or unacceptable to list an irrefutable statistic that goes against popular notion that windmills are harmless and nuclear is deadly?
I just think your points will go farther if you don’t break it down into a simple “nuclear good, everything else bad” type of argument. Rise above the critics and the naysayers. You don’t have to stoop to the level of the people who oppose nuclear energy and reduce yourself to using the same nonsensical tactics they employ. You are the professional and the expert, you don’t have to be like them.
Your core premise is basically from second grade, “I (nuclear power) know you (wind power) are (dangerous) but what am I?”
Jack, all I am trying to say is that Nuclear is not the end all be all and there is NOTHING wrong with exploring other technologies to bridge the energy gap. You listed this stat yourself: Nuclear provides 16.5% of global energy supply. Even if we were to double that rate there is still the MINOR detail of the other 67% of global energy demand that needs to be met. Coal produces 3/4 of that 67% remaining demand. What’s so wrong with trying to reduce the amount of coal burnt by using wind turbines and solar panels? A few dudes fall off a turbine or a roof and that is cause to not investigate a technology that can save BILLIONS of pounds of emissions, thus elevating quality of life for ourselves and future generations?
Seriously, I get that your pissed at the idiocy of the common environmentalist who constantly rallies against nuclear, but if you cannot look past your own prejudices in regard to this matter you are no better than them. In fact, you are worse because you are judging and scorning someone for the exact same behavior you are engaging in.
Wait, I forgot the Conservative treatise that will render you helpless to contemplate my point in the second paragraph: immediately shut your brain down as soon as someone offers an opinion different from your own, no matter how well supported, logical, or factual – its different from yours so it MUST be wrong and not worth comprehending.
Well the tactics you so eloquently describe as “second grade” have worked becuase there has not been a nuclear power plant built in this country for over 30 years and the party in power has done everything possible to delay that indefinately by stalling license aplications, pulling funding for yucca mountain, blocking spent fuel recycling, and subsidising the competition.
Why should it be considered “stooping” to any level to point out that wind power is more dangerous than nuclear. This is not an opinion or me denying someone else the right to their’s. It is just a simple statistical fact entirely devoid of opinion. 1.5% of energy killed more people last year than a source the generates 16%. But I am somehow wrong to point out that fact that the later is mistakenly considered more dangerous.
Oh and by the way it’s more expensive and it doesn’t really generate any power. But I suppose this is just another attempt by me to silence another’s point of view.
I see my postulation of the Conservative Treatise has continued to hold true.
I get that all you’re trying to highlight is that nuclear is safer than wind despite what the environmental lobbyist would have everyone believe. I guess I am done here – Jack Gamble – nuclear or nothin’ (will have world huddled around campfires in 15 years).
It’s not a conservative thing, just common sense. But considering how often the two overlap your confusion is understandable.
Love the dialogue going on. Also love how Jason totally takes this to the extreme saying Jack thinks nuclear energy is the only way to go. While examining Jack’s arguement, you come up with the conservative treatise. hahaha. not once did jack say nuclear was ‘the be all end all’. classic, very classic.
1) I have always believed that Energy Diversity is the Solution.
2) Jack, what do you think of this guy’s tour through Chernobyl? I came across this on SU, and would like to hear your professional opinion.
One more thing I found about Chernobyl…Check out the cloud that thing put off. Is it true there was light nuclear rain falling on North America, Europe, and Asia for two weeks after the incident? I have both of my palms open right now doing the scale thing….light nuclear rain across multiple continents or a wind turbine accident….hmm.
Chernobyl is a moot point. The RBMK reactor was an idiotic design. There was nothing more than a tin roof over the reactor while American plants have an elaborate reinforced concrete and steel primary and secondary containment structure. The control rods were tipped with graphite which actaully causes power to INCREASE before they shut the reactor down. Also The RBMK was graphite-moderated which is inherintly unsafe while American reactors are water-moderated which means the reaction shuts itself down if the fission process ever gets out of control (which it won’t becauase American operators would be thrown in jail for disabling the saftey systems the way the idiots at Chernobyl did).
The “nuclear rain” your talking about is a scare tactic used by environmentalists that describes a few hot particles that got caught up in the jet stream and made it across the atlantic. What they don’t mention is that there is an infinitely larger number of radioactive particles still floating around in the atmosphere that are the result of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons during the cold war and also radioactive particles that are produced by COAL fired power plants.
Not to say Chernobyl should not be considered a disaster, but it has been blown way out of proportion and is not a valid reason to stop nuclear power which has otherwise run safely for 40 years.
Have you been an complete idiot all of your life or is it because of the nuclear radiation seeping into your brain? Honestly compare this, would you rather have a nuclear fall out and kill or hurt 200,000 people or one fricking turbine malfunctioning and injuring and MAYBE killing 20? With proper engineering and malignance of the turbine these accidents will be minimized. Yes nuclear energy does create more energy than wind, but that does not mean you need to scrap it and start over from scratch! Our energy needs and problems are completely awful and dismal. Wind energy is a new source that we need to look into if we want to make steps to recovery. Yes nuclear energy is a great source but let’s weigh them against wind energy and see who wins. I’m not saying that we need to depend on wind energy for our future source but consider it and maybe use it for our advantage. You have very good points in your argument but you need to be open minded and not bash wind energy completely. It’s not only a new concept but also a new vision for renewable energy.
No Nate, actually I’m one of the few people in this world who actually does something about the energy crisis instead of repeating the dribble that some tree hugger shouts at a rally claiming it to be my own educated opinion.
You think wind is something new? Where have you been for the past 1500 years? Wind energy has been around for centuries and it is a complete waste of time and money to act like an unpredictable wind is going to keep the lights on.
I am all for letting them compete and see who wins. If it were a fair match, nuclear would win every time. The problem is the politicians we elect subsidize wind energy and them burden nuclear with bureaucratic BS that grinds progress to a halt.
Maybe you need to question what your told a little more.
200,000 people? Try again. The worst nuclear disaster in US history did not kill one single person and the worst nuclear disaster in the world didn’t come even close to the conjured numbers you spit out.
Hey Jack, How does One, go from commercial fisherman to Nuclear Engineer? sounds kind of fishy to me. what school did you go too, or, was it a correspondence course, or night school maybe? And, why is it, you, are the only one of the original contributors to this site, who have not listed the books or essays that have influenced your thinking. Jason has, Andrew & Greg did also, even I did, and, I am not even part of this, mutual admiration society, that seems to be going on here. ( with all due respect to Jason, Andrew & Greg ) for they have listed there influences, you however have not. and, until you do, you will be, how you say…a man of, “Questionable Character”.
Oh sorry, was this the part where I’m supposed to justify my qualifications to a smart ass heckler?
At least you’ve progressed from age discrimination to character attacks.
I’ll decide If your Qualified, Young Man. Just answer the Questions.
I’ll decide if your questions are worth answering. In the mean time consider, little q’s.
From the adolescent tone of your answer, I really don’t feel your primitive brain could answer a question, great or small.
Maybe I can write a comment that has pop-ups and scratch-n-sniffs so you can follow me.
Just as long as you answer the questions; Please, feel free to use any device at your disposal. hey, why not call, Dr. Seuss and write; green eggs and radiation poisoning.
Hey now that was clever.
alright Jack, you win, radiate me. but, before you mutate me into a common consumer. What are your thoughts on Over Population?
Do you think people wanted to fly in planes when they were first invented? Death was a widespread fear, as this new technology gets perfected, there will be errors and failures, but hopefully less and less somewhat like the progression of safe air travel.
Jack, this is a perfectly fair assessment, as long as you apply the same logic to Nuclear Energy as well. Which is far safer and more regulated than the Wild West days the lead to the Chernobyl disaster. Unfortunately many people want to insist that nuclear is still an unsafe form of energy. That said, your point about technologies becoming safer and more efficient over time is 100% correct.
I guess you haven’t noticed JACK! but death is still a widespread fear, crap, even more now, than its ever been. and airplanes still crash and kill people, it is estimated that car deaths in this country is about 60,000 a year. the difference is, that car and plane accidents don’t pollute the ground for thousands of years.
Neither do American nuclear reactors. They don’t kill people either.
I guess your right Jack, there are things worse then death.
The Three Mile Island accident inspired Charles Perrow’s 1982 exposition of Normal Accident Theory, which became widely known through his 1984 book. TMI was an example of this type of accident because it was “unexpected, incomprehensible, uncontrollable and unavoidable”.
It was also a textbook demonstration of why American Light Water Reactors are inherently safe.
Not one single injury, illness, or death. The core melted down but never escaped the Reactor Pressure Vessel.
The more you tout TMI the more you prove me right! 50 years of making power with fission in over 100 reactors and not one single human death!
You seem to be burying your head in the sand to the fact that in one year your precious windmills killed infinitely more people than over 100 nuclear reactors over 50 years.
Here in Canada we are putting up solar and wind farms like crazy. The government buys the electricity from the companies that build and manage these systems. Nuclear, coal, hydro, and natural gas are paid the market rate per kilowatt. Wind gets 2X and solar gets 10X! That in it self should be enough to convince anybody that wind and solar are not economically viable ways to produce electricity. I’m with Jack on this one.
That being said, I don’t think that nuclear is the only good way to produce electricity. Anything that can produce electricity without putting out large amounts of pollutants (CO2 does not classify as a pollutant) and can do that and turn a profit by selling electricity at the market rate works for me. If wind and solar can do that I’m all for it. Wind may be able to in some situations. I think the jury is still out on that one. Solar is useless based on the cost of real estate and even the best case scenarios of cell efficiency and cost. The numbers don’t lie.