Presumably, since you cite the article (of which the Greenpeace item quotes extracts) for reference without counter argument, you are in agreement with its content? – In which case it is interesting to note that you attack nuclear power generation under the premise of “safety”, and omit any mention of the safety record of other energy sectors: -
The article (linked in the first line of the Greenpeace item) states: -
QUOTE
“While responsible for less than 1 percent of total energy accidents, hydroelectric facilities claimed 94 percent of reported fatalities. Looking at the gathered data, the total results on fatalities are highly dominated by one accident in which the Shimantan Dam failed in 1975 and 171,000 people perished”.
UNQUOTE
It further states: -
QUOTE
“natural gas infrastructure is the most likely to fail, accounting for 33 percent of all major energy accidents worldwide”.
UNQUOTE
And goes on to state: -
QUOTE
“A database of major industrial accidents from 1969 to 1996 compiled by the Paul Scherrer Institute found that 31 percent, or
4,290 out of 13,914, were related to the fossil fuel sector. Another assessment con¬cluded that about 25 percent of the fatalities caused by severe accidents worldwide in the period 1970 to 1985 occurred in the fossil fuel energy sector”.
UNQUOTE
With specific regard to nuclear energy, the article states; -
QUOTE
“In terms of cost, nuclear plants ranked first with regard to their economic damage, accounting for damages equivalent to $16.6 billion, or 41 percent of all damages during the past century. Contrary to the industry’s claim that nuclear facilities are safe, 63 major accidents have occurred at nuclear power plants. Twenty-nine accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and 71 percent of all nuclear accidents, that is, 45 out of 63, occurred in the United States, refuting the notion that severe accidents cannot happen within the country or that they have not happened since Chernobyl.
Using extremely conservative estimates, nuclear power accidents have also killed 4,100 people. The nuclear power accidents have involved meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of coolant, and have occurred during both normal operation and extreme, emergency conditions such as droughts and earthquakes”.
QUOTE
Noting that the definition of a "major accident" in this article’s context is loss of life, or more than $50,000 property damage, the article states: -
63 “major accidents” have occurred at nuclear plants (within the study period 1907-2007)
But note the
4,290 major accidents between 1969-96 as cited above for the fossil fuel sector).
Using that same criteria – there were
188 major accidents in the Chinese coal mining industry
within just three years (Jan.2001-Oct.2004) each of which killed more than 10 miners. (source: -
Coal mining: Most deadly job in China).
I contend that nuclear, with only 63 major accidents is remarkably safe in comparison.
It may well be that the nuclear power station accidents were economically the most costly, at $16.6billion, but they were certainly nowhere near the most costly in terms of lives lost.
And, even taking the $16.6billion into account, nuclear power when compared to any other form of electrical generating technology continues to be one of the most economic.
Perhaps the most pertinent remark within the article is this: -
QUOTE
"there is no such thing as safe conventional energy technologies, much in the same way there is no such thing as an energy system that is completely benign to the natural environment".
UNQUOTE
Regards,
Mike.
The Costs of Nuclear Power. 
Linear Mode
