Nuclear power generation has saved millions of lives by avoiding air pollution
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
5 sources for · 0 against
Peer-reviewed literature and reference materials calculate that historical use of nuclear power has avoided millions of air pollution-related deaths by displacing fossil fuel generation.
The provision of electricity has been a great benefit to society, particularly in health terms, but it also carries health costs. Comparison of different forms of commercial power generation by use of the fuel cycle methods developed in European studies shows the health burdens to be greatest for power stations that most pollute outdoor air (those based on lignite, coal, and oil). The health burdens are appreciably smaller for generation from natural gas, and lower still for nuclear power. This same ranking also applies in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions and thus, potentially, to long-term health, social, and economic effects arising from climate change. Nuclear power remains controversial, however, because of public concern about storage of nuclear waste, the potential for catastrophic accident or terrorist attack, and the diversion of fissionable material for weapons production. Health risks are smaller for nuclear fusion, but commercial exploitation will not be achieved in time to help the crucial near-term reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. The negative effects on health of electricity generation from renewable sources have not been assessed as fully as those from conventional sources, but for solar, wind, and wave power, such effects seem to be small; those of biofuels depend on the type of fuel and the mode of combustion. Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage is increasingly being considered for reduction of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants, but the health effects associated with this technology are largely unquantified and probably mixed: efficiency losses mean greater consumption of the primary fuel and accompanying increases in some waste products. This paper reviews the state of knowledge regarding the health effects of different methods of generating electricity.
In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.
Earlier research in this journal suggests that nuclear power systems have prevented 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths from 1971 to 2009 and could save an additional 7 million deaths by 2050. Building on that work, we adopt a broader lens that looks at renewable energy and nuclear power as well as a greater range of energy pathways. We examine via 10 hypothetical scenarios and two time frames the varying impact of different technology configurations on the full potential of avoided carbon emissions and avoided mortality across China, the European Union, India, and the United States. From 2000 to 2020, we estimate the substitution of fossil fuels by nuclear power has saved as many as 42 million lives. Similarly, substituting fossil fuels with hydropower has saved 42.1 million lives (slightly more than that for nuclear power). Finally, other forms of renewable energy have saved another 38 million lives . We project that from 2021 to 2040, nuclear power could save an additional 46.1 million lives and displace 1198 GtCO2; hydropower could save a further 46.2 million lives and displace 1281.47 GtCO2; substituting fossil fuels with other renewable energy could similarly save an additional 41.2 million lives as well as displace over 1250 GtCO2. We offer a critical thought experiment on just how much potential low-carbon options have to provide positive externalities compared to fossil fuels.
phase-out will save millions of lives each year. Recognition of the climate crisis, pollution and other negative effects caused by fossil fuels has led to a
A fossil fuel is a flammable carbon compound- or hydrocarbon-containing material formed naturally in the Earth's crust from the buried remains of prehistoric organisms (animals, plants or microplanktons), a process that occurs within geological formations. Reservoirs of such compound mixtures, such as coal, petroleum and natural gas, can be extracted and burnt as fuel for human consumption to prov
As the data shows, coal, oil, natural gas, and biomass cause higher death rates and higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than hydropower, nuclear energy, wind, and solar power. Scientists propose that 1.8 million lives have been saved by replacing fossil fuel sources with nuclear power.
policy. Nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, providing significant environmental benefits compared to the sizeable amount of pollution and carbon
The nuclear power debate is a long-running controversy about the risks and benefits of using nuclear reactors to generate electricity for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, as more and more reactors were built and came online, and "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies" in some countries. In the 2010s, with g
The…
Everything we examined (5) — 4 independent sources
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.