Анализ Опасностей и Оценка техногенного Риска

Категории каталога

понятие и определения [15]
общие сведения об оценке риска аварии
Риск аварии и теория вероятностей [5]
вероятностные показатели опасности аварии
Нормирование техногенного риска [28]
О нормировании, приемлемости и допустимости техногенного риска
оценка риска. ПРИМЕРЫ [6]
Примеры анализа опасностей и оценки техногеного риска
"Управлять риском" или ориентироваться в опасностях? [16]
Управление неуправляемым. (само)Обман и имитация
Качественная оценка риска [1]
О методах качественного анализа опасностей и оценки техногенного риска
Оценка риска в декларациях [3]
Анализ результатов декларирования промышленной безопасности. Раздел анализ безопасности

Наш опрос

Опыт крупных промышленных аварии в РФ (СШГЭС-09, Распадская-10, Кольская-11, Воркутинская-13)
Всего ответов: 308


Поиск

Заходим на  РискПром.рф

Статистика


Онлайн всего: 21
Гостей: 21
Пользователей: 0

Тематические подборки статей и материалов

Главная » Статьи » Риск аварии » Нормирование техногенного риска [ Добавить статью ]

Управление риском "ядерного страха" Всемирной ядерной ассоциацией

По данным Всемирной ядерной ассоциации, гигаватт мощности, произведенной на угольных станциях, обходился в 342 жертвы, на газовых — в 85, на гидростанциях — в 885, тогда как на атомных — всего в 8.

Ниже - собственно данные World Nuclear Association - WNA

" ...Safety relative to other energy sources

Many occupational accident statistics have been generated over the last 40 years of nuclear reactor operations in the US and UK. These can be compared with those from coal-fired power generation. All show that nuclear is a distinctly safer way to produce electricity.

Deaths from energy-related accidents per unit of electricity

Source: Paul Scherrer Institut 1998, considering 1943 accidents with more than five fatalities.
One TW.yr is the amount of electricity used by the world in about five months.

Coal-fired power generation has chronic, rather than acute, safety implications for public health. It also has profound safety implications for the mining of coal, with thousands of workers killed each year in coal mines (see Appendix).

Coal-fired power generation has chronic, rather than acute, safety implications for public health. It also has profound safety implications for the mining of coal, with thousands of workers killed each year in coal mines (see Appendix).

Hydro power generation has a record of few but very major events causing thousands of deaths. In 1975 when the Banqiao, Shimantan & other dams collapsed in Henan, China, at least 30,000 people were killed immediately and some 230,000 overall, with 18 GWe lost. In 1979 and 1980 in India some 3500 were killed by two hydro-electric dam failures, and in 2009 in Russia 75 were killed by a hydro power plant turbine disintegration.

Three simple sets of figures are quoted in the Tables below and that in the appendix.  A major reason for coal's unfavourable showing is the huge amount which must be mined and transported to supply even a single large power station. Mining and multiple handling of so much material of any kind involves hazards, and these are reflected in the statistics. 

Summary of severe* accidents in energy chains for electricity 1969-2000
 
  OECD   Non-OECD  
Energy chain Fatalities Fatalities/TWy Fatalities Fatalities/TWy 
Coal  2259 157 18,000 597
Natural gas 1043 85 1000 111
Hydro 14 3 30,000 10,285
Nuclear 0 0 31 48
Data from Paul Scherrer Institut, in OECD 2010. * severe = more than five fatalities

Comparison of accident statistics in primary energy production
(Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of total primary energy)

Fuel Immediate fatalities
1970-92
Who? Normalised to deaths
per TWy* electricity
Coal
6400
workers
342
Natural gas
1200
workers & public
85
Hydro
4000
public
883
Nuclear
31
workers
8

* Basis: per million MWe operating for one year, not including plant construction, based on historic data which is unlikely to represent current safety levels in any of the industries concerned.
Sources: Sources: Ball, Roberts & Simpson, 1994; Hirschberg et al, Paul Scherrer Institut 1996, in: IAEA 1997; Paul Scherrer Institut, 2001.

In the UK, Friends of the Earth commissioned a study by the Tyndall Centre, which drew primarily on peer-reviewed academic literature, supplemented by literature from credible government, consultancy and policy sources. It concluded in January 2013 that “Overall the safety risks associated with nuclear power appear to be more in line with lifecycle impacts from renewable energy technologies, and significantly lower than for coal and natural gas per MWh of supplied energy.” 

Источники:

http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article/259219/strashnaya_bezopasnost

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/

Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy Sources
English, 52 pages, published: 08/31/10
NEA#6861, ISBN: 978-92-64-99122-4

http://www.oecd-nea.org/tools/publication?div=NDD&period=100y&sort=title&filter=1#p6861



Источник: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Safety-of-Nuclear-Power-Reactors/
Категория: Нормирование техногенного риска | Добавил: safety (08.06.2014) | Автор: управление риском
Просмотров: 6622 | Комментарии: 0 | Рейтинг: / |
Всего комментариев: 0
Добавлять комментарии могут только зарегистрированные пользователи.
[ Регистрация | Вход ]