Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste!

// added July 14, 2008 // 40 comments //
Image...
DeliaTheArtist

"Over the past few decades a series of studies has called stereotypes [about coal and nuclear energy] into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste...

...Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases...

With the world now focused on addressing climate change, nuclear power is gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source.

The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again."

ARE WE F*CKED OR WHAT?!?

Who's side are you on in the Coal VS Nuclear Rivalry? Shall I print up TEAM COAL and TEAM NUCLEAR shirts?

  1. groups:
    Green,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Random,   3 more
  2. tags:
    News and Politics Politics Not News Green 15 more

40 comments // Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste!

  • csmonut
    • 0
      csmonut  
    • This is as appropriate now as it ever was. Especially since the people of Tennessee have such a nice big spill to worry about.

    • 1 year ago
  • onechance
  • Vierotchka
    • 0
      Vierotchka  
    • Image...
    • 92 Miles Sq. of Solar Could Power the USA

      The stigma of solar as only one of many solutions needed to satisfy our energy needs may not be true. David Mills, chairman and chief scientific officer of solar company Ausra, recently presented a paper at the International Solar Energy Society conference saying that solar thermal plants could indeed solve all of our energy problems, including nighttime electricity.

      More at link.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • Aren't we trying to stop carbon emissions into the atmosphere? If carbon recovery systems are made viable, then there would be a huge market to open up in recycling the carbon.

      Just like steel recycling is surging right now and you can get a lot more the old jalopy of your hogging up the driveway or the garage. Instead of paying someone to haul it off, it is now worth quite a bit of money.

      I have a friend who now has two tow trucks and picks up anywhere from 10 to 20 cars a week from people anxious to get rid of an old "not running" heap, and get paid a cool $100 for the thing. Then he takes them to the scrap yard and gets a check for $700 to $900 for the wreck at the steel recovery yard. Do the math and you will soon see what a lucrative business he has gotten going.

      He has one person who just spends their day on Craigslist looking for cars and posting ads offering you $100 to get rid of that wreck in your garage or driveway.

      I am using this as a metaphor on how carbon recycling can become a big boom.

    • 1 year ago
  • yolanda2610020
  • PcfllIntent
  • jubal
  • huntre
  • futuregen
    • 0
      futuregen  
    • Image...
    • Ditch them both. Ray Kurzweil states we can get ALL THE WORLD"S ENERGY FROM SOLAR IN 5-14 YEARS: Nano-engineered solar panels. (Scroll down past the third commercial break).

    • 1 year ago
  • jjmaster
    • 0
      jjmaster  
    • Neither are acceptable... we have the clean technologies now... Those are archaic and have proved to be hazardous pollutants! We just need to get beyond corporate and government interests and push for clean technologies... people are just signing up for business as usual... come on, let's move forward now... not 15 - 20 years from now...

    • 1 year ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • ghobot
  • jh64487
  • mookster_07
    • 0
      mookster_07  
    • We have the technology to be able to convert any carbon based material into energy. How about we begin converting our dead, our waste, etc. The decomposing human body is an extremely toxic thing. After we are buried 6 feet under we continue to damage our earth by emitting all of the hundreds of pollutants which remain in our body.

    • 1 year ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • Dmitri_Molotov
  • jubal
  • Bahlkris
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • Image...
    • What about this? Current just ran a clip that said BIOMASS is the largest used form of renewable energy used in America, yet I rarely hear about it...sounds pretty good! Anyone have more info?

    • 1 year ago
  • jahbini
    • 0
      jahbini  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Our current foray into biomass is the ethanol we now add to gasoline. It comes from corn and diverts corn and land from food supply to energy. This has recently had the effect of helping cause food shortages around the globe.

      Maybe with a few alterations to the system we can get ethanol to be more 'world friendly,' but right now, well... not so much.

      Hemp, sugarcane, and others are possibilities, too. Hemp can be used for fiber too. That's good. Sugarcane stalks were always used here in Hawaii for energy production, up until the sugar subsidies went away.

    • 1 year ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • jahbini
    • 0
      jahbini  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Can we do biomass without any escape of carbon dioxide? I'm personally more concerned with that end of the problem than mere availability.

      Getting the carbon out of the atmosphere is getting more and more urgent. Even biomass seems like a break-even at best, and we are way, way beyond that threshold.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Pure alcohol when burned emits a water vapor. If we could produce a fuel from biomass that was basically pure alcohol, then we would have something really useful.

      I believe that it is possible to create such a system of clean burning energy made from alcohol. Surely the biomass could be used in a fermentation process that could recover any carbon and recycle it into other useful things.

    • 1 year ago
  • rasting
  • Dmitri_Molotov
  • jahbini
    • 0
      jahbini  
    • Proponents may claim that the toxins are so diluted by the environment that there is no problem, however, from the article itself: "And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants."

      That means the food grown around the coal-plant concentrates the radiation! That is a problem as the toxins always concentrate in and impact the most vulnerable parts of a system: there is no protection by dilution.

      I'm voting against coal in any form (except maybe in a steam engine in a railroad museum-- I love that.)

      My list as of today - going from most preferred to least preferred (although some are not yet economical-which does NOT affect my personal preferences, although it may affect my day-to-day needs):

      Wave
      Ocean temp gradients- Air temp gradients
      Wind
      Solar
      Geothermal
      Nuclear
      Petroleum
      Ethanol
      Coal

      Someday I hope there are some new technologies to add to that list.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • jahbini:

      Matter/Anti-Matter reactions
      Zero Point Energy systems
      Fusion power
      Weak Magnetic Force Harnessing systems
      Anti Gravity systems
      Photon propulsion systems
      Dark Matter Energy systems

    • 1 year ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • jh64487
  • RudyRudell
  • phukna
    • 0
      phukna  
    • i got my char-coal on, i'm making me some hamburger.

      nuclear energy is cheaper,
      they say that their's
      more than one road that leads to rome.
      i know that solar energy is not enough to provide for all our needs.
      but really we have to think out side the bun.

      hamburger!!

    • 1 year ago
  • Bigdog_mike
  • Bigdog_mike
  • mookster_07
    • 0
      mookster_07  
    • I will pick my t-shirt based on the colors you use. Honestly we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Nuclear power has so many negative connotations, but coal isn't really an attractive alternative. We need to reduce our energy consumption in all forms in order to benefit anything.

    • 1 year ago
  • Yhtomit
    • 0
      Yhtomit  
    • Well, coal causes acid rain, pollution and played a large part in global warming, and nuclear waste kills nearby life and can give you cancer. If you ask me, we should ditch 'em both.

    • 1 year ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • ghobot
    • 0
      ghobot  
    • Yhtomit:

      like most technologies, the cons you state can be greatly minimized, unlike the ones associated with coal.

      france has an electricity grid built on modern nuclear power, and it has not jeopardized its environment or increased cancer rates.

    • 1 year ago
  • huntre
  • Vierotchka
    • 0
      Vierotchka  
    • Image...
    • Yhtomit:

      "france has an electricity grid built on modern nuclear power, and it has not jeopardized its environment or increased cancer rates."

      Not so.

      01-06-1981: Accident at Le Hague reprocessing plant

      01-20-1993: Technical failure at Paluel causes subcooling accident

      01-28-1990: Pump failure during a shut-down at Gravelines nuclear power plant

      04-01-1989: Control rod failure at Gravelines nuclear power plant

      04-28-1988: Release of 5000 Curies of tritium gas from the Bruyere le Chatel military nuclear complex

      05-26-1990: During refuelling, five cubic meters of radioactive water spilled at the Fessenheim nuclear power plant

      06-1-1991: Failure of core cooling system at Belleville nuclear power plant

      07-22-1992: Two workers contaminated at Dampierre nuclear power plant

      07-26-1992: Temperature rise in storage pool at Gravelines nuclear power plant

      08-19-1986: Flooding at the Cattenom nuclear power plant

      08-28-1992: Fire in electro-generator at St.Alban nuclear power plant

      09-16-1990: Superphenix Fast Breeder Reactor is closed down due to technical failures

      09-22-1980: Pump failure causes accidental release of radioactive water at La Hague reprocessing plant

      10-1-1983: Technical failure and human error cause accident at Blayas nuclear power plant

      10-2-1968: Leakage at La Hague reprocessing plant

      10-17-1969: Fuel elements melt at St Laurent des Eaux nuclear power plant

      10-22-1993: Instrumentation and Control failure at Saint Alban nuclear power plant

      11-07-1967: Release of radioactivity at Grenoble nuclear power plant

      12-04-1990: 2 workers irradiated during refuelling at Blayais nuclear power plant

      12-23-1988: Two control rods jammed at Blayais nuclear power plant

      And just a few days ago, seventy five kilos of unenriched uranium seeped into the local water supply at the Tricastin plant run by Socatri, a subsidiary of French energy company Areva, leading to water bans http://www.nysun.com/foreign/france-uranium-leak-leads-to-water-bans/81453/

    • 1 year ago
  • ghobot
  • Vierotchka

Add your comment

current videos