Coal versus Nuclear

[RobertEarl]

Clearly and simply put, the differences in the danger posed by each process of generating electricity is exemplified by the regulations imposed on the respective industries.

Coal pretty much is allowed to emit through smokestacks the clouds of smoke generated. Only recently, due to 'radical' environmentalists, have the coal burners been required to begin controlling what escapes from the plants.

Nuclear, on the other hand, has for years been required to contain and severely limit what escapes from nuke plants. The nuke industry has spent many billions of dollars on containment and control.

And as we've seen at Chernobyl and Fukushima when a nuke plant burns the people around those places have been forced to leave their homes most likely forever.

There has never been such a case around a destroyed coal plant.

This missive is for those who still can't wrap their heads around the idea that man-made radiation is dangerous to life as we know it. Hopefully this simple exposition of the realities will help.

[Cleita]

1. Coal doesn't require 50,000 years to biodegrade like nuclear waste.

It's a terrible apples and oranges comparison. If coal is polluting the air, all you need to do is stop using it to get the air back to normal. A nuclear meltdown forces you to evacuate your home and city for the duration of your lifetime and many lifetimes after that.

[RobertEarl]

2. Yep

Coal is natural. Man made radiation is not.

To be clear.... I have been fighting for emission controls on coal burners for 20 years and been labeled a radical for those efforts. I used to think man could contain nuclear power, but now see how wrong that theory was.

[Cleita]

5. Also coal can be replaced with solar wind and other renewables so

That even the occasional coal plant brought up to emission standards won't cause that much pollution.

[snooper2]

3. Nuclear power is awesome, but it's Fission, Fusion reactors will be ultimate greatness!

Fusion on the way baby!

[hunter]

4. Centralia Pennsylvania...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

All properties in the borough were claimed under eminent domain by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1992 (and all buildings therein were condemned), and Centralia's ZIP code was revoked by the Postal Service in 2002.[3] State and local officials reached an agreement with the remaining residents on October 29, 2013 allowing them to live out their lives there, after which the rights of their properties will be taken through eminent domain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire

That's just the small stuff. The larger, more horrible consequences of fossil fuel use are coming soon to a neighborhood near you, if not there already.

Coal power plants ought to be outlawed worldwide.

[Lancero]

11. Except this isn't a example of why coal power plants are bad.

It's not a case of a catastrophic coal power plant failure - The 'mine fire' was the result of a trash burn in a abandoned strip mine hitting a unknown coal deposit.

The strip mine itself was abandoned in 1935, so it's unlikely that the mine supported coal plants. Back then coal power plants weren't as widespread so giving the timing the mine - and considering it was in Pennsylvania - was used to supply the Steel Industry.

Coal power does need to be done away with, but this isn't a example as to why - You're trying to make it out as a coal power horror story when the history behind it doesn't support that claim.

[hunter]

13. Um, why was the coal mined?

If you don't like that, how about the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill

1.1 billion gallons of toxic, carcinogenic, sludge spilled...

And overall, the things like arsenic, mercury, and yes, even radioactive waste emitted by the fossil fuel power industry; coal, oil, and so-called "natural" gas. There's nothing natural about it.

But that's the trivial shit.

It's the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that will destroy this civilization, and are already destroying the earth's natural environment as we know it, most especially the oceans.

Nuclear power plant accidents are trivial in comparison, in fact Chernobyl and Fukushima have proven that people are far more damaging to the natural environment than nuclear waste. Nature flourishes when all the people are removed from a place, even if the place is more radioactive than we humans are willing to tolerate.

The same can't be said for places contaminated by coal waste, or torn apart by strip mining.

I'm not an advocate of nuclear power, I'm a Luddite. I believe what we now call "economic productivity" is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to the earth's environment and our own human spirit.

[Lancero]

18. As I pointed out in my post, given the time period it was for the steel industry.

This however is a better example, and the one you should have went with instead of trying to twist the other story.

As I said - I agree that coal needs to go, but at the same time we shouldn't spin stories to suit that goal.

[hunter]

20. Okay.

[mackdaddy]

15. Here is one, Cheshire,Ohio was bougt out by AEP because of Power plant pollution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Ohio

"Town buyout by American Electric Power

By 2000, the village was plagued by toxic sulfurous gas clouds and acid rain from the nearby coal-fired Gavin Power Plant, as an unintended consequence of pollution-control technology. Residents hired lawyers requesting a buyout. The plant's owner, American Electric Power (AEP), thoroughly investigated that no long term injuries/illnesses resulted from the cloud but decided it could use the land to expand plant property for future technologies. In 2002, AEP reached a settlement with residents that was effectively a $20 million buyout.[8] Most of the 221 residents agreed to leave the town and absolve the company from future property or health claims, while some remain through either deals with the company or refusal to sell their property. The company announced plans to demolish the existing structures and construct a dock facility for coal barges, but has not yet begun work on constructing them."

[SidDithers]

6. Do you have any comprehension of the amount of radiation emitted...

from coal-fired power plants?

Sid

[hobbit709]

7. No more than he has any scientific comprehension about anything.

Since nuclear power is "EVIIIL" anything can be said to back your point no matter what the truth of it is.

[RobertEarl]

10. Link or slink

I doubt either of you comprehend anything except "Nukes are safe" which is and always was a lie.

Odd, tho, that instead of attack coal, you come after me. Post up your links.

[Cleita]

8. We actually shouldn't do either.

We need to stop using coal, oil and gas as well as nuclear power. However nuclear is the most destructive when things go wrong and if you are in a fact based place there is no way to deny it.

[FBaggins]

14. Don't be silly Sid...

... that's natural radiation.

It's only the "manmade" (sic) radiation that's dangerous.

[NuclearDem]

9. ...

[Amishman]

12. nuclear power isn't the problem, unsafe boiling water reactors based on 60's tech is the problem

Newer reactor designs are immensely superior to the old technology currently being used.

Thorium reactors in particular have a ton of potential. Less weaponization capability, less waste producted, and the waste produced has a far shorter half-life.

Liquid salt reactors promise to be a lot safer than boiling water reactors. No steam explosion risk, enough said I think.

Coal is dirty to extract, dirty to burn, and the massive carbon emissions and general pollution is a long term cleanup problem.

Wind and solar are better options than either, but until we have the technology for efficient large scale energy storage to smooth over the variable output from these options, we will need other electric generation methods.

[Takket]

16. The cumulative negative effects on Earth of coal

are vastly greater than the cumulative effects of nuclear.

[RobertEarl]

17. No.

Because there is no answer for the nuclear waste which needs to be babysat for at least 1,000 years.

Yet nuke supporters are more than happy to dump it on future generations?

[hunter]

19. Unlike the toxic waste from coal?

Coal waste is carelessly thrown about in our environment, but would otherwise have to be "babysat" forever in a reasonable world.

Coal wastes like arsenic and mercury have a "half life" of forever, and they are not the sort of thing you want in your food, no more so than radioactive cesium. Furthermore, coal waste contains other "natural" radioactive stuff including uranium and thorium which have very long half lives.

Some seafood labels, at least here in California, warn of mercury in fish, explaining it's bad for pregnant women and children. That mercury comes from coal.

[RobertEarl]

21. This is why

Why I had to post such a simple missive about the dangerous levels of nuclear power. Hunter makes stuff up about the coal waste, even going so far as to say coal wste has to be babysat like 1,ooo year nuke waste regulations and science call for.

Hunter even totally disregards the financial/regulatory mechanisms involved in how the government and industry handles the coal waste as opposed to nuclear. It's as if Hunter can't even read, or if can read, is not comprehending of the simple facts.

Or he's just trying really hard to be a PITA?