Coal plants are more radioactive than nuke plants

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/


In the past some have argued that while the total radioactivity is higher it's also spread over a lot longer time and thus less harmful. That's not the case, the actual absorbed dose is higher, not merely longer.

 

[steve_bnk]

And you practical alternative to coal is what?

The next time you eeat cheese, drink milk, or have a burger keep in mind cows are a major source of greenhouse gases.

What is not harmful to us?

 

[Juma]

And you practical alternative to coal is what?

The next time you eeat cheese, drink milk, or have a burger keep in mind cows are a major source of greenhouse gases.

What is not harmful to us?

Nuclear power. It is almost harmless.

 

[steve_bnk]

Nuclear power. It is almost harmless.

Done properly I agree nuclear power is environmentally better than coal.

 

[J842P]

And you practical alternative to coal is what?

The next time you eeat cheese, drink milk, or have a burger keep in mind cows are a major source of greenhouse gases.

What is not harmful to us?

Well, one practical alternative to coal is nuclear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you practical alternative to coal is what?

The next time you eeat cheese, drink milk, or have a burger keep in mind cows are a major source of greenhouse gases.

What is not harmful to us?

Nuke is safer than coal.

 

[Earl IV]

I suppose if you discount the output of the waste from a nuclear plant and the difficulty finding a place to put it.

Perhaps we could bury it in all those abandoned coal mines!?

 

[rjh01]

However the article says that the levels are very low. Though I wonder why they do not mine the ash for the uranium.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suppose if you discount the output of the waste from a nuclear plant and the difficulty finding a place to put it.

Perhaps we could bury it in all those abandoned coal mines!?

Waste disposal is a political issue, not a scientific one.

I live less than 100 miles from Yucca Mountain. The only way I think it could hurt me is in terms of property values.

I'm opposed to Yucca Mountain but not on a matter of leaks, but rather that I don't believe we should be putting it out of reach in the first place. The high level "waste" really has 90% of the fuel left--we should be reprocessing it.

Once you have sorted out the waste the problem becomes much smaller. Much of the stuff quickly decays--storing it until it's gone is no big deal. A decent portion of what's left has commercial use. (If you need gamma radiation for some purpose you can either get it from a gamma-emitting isotope or an atom smasher. That's it. Atom smashers are obviously too big for most purposes and they have the problem of induced radioactivity also.) Now you're left with little and it's not very hot. That's the stuff that goes in the waste facility. Or if you really are obsessed about not having it around put it in a reactor--the neutron flux will change it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think the OP is full of fail. Firstly, a claim made is that coal plants are more radioactive than nuke plants (OP title "Coal plants are more radioactive than nuke plants"). I see absolutely nothing to support that bogus claim. Seeing that the issue with coal is trace elements and nuke plants run on concentrate amounts of those coal trace elements, it is an absurd and fallacious OP title.

Next, the OP links to an article that is titled "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste". While the OP cited article title is outside the OP'ers control, this isn't about "waste", but rather the emissions from the stacks at the coal power plant? Nuclear waste is most certainly more radioactive than fly ash!

The only proper conclusion from the studies is that radiation exposure from plant emissions located pretty close to coal plants is higher than nuclear plants. The notable thing to add is that the exposure is still well below that which is suspected of causing any danger to people. The NRC sets a limit for nuclear plants workers for exposure at 5 rem/yr. That's 5000 millirem/year.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the OP is full of fail. Firstly, a claim made is that coal plants are more radioactive than nuke plants (OP title "Coal plants are more radioactive than nuke plants"). I see absolutely nothing to support that bogus claim. Seeing that the issue with coal is trace elements and nuke plants run on concentrate amounts of those coal trace elements, it is an absurd and fallacious OP title.

Did you actually read the article?

It's trace stuff with coal plants but coal plants go through a *HUGE* amount of fuel and not all the trace stuff is captured. While nuke plants use far hotter stuff they do a very good job of containing it, very little gets out into the environment.

Next, the OP links to an article that is titled "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste". While the OP cited article title is outside the OP'ers control, this isn't about "waste", but rather the emissions from the stacks at the coal power plant? Nuclear waste is most certainly more radioactive than fly ash!

The only proper conclusion from the studies is that radiation exposure from plant emissions located pretty close to coal plants is higher than nuclear plants. The notable thing to add is that the exposure is still well below that which is suspected of causing any danger to people. The NRC sets a limit for nuclear plants workers for exposure at 5 rem/yr. That's 5000 millirem/year.

And how am I not proving my point here? People living near a coal plant absorb more radiation from the plant than people living near a nuclear plant.

And 5 rem/year does cause damage. It's deemed the acceptable level for occupational risk. Note that the lifetime exposure limit is 25 rem under normal conditions. Once you have absorbed 25 rem you're not allowed to work in anything nuclear.

 

[Mageth]

The SI unit for radiation exposure is the sievert (Sv), not the rem (and older measure). 1 Sv = 100 rem.

It's time for THE CHART...

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Eat three bananas a year, live near a coal plant...about the same.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The SI unit for radiation exposure is the sievert (Sv), not the rem (and older measure). 1 Sv = 100 rem.

It's time for THE CHART...

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Eat three bananas a year, live near a coal plant...about the same.

The point is people keep complaining about the radiation from nuke plants. I fully agree neither is a threat. It's just last time it came up there was a rebuttal that the isotopes from the coal plant were much longer lived and therefore the total radioactivity was spread over a lot more time. I posted this to show that was not a valid rebuttal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Did you actually read the article?

Yeah. That is why I know your OP was kind of bull. You stated a coal plant is more radioactive. It isn't. You way over stepped the reality. Deal with it.

It's trace stuff with coal plants but coal plants go through a *HUGE* amount of fuel and not all the trace stuff is captured. While nuke plants use far hotter stuff they do a very good job of containing it, very little gets out into the environment.

Hence when I said in my post that a coal plant's emissions contain more radioactive material than nuclear plant emissions. Neither the claim that coal waste being worse of a coal plant being more radioactive is remotely accurate.

Next, the OP links to an article that is titled "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste". While the OP cited article title is outside the OP'ers control, this isn't about "waste", but rather the emissions from the stacks at the coal power plant? Nuclear waste is most certainly more radioactive than fly ash!

The only proper conclusion from the studies is that radiation exposure from plant emissions located pretty close to coal plants is higher than nuclear plants. The notable thing to add is that the exposure is still well below that which is suspected of causing any danger to people. The NRC sets a limit for nuclear plants workers for exposure at 5 rem/yr. That's 5000 millirem/year.

And how am I not proving my point here? People living near a coal plant absorb more radiation from the plant than people living near a nuclear plant.

Claim is that coal ash is worse than nuclear waste. Seeing that nuclear waste remains in the plant, doesn't mean it is less radioactive.

And 5 rem/year does cause damage. It's deemed the acceptable level for occupational risk.

Isn't the typical person exposure level not much lower than that?

Note that the lifetime exposure limit is 25 rem under normal conditions. Once you have absorbed 25 rem you're not allowed to work in anything nuclear.

Tell that to Bruce Banner.

 

[Earl IV]

I suppose if you discount the output of the waste from a nuclear plant and the difficulty finding a place to put it.

Perhaps we could bury it in all those abandoned coal mines!?

Waste disposal is a political issue, not a scientific one.
...

Perhaps that's why in the last 50yrs or so they haven't found a way to deal with it.

Once you sorted out the waste the problem becomes much smaller

You'll understand if I don't hold my breath, right?

 

[Valjean]

I agree the radiation levels around a properly functioning nuclear plant aren't a problem. The problems arise when they stop functioning properly. The harm potential from nuclear accidents is huge, greatly overshadowing even a major dam failure.
Then there are the health and environmental problems associated with uranium mining and waste transport and storage. Security at many plants is pretty poor and in wartime a well placed bomb could be disastrous. Political upheavals could also leave the plants unmanned and abandoned.

Consider, also, the fact that it's impossible to get funding for nuclear plants without government subsidies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Also, the 25 rem lifetime limit Loren refers to, I think only applies to "special exposure" situations.

For public, the limit is 2 mrem per hour and 100 mrem per year.

And 5 rem/year does cause damage. It's deemed the acceptable level for occupational risk.

Isn't the typical person exposure level not much lower than that?

I meant to mean the typical allowable exposure level, not what a person typically is exposed to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree the radiation levels around a properly functioning nuclear plant aren't a problem. The problems arise when they stop functioning properly. The harm potential from nuclear accidents is huge, greatly overshadowing even a major dam failure.
Then there are the health and environmental problems associated with uranium mining and waste transport and storage. Security at many plants is pretty poor and in wartime a well placed bomb could be disastrous. Political upheavals could also leave the plants unmanned and abandoned.

Consider, also, the fact that it's impossible to get funding for nuclear plants without government subsidies.

Even the two bad nuke accidents only rival coal deaths for a year or two.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, the 25 rem lifetime limit Loren refers to, I think only applies to "special exposure" situations.

For public, the limit is 2 mrem per hour and 100 mrem per year.

And 5 rem/year does cause damage. It's deemed the acceptable level for occupational risk.

Isn't the typical person exposure level not much lower than that?

I meant to mean the typical allowable exposure level, not what a person typically is exposed to.

Yeah, that limit is for radiation workers, not for the general public. The general public limit is much lower other than medical stuff. (You can't really set a limit on medical stuff because it's a matter of risk vs reward. A bone marrow transplant can involve several hundred rems--yes, a lethal dose.)

 

[bilby]

I agree the radiation levels around a properly functioning nuclear plant aren't a problem. The problems arise when they stop functioning properly. The harm potential from nuclear accidents is huge, greatly overshadowing even a major dam failure.
Then there are the health and environmental problems associated with uranium mining and waste transport and storage. Security at many plants is pretty poor and in wartime a well placed bomb could be disastrous. Political upheavals could also leave the plants unmanned and abandoned.

Consider, also, the fact that it's impossible to get funding for nuclear plants without government subsidies.

Even the two bad nuke accidents only rival coal deaths for a year or two.

Even the most inflated estimates of deaths from all nuclear power accidents ever don't add up to the (much more reasonable) estimates of the fatalities from the Banquio Dam alone.

It isn't impossible to get funding for Nuclear Power plants without government subsidies (It may be in the USA, but the USA is not the world). Even if it were, that argument is neatly circular: Banks won't lend money for Nuclear Power because it is seen as unsafe. Nuclear Power can be seen as unsafe, because banks won't lend money for it.

Proxy measures of Nuclear Safety - such as insurability or premium levels - might have been the best we could do in the first few decades of Nuclear Power; but we have enough data points now to demonstrate that the early estimates of both accident frequency and severity were inflated. That is a good thing - it shows that the industry has erred on the side of caution - but it has led to a very biased environment, where fossil fuel plants (and their supply chain) are permitted to act in a way that is thousands of times more dangerous than would be tolerated in the nuclear industry. The time has come to hold the fossil fuel generators to the same standard we apply to nuclear. Then we will see which technology is actually cheapest.

Nuclear power competes economically with coal power, despite having a far larger overhead imposed by government. Government subsidies go only a small way towards mitigating this inequality. The economic argument against nuclear is as poor as the safety argument. It is cheap, clean and safe, if done properly; now lets make coal as clean and as safe. Do coal properly, and lets see how cheap it really is.