4 ms·

I admit i don’t know much about the coal burning radiation output. And im even further away from knowing the perfect solution to the worlds energy needs. So i h

I admit i don’t know much about the coal burning radiation output. And im even further away from knowing the perfect solution to the worlds energy needs. So i have many questions, driven by the wish to live in a intact environment and leaving it to those who come in a good state. Where and how exactly is the radiation release of coal plants happening? I can imagine its maybe a difference if a smaller dose of radiation is put out slowly and spread more (in time and space terms)than if it’s concentrated on one point? Radiaton is anywhere thats clear... but we rarely get strong radiation caused illnesses from just catching cosmic radiation do we? And how exactly are politics preventing proper storage? I definitely don’t wanna promote coal, but where are these numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima and Tchernobyl and the many smaller incidents? Also i often wonder - where could science of reusable energy and reduced consumption be if the billions invested in nuclear research were invested there instead?

danmaz74 8y ago
> And how exactly are politics preventing proper storage? Basically, NIMBY. Even if it's perfectly safe, some people will always worry about "but what if all physicists, seismologists etc. etc. are wrong (or lying)"?
- codingminds 8y ago
  Like with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine ?
sjwright 8y ago
> numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima The number of people who died from the radiation which escaped during the Fukishima nuclear disaster is currently zero.[0] Even factoring in the worst-case projections for every nuclear energy disaster, nuclear power is still the safest—or certainly one of the safest—forms of utility-scale electricity generation. If you're looking for a form of energy which is normally safe but kills thousands in a disaster scenario, the answer is hydro. In one instance, a dam failure killed 171,000 people. Solar panel installers and wind turbine workers occasionally die from falls. (Also, solar panel manufacturing can be a dirty/toxic process.) Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas, biomass) kill because miners, workers and citizens breathe in coal dust and smoke particulates belched into the atmosphere. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
sjwright 8y ago
Mortality rate in deaths per trillion kilowatt hours: Source Rate ----------------- Coal 100,000 Oil 36,000 Biofuel 24,000 Gas 4,000 Hydro 1,400 Solar 440 Wind 150 Nuclear 90 ----------------- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#5a58db18709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
- zeristor 8y ago
  How are people being killed by Solar? Panels dropped on heads? Pollutants from production? A proportion of deaths from mining and refining silicon?
  - majewsky 8y ago
    Why is this downvoted? I have the same question.
    - zeristor 8y ago
      I like to think the up button is small, and it was an accidental downvote, its happened to me a few times.
      - majewsky 8y ago
        I don't know, there's the "unvote"/"undown" buttons to correct these kinds of mistakes, but I guess most people won't double-check.
    - hennsen 8y ago
      I’ve been told not to discuss downvoting (see faq). That said i think too there should be a proposal to comment what you don’t like on downvoting as it is in stackoverflow... otherwise people neber know how to change their behavior.
  - the8472 8y ago
    falling from roofs
jabl 8y ago
> Where and how exactly is the radiation release of coal plants happening? Coal plants don't burn pure elemental carbon, the black stuff that is dug up from the ground contains a lot of other stuff as well, such as sulphur (acid rain, etc.), and, yes, various radionuclides. So when the coal is burned, part of the radionuclides go up the smokestack, others are left in the ash. Realistically, compared to all the other environmental destruction associated with coal power, the radioactivity release is a non-issue. At the same time, it's good to keep in mind that except for major disasters like Chernobyl, an operating coal plant releases orders of magnitude more radioactivity to the environment than an operating nuclear plant. > I definitely don’t wanna promote coal, but where are these numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima and Tchernobyl and the many smaller incidents? You cannot usually say that person X died due to coal power production (except for things like coal mining accidents (which are quite common), maintenance worker falling etc.), but at a population level coal pollution causes an increase in respiratory illnesses, strokes, etc. which, again, at population level kills people. If you want to learn more, you can start e.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents > Also i often wonder - where could science of reusable energy and reduced consumption be if the billions invested in nuclear research were invested there instead? I'm not sure what "reusable energy" is supposed to mean, but yeah, sure, energy efficiency would probably be better than it is now. Would it be better enough to cover the loss of nuclear energy, and it's partial replacement by fossil power such as coal? I doubt it.

danmaz74 8y ago

> And how exactly are politics preventing proper storage? Basically, NIMBY. Even if it's perfectly safe, some people will always worry about "but what if all physicists, seismologists etc. etc. are wrong (or lying)"?

codingminds 8y ago
Like with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine ?

sjwright 8y ago

> numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima The number of people who died from the radiation which escaped during the Fukishima nuclear disaster is currently zero.[0] Even factoring in the worst-case projections for every nuclear energy disaster, nuclear power is still the safest—or certainly one of the safest—forms of utility-scale electricity generation. If you're looking for a form of energy which is normally safe but kills thousands in a disaster scenario, the answer is hydro. In one instance, a dam failure killed 171,000 people. Solar panel installers and wind turbine workers occasionally die from falls. (Also, solar panel manufacturing can be a dirty/toxic process.) Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas, biomass) kill because miners, workers and citizens breathe in coal dust and smoke particulates belched into the atmosphere. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

sjwright 8y ago

Mortality rate in deaths per trillion kilowatt hours: Source Rate ----------------- Coal 100,000 Oil 36,000 Biofuel 24,000 Gas 4,000 Hydro 1,400 Solar 440 Wind 150 Nuclear 90 ----------------- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#5a58db18709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

zeristor 8y ago
How are people being killed by Solar? Panels dropped on heads? Pollutants from production? A proportion of deaths from mining and refining silicon?
- majewsky 8y ago
  Why is this downvoted? I have the same question.
  - zeristor 8y ago
    I like to think the up button is small, and it was an accidental downvote, its happened to me a few times.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      I don't know, there's the "unvote"/"undown" buttons to correct these kinds of mistakes, but I guess most people won't double-check.
  - hennsen 8y ago
    I’ve been told not to discuss downvoting (see faq). That said i think too there should be a proposal to comment what you don’t like on downvoting as it is in stackoverflow... otherwise people neber know how to change their behavior.
- the8472 8y ago
  falling from roofs

jabl 8y ago

> Where and how exactly is the radiation release of coal plants happening? Coal plants don't burn pure elemental carbon, the black stuff that is dug up from the ground contains a lot of other stuff as well, such as sulphur (acid rain, etc.), and, yes, various radionuclides. So when the coal is burned, part of the radionuclides go up the smokestack, others are left in the ash. Realistically, compared to all the other environmental destruction associated with coal power, the radioactivity release is a non-issue. At the same time, it's good to keep in mind that except for major disasters like Chernobyl, an operating coal plant releases orders of magnitude more radioactivity to the environment than an operating nuclear plant. > I definitely don’t wanna promote coal, but where are these numbers proving coal killed and harmed more people than Fukushima and Tchernobyl and the many smaller incidents? You cannot usually say that person X died due to coal power production (except for things like coal mining accidents (which are quite common), maintenance worker falling etc.), but at a population level coal pollution causes an increase in respiratory illnesses, strokes, etc. which, again, at population level kills people. If you want to learn more, you can start e.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents > Also i often wonder - where could science of reusable energy and reduced consumption be if the billions invested in nuclear research were invested there instead? I'm not sure what "reusable energy" is supposed to mean, but yeah, sure, energy efficiency would probably be better than it is now. Would it be better enough to cover the loss of nuclear energy, and it's partial replacement by fossil power such as coal? I doubt it.