5 ms·

Coal power stations produce around 5-10 tonnes of radioactive waste every year. This seems to be ignored for the most part when discussing nuclear energy.

emiliobumachar 7y ago
+1. Just to add an explanation, they do so by taking naturally occurring radioactive particles that would otherwise remain locked deep into the Earth, and putting them in the atmosphere. This should be common knowledge, but almost no one knows it.
- gameswithgo 7y ago
  how does the rate of radioactivity added to the air compare to farming? Plants with deep roots also extract radioactivity from the ground and then we eat it. this is a serious question, which of course ties into the concept of "banana equivalent dose", which helps to contextualize claims about radioactivity.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    For one thing, plant life is merely repeatedly recycling the mineral content of an only slowly-varying topsoil, while coal-burning is adding new sources.
jhayward 7y ago
It is not useful to use the many failings of coal as a fuel to promote nuclear power. Nuclear power does not compete against coal, it competes against wind/solar and natural gas. The constant refrain of 'but coal ..' from nuclear advocates is just an admission that nuclear power is un-economic and unable to compete in the marketplace against the best options.
- bsaul 7y ago
  Then why do i keep hearing that germany has been producing a lot more pollution since they stopped nuclear power because of coal and gaz being used as a subsitute source of energy ?
  - cygx 7y ago
    No idea why you keep hearing that: Failure to meet your reduction goals does not equate an increase in pollution. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/5_abb_trend-emi_2019.png https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...
  - brazzy 7y ago
    Because people are misrepresenting facts (aka. lying) Germany did not stop using nuclear power, it started phasing it out (which had actually been planned long before Fukushima), and has not been producing more pollution because it has in fact been replacing coal and gas as well as nuclear with renewable sources: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
    - cygx 7y ago
      Germany has actually slightly increased its gas usage - though compared to other energy sources, its currently more of a rounding error in magnitude: 2002 2018 Total 503 545 Coal+Oil 253 205 Nuclear 156 72 Gas 40 44 Biomass 4 45 Wind+Solar+Hydro 39 177 Other 10 3 https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&p...
      - brazzy 7y ago
        More significantly, the increase in gas is more than offset by a decrease in coal and oil.
- coredog64 7y ago
  Natural gas plants are frequently peak load plants: They’re expensive, but they’re cheaper than a brownout or blackout. Wind is intermittent. Solar is too (with the exception of solar thermal). Nuclear is, was, and always will be about base load the same as coal.
- scott_s 7y ago
  Nuclear power does not compete against wind and solar, as wind and solar are intermittent power sources. Nuclear is a firm energy source, in that we can use it to create steady-state power during periods that intermittent sources are not available. Coal is also a firm energy source, so coal and nuclear definitely compete. For more, "There is No One Energy Solution", https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/there-is-no-one-energy-solution/ https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/there-is-no-on...
  - cygx 7y ago
    Once you combine them with storage and peakers, intermittent renewable sources do compete with other base load providers. It's still a work in progress, though.
  - jhayward 7y ago
    This mis-states how electrical generation markets work and relies on the fallacy of "baseload", which is an artifact created by the past-grid domination of large thermal plants for generation. In my market (Texas/ERCOT) there is no separate market for "firm" power. You either run or you don't on an every-15-minutes basis. You are either a price "taker", or a price "maker". In this market the NPPs are always, always, price "takers". They absolutely compete with the price makers, which are always either wind, solar, or most commonly, natural gas. Coal is always a price "taker" in this market as well. Whether a generator is a "taker" or "maker" in terms of pricing is a function of the economic impact to it of not running in a given bid segment, and its ability to compete in the bidding for the "last MW" of the bid-price stack. Large thermal plants like NPPs rely very much on the economics of being able to get premium pricing for every single minute of the day and night. In a competetive market they can't do that, because gas/wind/solar can under-price them by very large margins. So the NPPs become un-economic to run (if already running), and very much un-fundable to build as new capacity. The same market force applies to coal.
    - scott_s 7y ago
      Your rationale does not address the core argument of the piece, which is that as reliance on intermittent energy sources approaches 100%, their cost will rise steeply.
- WAHa_06x36 7y ago
  Unfortunately, in practice nuclear does still compete against coal. It would be wonderful if the choice was between nuclear and renewables, but that is not yet where we are. Nuclear is still the lesser of the two evils compared to coal and oil, which are very much the only other option in many cases.
H8crilA 7y ago
Coal is so bad that we'd have to have one Chernobyl nearly every week all the time to catch up with death rates. Coal deaths per energy: ~ 100k / PWh Coal consumption per year: > 40 PWh Coal deaths per year: >4M Chernobyl death estimates: 4k to 93k Which gives 4M / 93k = 43 Chernobyls per year to catch up with coal (best case estimates).

emiliobumachar 7y ago

+1. Just to add an explanation, they do so by taking naturally occurring radioactive particles that would otherwise remain locked deep into the Earth, and putting them in the atmosphere. This should be common knowledge, but almost no one knows it.

gameswithgo 7y ago
how does the rate of radioactivity added to the air compare to farming? Plants with deep roots also extract radioactivity from the ground and then we eat it. this is a serious question, which of course ties into the concept of "banana equivalent dose", which helps to contextualize claims about radioactivity.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  For one thing, plant life is merely repeatedly recycling the mineral content of an only slowly-varying topsoil, while coal-burning is adding new sources.

jhayward 7y ago

It is not useful to use the many failings of coal as a fuel to promote nuclear power. Nuclear power does not compete against coal, it competes against wind/solar and natural gas. The constant refrain of 'but coal ..' from nuclear advocates is just an admission that nuclear power is un-economic and unable to compete in the marketplace against the best options.

bsaul 7y ago
Then why do i keep hearing that germany has been producing a lot more pollution since they stopped nuclear power because of coal and gaz being used as a subsitute source of energy ?
- cygx 7y ago
  No idea why you keep hearing that: Failure to meet your reduction goals does not equate an increase in pollution. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/5_abb_trend-emi_2019.png https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...
- brazzy 7y ago
  Because people are misrepresenting facts (aka. lying) Germany did not stop using nuclear power, it started phasing it out (which had actually been planned long before Fukushima), and has not been producing more pollution because it has in fact been replacing coal and gas as well as nuclear with renewable sources: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
  - cygx 7y ago
    Germany has actually slightly increased its gas usage - though compared to other energy sources, its currently more of a rounding error in magnitude: 2002 2018 Total 503 545 Coal+Oil 253 205 Nuclear 156 72 Gas 40 44 Biomass 4 45 Wind+Solar+Hydro 39 177 Other 10 3 https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&p...
    - brazzy 7y ago
      More significantly, the increase in gas is more than offset by a decrease in coal and oil.
coredog64 7y ago
Natural gas plants are frequently peak load plants: They’re expensive, but they’re cheaper than a brownout or blackout. Wind is intermittent. Solar is too (with the exception of solar thermal). Nuclear is, was, and always will be about base load the same as coal.
scott_s 7y ago
Nuclear power does not compete against wind and solar, as wind and solar are intermittent power sources. Nuclear is a firm energy source, in that we can use it to create steady-state power during periods that intermittent sources are not available. Coal is also a firm energy source, so coal and nuclear definitely compete. For more, "There is No One Energy Solution", https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/there-is-no-one-energy-solution/ https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/there-is-no-on...
- cygx 7y ago
  Once you combine them with storage and peakers, intermittent renewable sources do compete with other base load providers. It's still a work in progress, though.
- jhayward 7y ago
  This mis-states how electrical generation markets work and relies on the fallacy of "baseload", which is an artifact created by the past-grid domination of large thermal plants for generation. In my market (Texas/ERCOT) there is no separate market for "firm" power. You either run or you don't on an every-15-minutes basis. You are either a price "taker", or a price "maker". In this market the NPPs are always, always, price "takers". They absolutely compete with the price makers, which are always either wind, solar, or most commonly, natural gas. Coal is always a price "taker" in this market as well. Whether a generator is a "taker" or "maker" in terms of pricing is a function of the economic impact to it of not running in a given bid segment, and its ability to compete in the bidding for the "last MW" of the bid-price stack. Large thermal plants like NPPs rely very much on the economics of being able to get premium pricing for every single minute of the day and night. In a competetive market they can't do that, because gas/wind/solar can under-price them by very large margins. So the NPPs become un-economic to run (if already running), and very much un-fundable to build as new capacity. The same market force applies to coal.
  - scott_s 7y ago
    Your rationale does not address the core argument of the piece, which is that as reliance on intermittent energy sources approaches 100%, their cost will rise steeply.
WAHa_06x36 7y ago
Unfortunately, in practice nuclear does still compete against coal. It would be wonderful if the choice was between nuclear and renewables, but that is not yet where we are. Nuclear is still the lesser of the two evils compared to coal and oil, which are very much the only other option in many cases.

H8crilA 7y ago

Coal is so bad that we'd have to have one Chernobyl nearly every week all the time to catch up with death rates. Coal deaths per energy: ~ 100k / PWh Coal consumption per year: > 40 PWh Coal deaths per year: >4M Chernobyl death estimates: 4k to 93k Which gives 4M / 93k = 43 Chernobyls per year to catch up with coal (best case estimates).