5 ms·

Here's 1500x more radioactive, toxic waste from a single coal plant: https://www.southernenvironment.org/news/court-ruling-dominions-coal-ash-illegally-pollutes

by coryrc 4y ago

Here's 1500x more radioactive, toxic waste from a single coal plant: https://www.southernenvironment.org/news/court-ruling-dominions-coal-ash-illegally-pollutes-virginias-elizabeth-rive/ https://www.southernenvironment.org/news/court-ruling-domini... Anyone complaining about nuclear waste is a troll or ignorant.

endisneigh 4y ago
Coal ash is radioactive compared to rocks generally?
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Yes, but it is less radioactive than some rock. Burning coal concentrates the uranium into the ash, so at a basic level you can say that coal ash is more radioactive than coal itself.
- connicpu 4y ago
  Coal ash tends to have a high volume of Carbon-14 which, in the volumes used to burn coal for electricity, releases significantly more radioactivity than any normally operating nuclear plant. Even just a large pile of unburnt coal is much more radioactive than your average pile of rocks
  - duskwuff 4y ago
    No, that's incorrect. Coal is mostly carbon, but almost all of that carbon burns with the coal -- what's left over in the ash is whatever didn't burn, which is mostly minerals like silicon/aluminium oxides. Even the source coal has relatively low levels of C14 (since it's been buried for millions of years), and nothing about the combustion process would be likely to concentrate that in the ash. Radioactivity in coal ash is primarily due to small quantities of uranium in the coal. It's not significantly radioactive, though; the hazards it poses are more due to other heavy metals which are often present in the ash (lead, mercury, etc).
Gwypaas 4y ago
That's why we should build renewables right? Then there's pretty much no waste.
- ratdragon 4y ago
  Rare-earth extraction is pretty nasty https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-ra... And e.g. neodymium extraction for wind turbine magnets produces waste with radioactive thorium https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/49/034/49034222.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Now dig up all metals and other construction material used for the steam side and generators in fossil plants and make a comparison if that question is even worth to ask yourself. Also consider that we will be able to recycle the materials used so the extraction should level off to only supplying potential market expansion and loss.
    - ratdragon 4y ago
      I believe these types of arguments should start with "What about..." sir. Also not sure how we got to fossil plants...
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        Coal and nuclear have equivalent steam sides. Well, nuclear often has even more complexity with separate loops with heat exchangers to minimize contact between the reactor water and rest of the plant. CCGT turbines are a bit different in that they have turbine first, and then the same steam boiler to turbine setup. That is why I ask. All generation from mechanical sources needs generators, they need control circuitry. Steam plants need boilers, cooling towers and what not. Just wanted to point out that singularly focusing on "hurr durr renewables need to dig stuff out from the ground and not made using pixie-dust" is quite the irrelevant take since the entire energy generation industry shares so much complexity, no matter the source of energy.

by coryrc 4y ago

endisneigh 4y ago

Coal ash is radioactive compared to rocks generally?

jeffbee 4y ago
Yes, but it is less radioactive than some rock. Burning coal concentrates the uranium into the ash, so at a basic level you can say that coal ash is more radioactive than coal itself.
connicpu 4y ago
Coal ash tends to have a high volume of Carbon-14 which, in the volumes used to burn coal for electricity, releases significantly more radioactivity than any normally operating nuclear plant. Even just a large pile of unburnt coal is much more radioactive than your average pile of rocks
- duskwuff 4y ago
  No, that's incorrect. Coal is mostly carbon, but almost all of that carbon burns with the coal -- what's left over in the ash is whatever didn't burn, which is mostly minerals like silicon/aluminium oxides. Even the source coal has relatively low levels of C14 (since it's been buried for millions of years), and nothing about the combustion process would be likely to concentrate that in the ash. Radioactivity in coal ash is primarily due to small quantities of uranium in the coal. It's not significantly radioactive, though; the hazards it poses are more due to other heavy metals which are often present in the ash (lead, mercury, etc).

Gwypaas 4y ago

That's why we should build renewables right? Then there's pretty much no waste.

ratdragon 4y ago
Rare-earth extraction is pretty nasty https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-ra... And e.g. neodymium extraction for wind turbine magnets produces waste with radioactive thorium https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/49/034/49034222.pdf https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Now dig up all metals and other construction material used for the steam side and generators in fossil plants and make a comparison if that question is even worth to ask yourself. Also consider that we will be able to recycle the materials used so the extraction should level off to only supplying potential market expansion and loss.
  - ratdragon 4y ago
    I believe these types of arguments should start with "What about..." sir. Also not sure how we got to fossil plants...
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      Coal and nuclear have equivalent steam sides. Well, nuclear often has even more complexity with separate loops with heat exchangers to minimize contact between the reactor water and rest of the plant. CCGT turbines are a bit different in that they have turbine first, and then the same steam boiler to turbine setup. That is why I ask. All generation from mechanical sources needs generators, they need control circuitry. Steam plants need boilers, cooling towers and what not. Just wanted to point out that singularly focusing on "hurr durr renewables need to dig stuff out from the ground and not made using pixie-dust" is quite the irrelevant take since the entire energy generation industry shares so much complexity, no matter the source of energy.