58 ms·

Coal kills 25 people per TWh generated (vs 0.03 for Nuclear - somewhere between wind and solar). Coal deaths translate to about 5 Chernobyl's per year (assumin

Coal kills 25 people per TWh generated (vs 0.03 for Nuclear - somewhere between wind and solar). Coal deaths translate to about 5 Chernobyl's per year (assuming the UNSCEAR 4000 deaths number) in the United States alone. Unlike nuclear power, coal is also responsible for spreading nuclear waste around the countryside because coal contains uranium and thorium that's concentrated in the ash left over after it's burned. [1] [edit] > Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. [1] Waste from nuclear plants is nice and contained in neat little bundles that are monitored, safe and if you're worried, can be put into Yucca Mountain. [edit] btw, Yucca Mountain is conveniently located next to the Nevada Test Site, where the US tested many nuclear weapons, mostly underground, from 1957 to 1992. NTS contains some of the most radioactive land areas in the world. So at least you can be confident knowing you're putting the new spicy rocks in with the rest of them. [2] However, nuclear waste is very much a non-issue. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... [2] https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/nevada-test-site-downwinders https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/nevada-test-site-down...

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. [1] Cool. Now explain what happens in the ground water around Kadapa or Rossing or Kakadu. Nuclear waste is very much an issue, you're just trying to focus on the stuff you have a vague plan for rather than no plan. Noone is suggesting more coal. They're suggesting renewables which are faster, cheaper, less centralized, less dependent on oligopolies and hostile foreign actors, more able to be deployed in unstable regions, just as safe, less polluting, produce less non-radioactive waste, and use fewer materials.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > cheaper Cheaper is a non-goal for me. Better is the goal. And nuclear delivers consistent stable baseload that supplements renewables while having a lower carbon footprint than both wind and solar. > less dependent on oligopolies and hostile foreign actors Not sure what you mean. Plenty in Canada. > more able to be deployed in unstable regions Existing designs are already not a proliferation risk. > less polluting Nuclear is not polluting. > produce less non-radioactive waste A non-goal if appropriately sequestered. > use fewer materials Also, IMO, a non-goal. > Nuclear waste is very much an issue.... [citation needed] Renewables have to factor in the impact and cost of storage. That means today pumped hydro, and also battery storage. Batteries are not environmentally friendly, cheap or easy to make. Renewables require base load. Nuclear provides base load.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > Cheaper is a non-goal for me. Better is the goal. And nuclear delivers consistent stable baseload that supplements renewables while having a lower carbon footprint than both wind and solar. Prove it. Show me an LCA for mass expansion of nuclear, including the new mines in lower concentration deposits that comes out at lower carbon than new renewables with hydrogen (or even gas) backup for the 5% needed to cover the gaps using current technology. Then after you exhaust known reserves in 10 years include whatever scifi scheme you have for getting more. Here's a mix for somewhere in the arctic to get you started before you start concern trolling about winter: https://model.energy/?results=822cd1d042dfd31d9faf011150ee2d01#solve https://model.energy/?results=822cd1d042dfd31d9faf011150ee2d... > Nuclear is not polluting. Serpent river, Rossing, Kakadu, Kadapa, Church Hill, La Hague Every other stage of the supply chain spews heavy metals and radiation into the environment. Then there's the fact that there simply isn't enough uranium.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      > Serpent river, Rossing, Kakadu, Kadapa, Church Hill, La Hague Nuclear accidents are polluting, but steady state certainly is not. But what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward? There's no evidence to think so. On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly. And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries. Battery storage requires huge quantities of lithium. A single Tesla battery pack generates as much CO2 in production as an entire ICE car does in manufacture. There is of course more than enough uranium. There's billions of tons dissolved in seawater, enough for 100,000 years of current electric capacity. In fact a new gel was just discovered to make extraction much more efficient. [2] That 4 billion tons is actually replenished as it's extracted from geological processes. There is plenty of Uranium for conventional fission reactors. By most measures, existing nuclear power schemes are renewable. Then, breeder reactors require some 100x less uranium, and CANDU reactors can already operate on thorium cycle. There is no perfect solution, and meeting our energy needs at minimum CO2 requires a variety of energy sources. I'm not opposed to renewables at all. By all means, build away. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-... [2] https://bigthink.com/hard-science/extract-uranium-seawater/ https://bigthink.com/hard-science/extract-uranium-seawater/

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. [1] Cool. Now explain what happens in the ground water around Kadapa or Rossing or Kakadu. Nuclear waste is very much an issue, you're just trying to focus on the stuff you have a vague plan for rather than no plan. Noone is suggesting more coal. They're suggesting renewables which are faster, cheaper, less centralized, less dependent on oligopolies and hostile foreign actors, more able to be deployed in unstable regions, just as safe, less polluting, produce less non-radioactive waste, and use fewer materials.

arcticbull 4y ago
> cheaper Cheaper is a non-goal for me. Better is the goal. And nuclear delivers consistent stable baseload that supplements renewables while having a lower carbon footprint than both wind and solar. > less dependent on oligopolies and hostile foreign actors Not sure what you mean. Plenty in Canada. > more able to be deployed in unstable regions Existing designs are already not a proliferation risk. > less polluting Nuclear is not polluting. > produce less non-radioactive waste A non-goal if appropriately sequestered. > use fewer materials Also, IMO, a non-goal. > Nuclear waste is very much an issue.... [citation needed] Renewables have to factor in the impact and cost of storage. That means today pumped hydro, and also battery storage. Batteries are not environmentally friendly, cheap or easy to make. Renewables require base load. Nuclear provides base load.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Cheaper is a non-goal for me. Better is the goal. And nuclear delivers consistent stable baseload that supplements renewables while having a lower carbon footprint than both wind and solar. Prove it. Show me an LCA for mass expansion of nuclear, including the new mines in lower concentration deposits that comes out at lower carbon than new renewables with hydrogen (or even gas) backup for the 5% needed to cover the gaps using current technology. Then after you exhaust known reserves in 10 years include whatever scifi scheme you have for getting more. Here's a mix for somewhere in the arctic to get you started before you start concern trolling about winter: https://model.energy/?results=822cd1d042dfd31d9faf011150ee2d01#solve https://model.energy/?results=822cd1d042dfd31d9faf011150ee2d... > Nuclear is not polluting. Serpent river, Rossing, Kakadu, Kadapa, Church Hill, La Hague Every other stage of the supply chain spews heavy metals and radiation into the environment. Then there's the fact that there simply isn't enough uranium.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > Serpent river, Rossing, Kakadu, Kadapa, Church Hill, La Hague Nuclear accidents are polluting, but steady state certainly is not. But what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward? There's no evidence to think so. On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly. And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries. Battery storage requires huge quantities of lithium. A single Tesla battery pack generates as much CO2 in production as an entire ICE car does in manufacture. There is of course more than enough uranium. There's billions of tons dissolved in seawater, enough for 100,000 years of current electric capacity. In fact a new gel was just discovered to make extraction much more efficient. [2] That 4 billion tons is actually replenished as it's extracted from geological processes. There is plenty of Uranium for conventional fission reactors. By most measures, existing nuclear power schemes are renewable. Then, breeder reactors require some 100x less uranium, and CANDU reactors can already operate on thorium cycle. There is no perfect solution, and meeting our energy needs at minimum CO2 requires a variety of energy sources. I'm not opposed to renewables at all. By all means, build away. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-... [2] https://bigthink.com/hard-science/extract-uranium-seawater/ https://bigthink.com/hard-science/extract-uranium-seawater/