3 ms·

Not 100% true. Here is a counter-example. First, guess what is one of the most abundant element on earth. Uranium. [1] Now consider what is a common pollutant

Not 100% true. Here is a counter-example. First, guess what is one of the most abundant element on earth. Uranium. [1] Now consider what is a common pollutant when we mine coal or burn it. Uranium. [2,3, 6] Saying that we should burn coal because we are afraid of nuclear/radioactive waste is ad absurdum. And unlike nuclear plants it is questionable if we process the radioactive waste in question [4 & 5 show the contradiction in assuming if the post-processing is done correctly or not] [1]: https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-fuel-facts-uranium https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-fuel-facts-uranium [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... [3] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/langsdorf2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/langsdorf2/ [4] https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-po... [5] https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... [6] http://large.stanford.edu/publications/power/references/hvistendahl/ http://large.stanford.edu/publications/power/references/hvis...

Ma8ee 4y ago
It was a long time since the discussion was coal version nuclear. Today it is sun and wind and different storage solutions versus nuclear. Nuclear is losing due to slow building times and being too expensive. The nuclear industry is unhappy about that and tries to blame it on regulations.
- eftychis 4y ago
  Yes I agree. Was replying to burning coal/lignite. We need to figure out storage and hopefully that doesn't involve lithium -- too scarce and its mining is destructive. I support using nuclear too as a) there is a lot of improvements since the 60s - 80s -- e.g. nuclear reactor without the use of any water/steam -- using electromagnetic field deviations via plasma. And b) it provides an option for a steady power basis -- a necessity in any electrical power grid. But not always available with non-fossil alternatives when the weather patterns and solar exposure of a number of countries do not conform with their power consumption. Europe is relatively lucky here. (Source studies/workshops/projects in undergrad + grad school. Don't think things have moved that much since then unfortunately.) Another option is ensuring a robust and connected almost continent wide power grids. U.S. and Europe are getting there and has saved us from a lot of issues. Examples here of its usefulness -- UK power issues between Scotland and England, and ... Texas. That will help solar and wind adoption.
BoppreH 4y ago
> First, guess what is one of the most abundant element on earth. Uranium. Your source says it's the 48th most abundant element in crustal rocks. Doesn't sound that common to me.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  You don't think 48th out of 94 counts as "one of the most abundant"?
- eftychis 4y ago
  Sorry will clarify with the following Wikipedia citation to paint the difference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore 40 times more likely to find than silver. 500 more than gold. There is this old 1981 article about how to recover uranium from lignite by the Oak Ridge National Labs https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0304386X81900268 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030438... P.S. (Because I have been digging and reading on all the issues related to how uranium is distributed on Earth’s crust; if someone else is interested) Also a bit random to non-Europeans citation but the concentration of Uranium (in its various forms/compounds) is causing issues when we access deeper aquifers. Perhaps, something to consider also in California https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721075239 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489...

Ma8ee 4y ago

It was a long time since the discussion was coal version nuclear. Today it is sun and wind and different storage solutions versus nuclear. Nuclear is losing due to slow building times and being too expensive. The nuclear industry is unhappy about that and tries to blame it on regulations.

eftychis 4y ago
Yes I agree. Was replying to burning coal/lignite. We need to figure out storage and hopefully that doesn't involve lithium -- too scarce and its mining is destructive. I support using nuclear too as a) there is a lot of improvements since the 60s - 80s -- e.g. nuclear reactor without the use of any water/steam -- using electromagnetic field deviations via plasma. And b) it provides an option for a steady power basis -- a necessity in any electrical power grid. But not always available with non-fossil alternatives when the weather patterns and solar exposure of a number of countries do not conform with their power consumption. Europe is relatively lucky here. (Source studies/workshops/projects in undergrad + grad school. Don't think things have moved that much since then unfortunately.) Another option is ensuring a robust and connected almost continent wide power grids. U.S. and Europe are getting there and has saved us from a lot of issues. Examples here of its usefulness -- UK power issues between Scotland and England, and ... Texas. That will help solar and wind adoption.

BoppreH 4y ago

> First, guess what is one of the most abundant element on earth. Uranium. Your source says it's the 48th most abundant element in crustal rocks. Doesn't sound that common to me.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
You don't think 48th out of 94 counts as "one of the most abundant"?
eftychis 4y ago
Sorry will clarify with the following Wikipedia citation to paint the difference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_ore 40 times more likely to find than silver. 500 more than gold. There is this old 1981 article about how to recover uranium from lignite by the Oak Ridge National Labs https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0304386X81900268 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030438... P.S. (Because I have been digging and reading on all the issues related to how uranium is distributed on Earth’s crust; if someone else is interested) Also a bit random to non-Europeans citation but the concentration of Uranium (in its various forms/compounds) is causing issues when we access deeper aquifers. Perhaps, something to consider also in California https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721075239 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489...