3 ms·

all nuclear power stations emit small amounts of liquid and gas radwaste as part of normal operation mostly tritium and tritiated water that has been activated

all nuclear power stations emit small amounts of liquid and gas radwaste as part of normal operation mostly tritium and tritiated water that has been activated in the coolant circuits (practically impossible to separate) but some other isotopes (carbon-14, caesium-137) here's the environmental permit for the UK's most modern power station: https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/nuclear/consultation-on-the-variation-of-permit-xb3538dh-t/results/xb3539dh-v007decisiondocumentshortform-finalversion.pdf https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/nuclear/consultati... solid radwaste is kept under lock and key though and the total volume of radioactive waste produced is WAY WAY WAY less than that produced burning fossil fuels (turns out coal is reasonably radioactive)

fsh 4y ago
No, coal is barely radioactive at all. The small traces of Thorium and Uranium are completely negligible. An old study from 1978 has estimated that nuclear reactors emit somewhat more radiation than coal power plants, but the levels are overall insignificant [1]. This is only about emissions though. The radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants has many many orders of magnitude more activity than the emissions. [1] https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.202.4372.1045 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.202.4372.104...
- blibble 4y ago
  > This is only about emissions though. The radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants has many many orders of magnitude more activity than the emissions. yes I should have probably said "emission" not waste > No, coal is barely radioactive at all. but you need to burn orders of magnitude more of it, producing literal mountains of coal ash and exhaust emissions whereas for nuclear the waste is an extremely small volume, of which almost 100% of is captured scrubbing technologies have also improved since 1978, and scrubbing not-very-much thoroughly is a much easier than scrubbing vast amounts not-very-well
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    The radioactivity mobilized by U mining for LWRs is about an order of magnitude more than that mobilized by coal combustion, per unit of work produced.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
"Small amounts"? https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2012/part-ii-ap-impact-tritium-leaks-found-at-many-nuke-sites https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2012/part-ii-ap-impact-tri... 45 out of 65 sites had significant tritium leaks, some were migrating off site, some were starting to contaminate public drinking water. The nuclear industry is so loosely regulated that a half million gallon leak of radioactive water recently apparently didn't require them to notify anyone https://apnews.com/article/xcel-energy-nuclear-leak-tritium-6e522afbb12ad26925c40d833853088d https://apnews.com/article/xcel-energy-nuclear-leak-tritium-... Also: "it's better than coal!"...no kidding. It's not better than wind and solar. Not in terms of price, time to install, time for carbon payback, waste issues, or safety. That's why grid operators are shutting down both coal and nuclear in the US, and replacing it with solar and wind (the US has in recent years installed 6x more renewables-based capacity than nuclear capacity that has been shut down)
- blibble 4y ago
  those articles are pretty anti-scientific (especially the second one) 1.5 million litres of radioactive water (tritiated water) sounds scary, but they don't report the concentration, so it's meaningless if it was 1.5 billion litres with the same radiological content it would be less dangerous a load of coal ash getting into a river is likely worse radiologically and chemically than some tritiated water escaping > Also: "it's better than coal!"...no kidding. It's not better than wind and solar. Not in terms of price, time to install, time for carbon payback, waste issues, or safety. reliability if you want the lights to stay on at night when the wind drops then you need nuclear

fsh 4y ago

No, coal is barely radioactive at all. The small traces of Thorium and Uranium are completely negligible. An old study from 1978 has estimated that nuclear reactors emit somewhat more radiation than coal power plants, but the levels are overall insignificant [1]. This is only about emissions though. The radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants has many many orders of magnitude more activity than the emissions. [1] https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.202.4372.1045 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.202.4372.104...

blibble 4y ago
> This is only about emissions though. The radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants has many many orders of magnitude more activity than the emissions. yes I should have probably said "emission" not waste > No, coal is barely radioactive at all. but you need to burn orders of magnitude more of it, producing literal mountains of coal ash and exhaust emissions whereas for nuclear the waste is an extremely small volume, of which almost 100% of is captured scrubbing technologies have also improved since 1978, and scrubbing not-very-much thoroughly is a much easier than scrubbing vast amounts not-very-well
- pfdietz 4y ago
  The radioactivity mobilized by U mining for LWRs is about an order of magnitude more than that mobilized by coal combustion, per unit of work produced.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

"Small amounts"? https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2012/part-ii-ap-impact-tritium-leaks-found-at-many-nuke-sites https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2012/part-ii-ap-impact-tri... 45 out of 65 sites had significant tritium leaks, some were migrating off site, some were starting to contaminate public drinking water. The nuclear industry is so loosely regulated that a half million gallon leak of radioactive water recently apparently didn't require them to notify anyone https://apnews.com/article/xcel-energy-nuclear-leak-tritium-6e522afbb12ad26925c40d833853088d https://apnews.com/article/xcel-energy-nuclear-leak-tritium-... Also: "it's better than coal!"...no kidding. It's not better than wind and solar. Not in terms of price, time to install, time for carbon payback, waste issues, or safety. That's why grid operators are shutting down both coal and nuclear in the US, and replacing it with solar and wind (the US has in recent years installed 6x more renewables-based capacity than nuclear capacity that has been shut down)

blibble 4y ago
those articles are pretty anti-scientific (especially the second one) 1.5 million litres of radioactive water (tritiated water) sounds scary, but they don't report the concentration, so it's meaningless if it was 1.5 billion litres with the same radiological content it would be less dangerous a load of coal ash getting into a river is likely worse radiologically and chemically than some tritiated water escaping > Also: "it's better than coal!"...no kidding. It's not better than wind and solar. Not in terms of price, time to install, time for carbon payback, waste issues, or safety. reliability if you want the lights to stay on at night when the wind drops then you need nuclear