3 ms·

Coal plants literally emit more radiation then nuclear power plants[1], because it turns out digging up a whole lot of coal (particularly in Australia, which al

by XorNot 3y ago

Coal plants literally emit more radiation then nuclear power plants[1], because it turns out digging up a whole lot of coal (particularly in Australia, which also has a whole lot of uranium) also digs up quite a lot of radioactive materials which are trapped in the same deposits. And you know, do so my emitting it into the atmosphere. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

defrost 3y ago
I won't disagree but perspective is important: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants." and McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors. ( ^^ above quotes from above comments link [1] ) So, bugger all in both cases particularly when compared to normal background radiation exposure. > digging up a whole lot of coal (particularly in Australia, which also has a whole lot of uranium) Australia is kind of big (the same land area essentially as the contiguous United States of America) and I don't see the major uranium deposits in Australia being especially close to the massive coal beds. For comparison, the USGS database on Coal quality states [2][3] In the majority of samples, concentrations of uranium fall in the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million (ppm). Similar uranium concentrations are found in a variety of common rocks and soils, as indicated in figure 2. Coals with more than 20 ppm uranium are rare in the United States. Thorium concentrations in coal fall within a similar 1–4 ppm range, compared to an average crustal abundance of approximately 10 ppm. Coals with more than 20 ppm thorium are extremely rare. and Australia's CSIRO has it (tables 5 and 6 and end of PDF doc) [4] that Australian coals typically have 1ppm U and 3.5 ppm Th. These figures for coal are all less than typical crustal concentrations. The below link [5] is a throw in that doesn't address U-Th-K in Australian coal but does address the major properties of Australian thermal coals. [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://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html [3] https://ncrdspublic.er.usgs.gov/coalqual/ https://ncrdspublic.er.usgs.gov/coalqual/ [4] https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP114248&dsid=DS7 https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP11424... [5] https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Best-in-Class-Australian-Export-Thermal-Coal-2021.pdf https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Best-in-C...
pfdietz 3y ago
That's only emissions when operating normally, and when ignoring uranium decay products mobilized at the U mine (but that mining occurs off in other countries so it doesn't count, right? /s) The claim of that title "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste" is a baldfaced lie, btw. The radioactivity in the spent fuel is many orders of magnitude higher than in the coal ash for the same generated power.

by XorNot 3y ago

defrost 3y ago

I won't disagree but perspective is important: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants." and McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors. ( ^^ above quotes from above comments link [1] ) So, bugger all in both cases particularly when compared to normal background radiation exposure. > digging up a whole lot of coal (particularly in Australia, which also has a whole lot of uranium) Australia is kind of big (the same land area essentially as the contiguous United States of America) and I don't see the major uranium deposits in Australia being especially close to the massive coal beds. For comparison, the USGS database on Coal quality states [2][3] In the majority of samples, concentrations of uranium fall in the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million (ppm). Similar uranium concentrations are found in a variety of common rocks and soils, as indicated in figure 2. Coals with more than 20 ppm uranium are rare in the United States. Thorium concentrations in coal fall within a similar 1–4 ppm range, compared to an average crustal abundance of approximately 10 ppm. Coals with more than 20 ppm thorium are extremely rare. and Australia's CSIRO has it (tables 5 and 6 and end of PDF doc) [4] that Australian coals typically have 1ppm U and 3.5 ppm Th. These figures for coal are all less than typical crustal concentrations. The below link [5] is a throw in that doesn't address U-Th-K in Australian coal but does address the major properties of Australian thermal coals. [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://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html [3] https://ncrdspublic.er.usgs.gov/coalqual/ https://ncrdspublic.er.usgs.gov/coalqual/ [4] https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP114248&dsid=DS7 https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP11424... [5] https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Best-in-Class-Australian-Export-Thermal-Coal-2021.pdf https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Best-in-C...

pfdietz 3y ago

That's only emissions when operating normally, and when ignoring uranium decay products mobilized at the U mine (but that mining occurs off in other countries so it doesn't count, right? /s) The claim of that title "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste" is a baldfaced lie, btw. The radioactivity in the spent fuel is many orders of magnitude higher than in the coal ash for the same generated power.