How environmentally friendly is nuclear energy?

I don't trust our government that much, but I trust the EU regulations and inspectors which would make it hard for our governent to screw up this project.

The building would likely be done by the same French or maybe Italians, and there are scientists here who are fammilar with nuclear power because we had a nuclear power station in our country, but it is closed down now (it was the same model as the Chernobyl one).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No you're right, all that coal is better suited to turned into diamond.

And yes nuclear power is best suited for powering cities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All that coal puts more radioactive output in our environment than nuclear power stations,
so coal is better left alone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NO I WANT DIAMONDS!

What is this radiation you speak of coal? Are you... insane?

 

No, I am informed.
You seem to be ignorant though. Like most of the anti-nuclear crowd.

 

...so. learn us about coal radiation then...?

 

Sure thing, skipper

Read and be owned, Hurricane Angel


The information is brought to you by Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Managed by UT Battelle for the Department of Energy USA


++++++++++++++++++++++

<strong>Radioactivity from Coal Combustion</strong><p> The main sources of radiation released from coal combustion include not only uranium and thorium but also daughter products produced by the decay of these isotopes, such as radium, radon, polonium, bismuth, and lead. Although not a decay product, naturally occurring radioactive potassium-40 is also a significant contributor.</p><p> <img src="http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/graphics/colq3.gif" /></p><p> According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons, or 0.00427 millicuries/ton. This figure can be used to calculate the average expected radioactivity release from coal combustion. For 1982 the total release of radioactivity from 154 typical coal plants in the United States was, therefore, 2,630,230 millicuries.</p><p> Thus, by combining U.S. coal combustion from 1937 (440 million tons) through 1987 (661 million tons) with an estimated total in the year 2040 (2516 million tons), the total expected U.S. radioactivity release to the environment by 2040 can be determined. That total comes from the expected combustion of 111,716 million tons of coal with the release of 477,027,320 millicuries in the United States. Global releases of radioactivity from the predicted combustion of 637,409 million tons of coal would be 2,721,736,430 millicuries. </p><p> For comparison, <u>according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.</u> For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year; the equivalent dose for coal use, from mining to power plant operation to waste disposal, is not listed in this report and is probably unknown. </p>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<p> Because existing coal-fired power plants vary in size and electrical output, to calculate the annual coal consumption of these facilities, assume that the typical plant has an electrical output of 1000 megawatts. Existing coal-fired plants of this capacity annually burn about 4 million tons of coal each year. Further, considering that in 1982 about 616 million short tons (2000 pounds per ton) of coal was burned in the United States (from 833 million short tons mined, or 74%), the number of typical coal-fired plants necessary to consume this quantity of coal is 154. </p><p> Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium. </p><p> Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, <u>cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be: </p><p> </p><em>U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons): </em><p> Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235) </p><p> Thorium: 357,491 tons </p><p> <em>Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons): </em></p><p> Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235) </p><p> Thorium: 2,039,709 tons </p></u>


~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This stuff can be found @ http://www.ornl.gov
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

 

So, who is the stupid one?
Thought so.

 

I didn't know coal contains so much uranium.

 

Yes, it's true - along with the others he listed. Thorium is one of the worst because it's picked up with the grass by cows and directly enters the food chain.

The whole business was once stressed pretty heavily but got lost in the whirlwind over acid rain.

 

How do nuclear power plants compare to petroleum powered energy or garbage burning incinerator power plants?

And what do you think they'll actually do with the nuclear waste once the plant is up and running?

 

Dont worry they just use it on enemies .

 

Actually I'm seriously concerned because I hear a lot of nuclear waste that is supposed to be passed to other countries for processing is instead sent to my homeland in exchange for large sums of money. It supposedly ends up being dumped somewhere by certain entrepreneuring people.

 

Look at this, its a Uranium bullet used by USA, this is why I became Anti-US recently and was always Anti-Nuclear.<IMG src=http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=DU+effects/v=2/SID=e/l=IVS/SIG=125a85tpk/EXP=1140687671/*-http%3A//www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/dubullet%20small.jpg> </IMG>

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/anderkel.html

 

That is not an environmental problem as such, that's a problem in and with your government that takes up these deals.
Besides - do you have any evidence, or is it just rumour?
If it's the latter then you better get some evidence, because we all can talk out of our imagination.

p.s. From which country are you?

 

Compare in what?

p.s. Petrolium does more harm to environment than nuclear power stations, as already stated in this thread.

 

In terms of toxic waste and radiation. I thought we were talking about coal? (musta missed something). Anyway, studies say that coal emits more hazardous radiation than a properly run nuclear power plant. Do Petroleum/Deisel power plants emit radiation? How about garbage incinerator power plants?

Oh, and for my second question (And what do you think they'll actually do with the nuclear waste once the plant is up and running?), it would be really bad if they just export their nuclear waste, conveniently only harming distant foreign lands. That's why I'm asking. That's something that, perhaps, should be noted in your essay.

 

I don't know about that, will look it up.
To be frank, I didn't even investigate that oil radiation matter, because oil based power plants do more damage to environment even without any radiation output.

Why bad? Nobody just exports where it wants, they buy the services of those countries which have the means to safely store the waste products.
It's not economically sane to build a nuclear waste storage facility if you have just one or two nuclear power stations in your country,
better buy the service from countries which already have the infrastructure for this kind of storage.

 

Well, I was just curious. I never knew that coal was radioactive either.

That's the problem. The reality of the situation is that these supposed foreign processing centers often just pass at least some of the waste to third world countries (Like mine) because it's the cheap thing to do and no one really checks. I don't have any on-hand proof of this but it was mentioned in the local paper a few times a few years ago and I remember my professors as well as some a friend of mine in the military discussing the topic.

Anyway, I've git to go. Goodnight.

 

That is no reality because you have no evidence.

Local paper rumors is no evidence. If we believed those then aliens would have landed before the white house and the pope would have been a member of a secret satanic sect.
And I know my share of lunatic proffessors too,
being in military doesn't mean you are allowed to know any state secrets or are more informed of the nuclear industry than any other person.