Coal vs. Nuclear Power

[Armitage]

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Some selected quotes...

Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.

The population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

The energy content of nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is more than that of the coal consumed

I almost got lynched at a Sierra Club event once for suggesting that they should be protesting in favor of nuclear power

 

[acemcmac]

hahahahah

 

[Malfeas]

This is common knowledge to people with any knowledge of nuclear energy or experience in the power industry. And yes, you would get more energy produced by processing out the uranium found in coal and using it in a reactor than you would from burning coal.

 

[FoBoT]

both are ok with me

 

[K1052]

Not new news, but the environuts don't want to admit it.

 

[AMDZen]

Yea people are stupid. Members of the Sierra Club just happen to be dumber then most

 

[Heisenberg]

We really should replace all coal and oil plants with nuclear, but unfortunately the sheeple hear the word "nuclear" and freak out.

 

[Linflas]

In my opinion the only legitimate issue with nuclear power is the waste disposal. As far as I am concerned the current plans with Yucca Mountain deals with that problem. After the demonizing of nuclear during the late 70's though I doubt that it will become a viable alternative in the US unless the government actually shows a bit of backbone and takes affirmative steps to get plants built.

 

[sdifox]

Storage of the nuclear waste is an issue since we haven't found a way to eliminate the waste. Not all of it is usable as ammo

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Malfeas
This is common knowledge to people with any knowledge of nuclear energy or experience in the power industry. And yes, you would get more energy produced by processing out the uranium found in coal and using it in a reactor than you would from burning coal.

Yep, I've seen various references to this over the years, but this is the first time I've seen the whole document (and a reference to the original article from 1978)

 

[Circlenaut]

This is why we should praise France!

 

[Vich]

I believe the main problem is that people are afraid of something like chernobyl happening, or having another scare like 3 mile island. Thus they rather not have nuclear power, because the thought of chernobyl is frightening.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: Vich
I believe the main problem is that people are afraid of something like chernobyl happening, or having another scare like 3 mile island. Thus they rather not have nuclear power, because the thought of chernobyl is frightening.

Of course the fact that a Chernobyl-like accident is impossible with U.S. reactor designs never seems to be understood.

 

[Vich]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: Vich
I believe the main problem is that people are afraid of something like chernobyl happening, or having another scare like 3 mile island. Thus they rather not have nuclear power, because the thought of chernobyl is frightening.

Of course the fact that a Chernobyl-like accident is impossible with U.S. reactor designs never seems to be understood.

Well exactly, i havent been enlightened, what makes you think the rest of the U.S population has? Care to bestow some knowledge upon thee?

 

[marvdmartian]

Agreed. The public only sees 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl when they think of nuclear power. Never mind the fact that we have dozens of other plants that have run flawlessly for decades now. :roll:

I always thought someone should build a huge nuclear complex just across the border of California, in Nevada. Up in the mountains, where cooling the plant will be easier, and require a smaller water source. It's close to California, so they should be able to sell the power to that power-hungry state at quite the premium price. It's outside of California, so the tree huggers and owl lovers can't whine too much. And it's close to the waste storage facilities in Nevada, so getting rid of the waste is a cinch!

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: K1052
Not new news, but the environuts don't want to admit it.

yep... nuclear FTW!

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: sdifox
Storage of the nuclear waste is an issue since we haven't found a way to eliminate the waste. Not all of it is usable as ammo

The funny thing is, there is very little waste. The plant I worked at has been in operation for over 30 years and ALL of their spent fuel was stored onsite. This equated to a very small average household swimming pool area full of spent fuel. That's over 30 years worth of fuel stored in one small area. People don't realize how little fuel it takes for a nuke plant to run and how long it actually lasts.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Agreed. The public only sees 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl when they think of nuclear power. Never mind the fact that we have dozens of other plants that have run flawlessly for decades now. :roll:

I always thought someone should build a huge nuclear complex just across the border of California, in Nevada. Up in the mountains, where cooling the plant will be easier, and require a smaller water source. It's close to California, so they should be able to sell the power to that power-hungry state at quite the premium price. It's outside of California, so the tree huggers and owl lovers can't whine too much. And it's close to the waste storage facilities in Nevada, so getting rid of the waste is a cinch!

Lets get some investors and make it happen

 

[miri]

Nuclear power plants alone produce 2000 tons of spent rods a year alone. These rods need long term storage, where do you suggest we put them? Your back yard? Not only that but moving these rods over any distance is dangerous, especially considering most of the nuclear powerplants are in the eastern part of the country and most of the suitable areas for longer term storage are in the western part of the country.

2000 tons of spent fuel rods a year is a lot of transporting you need to do without a accident.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Coal sux REALLY REALLY bad. Nuke . . . eh not so much in comparison.

Popular Science (or Scientific American) had a nice piece on state of the art and next generation nuke plants. Despite the huffing and puffing in DC, the Energy Bill isn't going to make a big difference. It basically subsidizes coal (which already supplies nearly half our energy), while new nuke plants are still years (if not decades off).

I read even the Chinese and Indians are building better nuke plants.

Miri, many of your concerns are mitigated by the best nuke designs that not only produce more energy but generate A LOT less waste. And unlike the old model tech . . . you can still make the byproducts unuseable in a nuke weapon.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: miri
Nuclear power plants alone produce 2000 tons of spent rods a year alone. These rods need long term storage, where do you suggest we put them? Your back yard? Not only that but moving these rods over any distance is dangerous, especially considering most of the nuclear powerplants are in the eastern part of the country and most of the suitable areas for longer term storage are in the western part of the country.

2000 tons of spent fuel rods a year is a lot of transporting you need to do without a accident.

the storage containers which house the rods withstood a train going 55 MPH. the containers did not break at all. show me something that can take that sort of impact and survive:thumbsup:

there have been 0 accidents to date. i repeat 0.

i saw that on history channel's "dangerous cargo" series

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
there have been 0 accidents to date. i repeat 0.

You do realize that spent fuel rods are in their temporary storage facilities in the nuclear power plants right? We have like 50 years of spent rods that need to be moved and have not been moved yet because of debate over long term storage. 50 years of spent rods is about 200 million pounds that has not been moved yet from its temporary storage.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: miri
Nuclear power plants alone produce 2000 tons of spent rods a year alone. These rods need long term storage, where do you suggest we put them? Your back yard? Not only that but moving these rods over any distance is dangerous, especially considering most of the nuclear powerplants are in the eastern part of the country and most of the suitable areas for longer term storage are in the western part of the country.

2000 tons of spent fuel rods a year is a lot of transporting you need to do without a accident.

the storage containers which house the rods withstood a train going 55 MPH. the containers did not break at all. show me something that can take that sort of impact and survive:thumbsup:

there have been 0 accidents to date. i repeat 0.

i saw that on history channel's "dangerous cargo" series

That's not the best argument. It makes far more sense to develop means of reducing the waste produced than to claim there's nothing to worry about as we begin transporting waste from all over the country to one location.

 

[amdskip]

I live 20 minutes from a nuke plant and it also happens to be where my dad has worked the past 30+ years or so. If someone figures out something we can do with the waste, they will be rich.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: amdskip
I live 20 minutes from a nuke plant and it also happens to be where my dad has worked the past 30+ years or so. If someone figures out something we can do with the waste, they will be rich.

Most of it is supposed to be going to Nevada, but there is resistance, and also the logistical problem of transporting 200 million pounds of it.