I'm fairly certain coal power plants in particular spew out quite a bit of 'radiation'. Not sure of any sources on it though, I've seen it mentioned frequently in the last few days.
As far as I've determined, that's a disputed claim which involves comparing large amounts of raw coal ash to the radiation produced by properly stored nuclear waste
( ... )
That's one massive "citation needed". I think this falls into the range of statements which one shoudn't offer - let alone in bold increased size - until after one has presented clear evidence. I suspect this is going to involve a lot of caveats, dubious comparisons and selective data.
An improper comparison, as the Soviet RBMK-style reactor had no shielding.. unlike the Japanese reactors. Moreover, they were shown to have cut any and all safety protocols in the course of daily operation
( ... )
No argument there regarding site planning, but even that could've been accounted for if they'd used a backup power supply that was designed to be, if not directly submerged.. indirectly. Like that in a submarine.
They certainly designed a core and supporting superstructure that withstood the earthquake. It was the Tsunami that bit them in the arse on this one.
My gut feeling, too, has always been that no, nuclear power isn't a great solution - it's a limited resource and when it goes boom it really goes boom - but you have to get power from somewhere, and I'd far rather it be a nuclear source if you're not going for geothermal/solar/hydroelectric power. And what Pathia said; f'rex people in Arizona have health problems resulting from Uranium mining, but compare that to the much greater health and natural problems from coal mining throughout Appalachia, and that's before you stick the stuff in a plant and start spewing junk.
Again, that depends on the design of the reactor itself.
There are designs now that we COULD build (but are not being allowed to) that are a whole helluva lot safer than the pressurized water reactor. We could go with a Pebble Bed type, or any of the others.
Calculated nuclear waste on the newer designs is like a single soda-can of waste a year, last I'd heard.
Instead, due to the hysteria, the innovation and progress has been rather stifled and we're stuck using reactors built in the 70's and 80's, that had been designed in the 60's and 70's using antiquated design and fabrication methods.
Also, the obvious bleeding heart liberal comments to make here are that, the same way I've noticed we aren't literally dismantling mountains in the west, I've noticed that we don't have troops overseas dying to make sure we have a supply of Uranium, and that as odious as I find some Arizona politicking, it's a lot less obnoxious than maintaining a good diplomatic relationship with good folks like Saudi Arabia.
The biggest problem with nuclear reactors is spent fuel storage. Many reactors are reaching their limit of on-site storage, and the federal government is years late in opening up a national storage site due to lots of NIMBY and politicking. We spent billions on a repository that might not even be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
This is the product of the hysteria regarding nuclear power, though. Had the new designs of reactors been allowed to be constructed, a lot of that spent fuel could have been cycled through them.
But, since the anti-nuclear activists went bonkers... we're stuck with what we have.
A few good breeder reactors could use the spent fuel and cycle it back into something usable in a pebble bed, for example. Instead.. we're stuck with spent fuel pools.
Heck, we weren't even allowed to build the newer reactors that don't even REQUIRE spent fuel storage.
Yucca Mountain is just one symptom of an over-arching fear-based problem.
Comments 27
Reply
Reply
In short: Chernobyl.
Reply
Reply
Reply
They certainly designed a core and supporting superstructure that withstood the earthquake. It was the Tsunami that bit them in the arse on this one.
Reply
Reply
There are designs now that we COULD build (but are not being allowed to) that are a whole helluva lot safer than the pressurized water reactor. We could go with a Pebble Bed type, or any of the others.
Calculated nuclear waste on the newer designs is like a single soda-can of waste a year, last I'd heard.
Instead, due to the hysteria, the innovation and progress has been rather stifled and we're stuck using reactors built in the 70's and 80's, that had been designed in the 60's and 70's using antiquated design and fabrication methods.
Reply
Death Rate from Nuclear Power vs. Coal, as compared in Watt/seconds.
http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/
I'll find more in a bit. :)
Reply
Also, the obvious bleeding heart liberal comments to make here are that, the same way I've noticed we aren't literally dismantling mountains in the west, I've noticed that we don't have troops overseas dying to make sure we have a supply of Uranium, and that as odious as I find some Arizona politicking, it's a lot less obnoxious than maintaining a good diplomatic relationship with good folks like Saudi Arabia.
Reply
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02d.html
Of course you will also have to assess the potential catastrophic failure situation you talk of as well.
Reply
http://current.com/news/91169934_us-coal-plants-dump-thousands-of-gallons-of-waste-into-drinking-water-supplies-a-day.htm
Reply
We spent billions on a repository that might not even be used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
Reply
This is the product of the hysteria regarding nuclear power, though. Had the new designs of reactors been allowed to be constructed, a lot of that spent fuel could have been cycled through them.
But, since the anti-nuclear activists went bonkers... we're stuck with what we have.
A few good breeder reactors could use the spent fuel and cycle it back into something usable in a pebble bed, for example. Instead.. we're stuck with spent fuel pools.
Heck, we weren't even allowed to build the newer reactors that don't even REQUIRE spent fuel storage.
Yucca Mountain is just one symptom of an over-arching fear-based problem.
Reply
Leave a comment