hWhich Is More Radioactive: A Nuclear Plant Or A Coal Plant?

[Erika Rohers]

Which is more radioactive: A nuclear plant or a coal plant?

 

 

Interesting little article on the little know health risks of coal power pollution, perhaps germany should take a look at this.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Erika Rohers

[Mr Rayon]

I think using renewable energy sources may be a better choice.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Mr Rayon

[Moontanman]

Which is more radioactive: A nuclear plant or a coal plant?

 

 

Interesting little article on the little know health risks of coal power pollution, perhaps germany should take a look at this.

 

 

It's quite true that a coal power plant releases more radioactivity into the environment than a nuclear power plant does, a coal power plant just spreads it out over a larger area. As for renewables, they will and should play a large part in future energy needs but they will not be able to support all energy needs and the nuclear power we now use is not exactly the most optimal type of nuclear power, what we use was first started because it produced material to make nuclear weapons, the uranium plutonium cycle we use today is not as environmentally friendly as the thorium uranium cycle which is very difficult to use to make weapons grade material and produces far more energy from less material and leaves behind only a tiny percentage of the waste the Uranium plutonium cycle does and that waste is very short lived compared to the uranium plutonium cycle we use today.

 

see this thread

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57861-the-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor/

Edited June 29, 2011 by Moontanman

[Brainteaserfan]

I think what scares people is that once in a rare while, there are nuclear disasters that may kill people in the vicinity and injure more. In coal, it may be less healthy for those around, but as far as I can recall, most coal accidents are in mining. The miners sort of signed up for what they knew was dangerous; those around a nuke plant didn't.

[insane_alien]

I think what scares people is that once in a rare while, there are nuclear disasters that may kill people in the vicinity and injure more. In coal, it may be less healthy for those around, but as far as I can recall, most coal accidents are in mining. The miners sort of signed up for what they knew was dangerous; those around a nuke plant didn't.

 

lets do a thought experiment: the same accident at two different sites.

 

we have an operator walking along a corridor next to a live steam pipe (not the steam for running the turbines but utility steam, ie. high degree of separation from the reactor whether it is coal or nuclear, not radioactive). due to some unnoticed corrosion under a bit of lagging, the pipe bursts and burns the operator. a perfectly plausible accident and it has occured on many chemical plants around the world in one variation or another.

 

which accident would make the news? the one at the nuclear plant

 

which would get screamed at showing the inherent dangers of the particular fuel ? the nuclear one

 

there is a certain amount of venom when it comes to nuclear. mundane normal accidents that are nothing to do with the safe handling of nuclear fuel get dragged into show how dangerous nuclear power supposedly is. the best one i've heard about is a guy got electrocuted from an improperly grounded hand dryer in an outbuilding of a nuclear plant. those pesky atoms!

[imatfaal]

I_A whilst I agree with your point; your thought experiment would lead me to question the oft-repeated mantra that the design, construction, and maintenance of nuclear power plants is an order above the level for conventional power generation