Future of nuke power in the US

[hokierower 0]

Quote

A friend pointed me in this direction, It's a good read.

Came from this article (which is piss poor in comparison to this guy's essay):

*SNIP*

Thank you for that, it was a very good read. That link is just another example of fear mongering by the media.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'll keep going back and forth with you over PM but let's keep this out of this thread since we're derailing it just a bit.

I'm consistent in my views. And I could write your arguments for you and I understand why you think they are still valid. But for when people make your argument (for unions, for solar power, for de-icing Maine, for etc etc etc) one thing is always very common:

They are SO passionate about THEIR pet projects absolutely needing it and so against everything else being done in the exact same way.

Maybe Maine can keep their money and de-ice their own roads. And Arizona can keep their money and buy solar panels. Both win, the government does NOT take a cut and dilute both efforts,

There's more, but no real point to continue - we'll just keep re-iterating the same stuff from here on.

Blues

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[1969912 0]

If they have spent fuel burning uncontrollably, then this would be a nuke disaster. A lot of very nasty stuff would be released to the air.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Loonix 0]

Quote

However, the number of children exposed to radiation due to the radioactive waste from coal power plants far exceeds that. Coal power plants put tons of radioactive waste in the air every year; even here in the US, the particulate pollution from coal plants (including the heavy metal/nuclear portion) kills about 20,000 people a year.

From where do you have this number? 20,000 is a lot. I am surprised that I haven't heard about it if it's actually true.

[billvon 3,030]

>From where do you have this number? 20,000 is a lot. I am surprised
>that I haven't heard about it if it's actually true.

It doesn't sell papers; "NUCLEAR DISASTER IN JAPAN" does. Some data below.

US deaths:

Deadly power plants? Study fuels debate
Thousands of early deaths tied to emissions

WASHINGTON — Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year, including 2,800 from lung cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study released Wednesday.

Commissioned by environmental groups and undertaken by a consultant often used by the Environmental Protection Agency, the study concluded that 22,000 of those deaths are preventable with currently available technology.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/

Analysis of just two power plants in the Northeast:

HSPH Report Quantifies Health Impact of Air Pollution From Two Massachusetts Power Plants

Boston, MA--Air pollution from two Massachusetts coal-fired power plants contributes to particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone exposure over a large region. Using a sophisticated model of how particulate matter and its precursors are dispersed in the atmosphere, Harvard School of Public Health scientists Jonathan Levy and John D. Spengler have calculated exposures to 32 million residents living in New England, eastern New York and New Jersey from these older plants.

Their report estimated that current emissions from the Salem Harbor and Brayton Point power plants can be linked to more than 43,000 asthma attacks and nearly 300,000 incidents of upper respiratory symptoms per year in the region. The study also estimated that 159 premature deaths per year could be attributed to this pollution.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2000-releases/press05042000.html

Stuff on nuclear waste from coal plants:

Over the past few decades . . . a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Sounds like a good place to get fuel for thorium reactors, then. Win-win.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,030]

Good summary of death rate for various energy sources:

Energy Source              Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

=========                  ======================

Coal – world average        161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)

Coal – China                278

Coal – USA                  15

Oil                         36  (36% of world energy)

Natural Gas                  4  (21% of world energy)

Biofuel/Biomass              12

Peat                         12

Solar (rooftop)              0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)

Wind                        0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)

Hydro                       0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)

Nuclear                     0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

[billvon 3,030]

>Sounds like a good place to get fuel for thorium reactors, then. Win-win.

Sure. Pass laws that say zero particulates can be emitted; capture them, refine them, dispose of the rest and you've got nuclear fuel _and_ you keep thousands of people alive.

Course you'd also have to build thorium reactors, too.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Sounds like a good place to get fuel for thorium reactors, then. Win-win.

Sure. Pass laws that say zero particulates can be emitted; capture them, refine them, dispose of the rest and you've got nuclear fuel _and_ you keep thousands of people alive.

Or at least continue the capture that is currently done and expand as possible.

Of course, it's not *quite* as bad as your post makes it sound.

From your linked article:

Quote

Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, says that for the average person the by-product accounts for a miniscule amount of background radiation, probably less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure. According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: 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."

Radiation from uranium and other elements in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains. "It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon."

Quote

Course you'd also have to build thorium reactors, too.

Of course - from the little I've read, they seem to be more efficient than uranium reactors and don't 'breed' weapon grade fissionables.

Less pollutants from the coal, more power generation, less spent fuel storage needed.

Win-win-win.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[normiss 816]

Duh.
Winning!

[billvon 3,030]

>Or at least continue the capture that is currently done and expand as possible.

Right now no capture of nuclear materials (or of any heavy metals) is done. Fly and bottom ash are just dumped outside in big pits. If your proposal is to isolate the heavy metals and remove them from that waste stream before they get into the open, then I'm all for that.

>Of course, it's not *quite* as bad as your post makes it sound.

20,000 people dying a year sounds pretty bad to me, but I guess it's all in your perspective.

>from the little I've read, they seem to be more efficient than uranium
>reactors and don't 'breed' weapon grade fissionables.

Yes, but they need either weapons-grade fissionables to start the reaction (i.e. a 'seed') or they need a source of neutrons, like a very high power proton accelerator plus a target. Thorium reactors are inherently subcritical and cannot start on their own.

It's definitely doable but a _lot_ more research needs to be done on them.

[PiLFy 3]

In Reply To
>But, I can make a phone call and have a portable generator on a flatbed
>truck in a couple of hours and I can wire it directly to the pumps myself...

Could you do it if the switchgear and power terminals for the pumps were under five feet of seawater?

And if the roads between the rental company and your house are choked with debris, cars, trees, and possibly bodies?

P.S. - I might be wrong, and that's a very real possibility because I'm not an electrical engineer, but mixing water & electricity is usually a BAD thing