You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #28: If coal had a rad limit even 1000x as high as Yankee there would be no operating coal plant in US. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-15-10 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
28. If coal had a rad limit even 1000x as high as Yankee there would be no operating coal plant in US.
Edited on Mon Mar-15-10 07:52 AM by Statistical
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.

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

0.00427 mCuries / ton of coal.
0.00427 mCuries = 4.27 million pCuries.

1 ton of coal = 4.27 million picoCuries
Vermont Yankee = 2.95 million picoCuries.

So the amount of radiation released from Vermont Yankee is roughly equal to the amount of radiation released by burning a half ton of coal.

Last year Vermont Yankee produced 4.7 BILLION kWh of energy.
Burning 1/2 ton of coal in coal plant at 35% efficiency (6670 kWh / ton * 0.5 * 0.35) 1167 kWh.

Not only is the radiation release negligible but no coal plant in the country could operate is subject to same regulatory standards that nuclear plant are.

To produce the same amount of power as Vermont Yankee does annually, a coal plant would require two million tons of coal and release 9.47 TRILLION picoCuries. That is roughly 4 million times as much as found in the tritium leak at Vermont Yankee.

4.7 billion KWH / 6670 kWh * 0.35 = 2.01 million tons of coal
2.01 million tons of coal * 4.7 million pCuries per ton = 9468451 million pCuries.

The attack of Vermont Yankee is an attack of science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -If one person drank every drop of tritium water that leaked from Vermont Yankee... wtmusic  Mar-13-10 06:19 PM   #0 
  - Interesting take on this  jtuck004   Mar-13-10 06:31 PM   #1 
  - All nuclear power plants leak some tritium. The world tritium concentration is measurable easily.  NNadir   Mar-13-10 06:55 PM   #3 
     - You actually do make some very good points  jtuck004   Mar-14-10 12:02 AM   #7 
        - The only energy "waste" problem on this planet that is trivial involves used nuclear fuel.  NNadir   Mar-14-10 11:14 PM   #27 
           - Exactly spent fuel is no more "waste" then hydrocarbons are spent solar waste.  Statistical   Mar-15-10 08:56 AM   #30 
              - Another mythical technological fix to con people with...  kristopher   Mar-15-10 11:18 AM   #32 
                 - Even if we shut down the 104 PWR and BWR reactors in US today  Statistical   Mar-15-10 11:39 AM   #33 
                    - Not necessarily. It depends on the consequences and costs of that particular solution  kristopher   Mar-15-10 11:58 AM   #34 
                       - What do the alternatives do about the existing waste?  Statistical   Mar-15-10 12:12 PM   #35 
                          - Alternative and less expensive ways of dealing with the waste.  kristopher   Mar-15-10 12:47 PM   #36 
                          - The depleted uranium could be put back in the mines without issue  Massacure   Mar-15-10 05:15 PM   #37 
                             - Depleted Uranium is in gas form (UF6). Conversion is expensive and energy intensive.  Statistical   Mar-16-10 07:28 AM   #43 
                                - We should convert the UF6 to UO2 and use the UO2 to make solar panels  Massacure   Mar-16-10 10:27 AM   #46 
                                   - Interesting idea.  Statistical   Mar-16-10 11:11 AM   #48 
                                      - The cost would be interesting.  Massacure   Mar-16-10 06:36 PM   #71 
                                         - From back of napkin calculation it certainly seems plausable.  Statistical   Mar-16-10 09:48 PM   #72 
  - Yep - just the time spent in the bathroom would lead to starvation.  cliffordu   Mar-13-10 06:34 PM   #2 
  - Let's take cancer clusters seriously this time  OKIsItJustMe   Mar-13-10 07:19 PM   #4 
  - So a rat that drank 138,000 liters of VY water would have a 1 in 16 chance  wtmusic   Mar-14-10 12:03 AM   #8 
  - Tritium Hazard Report: Pollution and Radiation Risk from Canadian Nuclear Facilities  OKIsItJustMe   Mar-14-10 12:16 AM   #9 
     - So a rat that drank 138,000 liters of VY water would have a 1 in 16 chance  wtmusic   Mar-14-10 12:21 AM   #11 
        - Clearly, you didn't read the Greenpeace analysis  OKIsItJustMe   Mar-14-10 12:33 AM   #13 
           - Every glass we both drink is tritiated.  wtmusic   Mar-14-10 12:35 AM   #14 
              - Mutagenic Effect of Tritiated Water on Spores of Bacillus subtilis  OKIsItJustMe   Mar-14-10 12:42 AM   #17 
                 - Um, thats 400 RAD/HOUR  wtmusic   Mar-14-10 12:46 AM   #18 
                 - delete  wtmusic   Mar-14-10 12:59 AM   #21 
                 - Goodnight, OK.  wtmusic   Mar-14-10 01:00 AM   #22 
  - You're quoting New Scientist?  wtmusic   Mar-14-10 12:18 AM   #10 
     - Please, give us an exhaustive list of scientific journals you accept  OKIsItJustMe   Mar-14-10 12:36 AM   #15 
        - Anything peer-reviewed would be fine.  wtmusic   Mar-14-10 12:38 AM   #16 
           - Like "The Energy Collective" for example?  OKIsItJustMe   Mar-14-10 12:51 AM   #19 
              - Simple math.  wtmusic   Mar-14-10 12:52 AM   #20 
                 - Background information on the KiKK study  OKIsItJustMe   Mar-14-10 01:49 PM   #26 
  - Yankee Swap: tritium contaminated water anyone?  OKIsItJustMe   Mar-13-10 07:39 PM   #5 
  - Tritium "lurks" less than two weeks in the human body.  wtmusic   Mar-14-10 12:33 AM   #12 
  - I doubt you could get any of these guys to drink that water for just a month  Go2Peace   Mar-13-10 08:07 PM   #6 
  - A healthy male drinks about 4 liters of water a day. That's 94 years of drinking water.  joshcryer   Mar-14-10 03:42 AM   #23 
  - To be clear, this is 15 times less than the radiation the NRC says a nuclear engineer can accept.  joshcryer   Mar-14-10 03:48 AM   #24 
  - Those who deny the threat of Deadly Dangerous Tritium deny science!!111  jpak   Mar-14-10 09:28 AM   #25 
  - Do the math, if you can.  joshcryer   Mar-15-10 11:55 PM   #40 
  - If coal had a rad limit even 1000x as high as Yankee there would be no operating coal plant in US.  Statistical   Mar-15-10 07:49 AM   #28 
  - And yet some people just don't see it.  Nihil   Mar-15-10 08:35 AM   #29 
  - The hysteria is embarrassing isn't it?  joshcryer   Mar-15-10 11:53 PM   #39 
  - You forgot to multiply the nuclear plant emissions by a million.  joshcryer   Mar-15-10 11:53 PM   #38 
     - Still making light of tragedy, he?  kristopher   Mar-16-10 01:50 AM   #41 
     - Here ya go folks, Vermont Yankee = Chernobyl  joshcryer   Mar-16-10 03:32 AM   #42 
     - Only you say that VY = Chernobyl  kristopher   Mar-16-10 11:51 AM   #54 
     - Thanks for pointing out how much of a non-event TMI and Yankee are.  Statistical   Mar-16-10 07:56 AM   #44 
        - Interesting what your take-away message is from that data...  kristopher   Mar-16-10 11:48 AM   #53 
           - "were not as bad" that is a slight understatement.  Statistical   Mar-16-10 11:59 AM   #57 
              - I think the 'car accident near miss' is a better analogy.  kristopher   Mar-16-10 12:08 PM   #59 
                 - TMI wasn't a near miss any more than me applying the brakes and the car stops is a "brake event".  Statistical   Mar-16-10 12:12 PM   #61 
                    - "TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."  kristopher   Mar-16-10 12:18 PM   #63 
                       - Yet another emotional response. Not sure what nuclear weapons have to do w/ TMI.  Statistical   Mar-16-10 12:45 PM   #64 
                          - "TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."  kristopher   Mar-16-10 01:03 PM   #66 
     - My porcelain crowns are 8x more dangerous than living near a nuke plant?  wtmusic   Mar-16-10 10:24 AM   #45 
        - .  kristopher   Mar-16-10 11:53 AM   #56 
  - Then knock yourself out. Bottoms up!  Javaman   Mar-15-10 10:19 AM   #31 
  - In fairness, Yankee appears to have mismanaged the investigation or the PR effort around it.  AtheistCrusader   Mar-16-10 10:47 AM   #47 
  - Absolutely.  wtmusic   Mar-16-10 11:16 AM   #49 
     - I don't think increased tritium levels are what sunk them.  Statistical   Mar-16-10 11:26 AM   #50 
        - Possibly.  wtmusic   Mar-16-10 11:39 AM   #51 
           - No doubt they will continue to fight however I think they have a good chance of losing.  Statistical   Mar-16-10 11:47 AM   #52 
           - This quote is interesting  Statistical   Mar-16-10 11:52 AM   #55 
           - That is one of the stupidest pieces of analysis I've ever heard...  kristopher   Mar-16-10 12:07 PM   #58 
              - I was more interesting in the tons of CO2 released. n/t  Statistical   Mar-16-10 12:09 PM   #60 
                 - And yet you included the analyst's lie about pricing...  kristopher   Mar-16-10 01:01 PM   #65 
                    - Says the guy who thinks an air compressor can absorb same amount of energy as a containment  Statistical   Mar-16-10 01:20 PM   #67 
                       - The compressor has a 200 psi limit and the domes have a MAX 200 PSI limit.  kristopher   Mar-16-10 01:30 PM   #68 
                          - He is wrong. You are wrong.  Statistical   Mar-16-10 01:49 PM   #69 
                             - You're peddling a totally false line of bull  kristopher   Mar-16-10 04:21 PM   #70 
                                - Then you should link those studies about the types of explosions required.  joshcryer   Mar-17-10 04:42 AM   #73 
           - VPIRG Vermont Public Interest Research Group  kristopher   Mar-16-10 12:15 PM   #62 
  - HANFORD NUCLEAR FACILITY RELEASE REPORTS  abqmufc   Mar-17-10 05:07 PM   #74 
  - +1  kristopher   Mar-17-10 07:52 PM   #75 
  - You should check into agricultural chemicals too.  hunter   Mar-18-10 02:50 PM   #80 
  - Nuclear power gives the military plutonium for weapons...the real purpose?  abqmufc   Mar-17-10 10:18 PM   #76 
     - I was also reading about this recently  Dogmudgeon   Mar-17-10 11:22 PM   #77 
     - Hanford Nuclear Facility - weapons and power and nobody knew for decades.  abqmufc   Mar-17-10 11:46 PM   #78 
     - As I indicated in another thread we have enough weapon grade matieral to build 50,000 new weapons.  Statistical   Mar-18-10 12:34 AM   #79 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC