Union of Concerned Scientists: radioactive emissions from coal combustion higher than nuclear plants

[txlibdem]

Coal is the enemy of all mankind and the largest single cause of global climate change. It wastes 2.2 billion gallons of water each year per coal plant. And now the Union of Concerned Scientists has stated that coal power plants put out more radioactive emissions than nuclear power plants:

Quote:
"Trace elements of uranium. All but 16 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been detected in coal, mostly as trace elements below 0.1 percent (1,000 parts per million, or ppm). A study by DOE's Oak Ridge National Lab found that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are greater than those from nuclear power production."
... from http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/brief_coal.html

Whoops! All you anti-nukers better rethink your love of coal power plants...

Quoting from the same source:
"A 500 megawatt coal plant produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year, enough to power a city of about 140,000 people. It burns 1,430,000 tons of coal"

The UCS didn't give exact numbers but they link to an ORNL paper on the subject of exactly how many TONS of Uranium each coal plant spews out every year. If Uranium were .1 percent of the coal then each 500 MW coal plant would be putting out 1,430 tons of Uranium per year. Fortunately, Uranium and Thorium are indeed trace elements in coal but at far less concentration than that. ORNL states that each coal plant puts out 5.8 tons of Uranium and 11 tons of Thorium each and every year, year in and year out, decade after decade.

You read that right: coal plants spew out tons of Uranium each and every year. And the worst part is that none of it is regulated by the government like nuclear power plants are and most of it ends up in open pits or open ponds (they call them "slurry" ponds or "ash" ponds to mask how deadly they are).

[enough]

1. Thanks for posting this interesting information. You have one thing wrong, however.

Saying that anti-nukers have a "love of coal power plants" detracts from your attempt to address the issue. Why bother with a taunt like that if you want to have a serious conversation?

There is definitely a lot to be learned from the Union of Concerned Scientists website.

[txlibdem]

3. I still have the capacity to learn, please help me to understand why

When I see a hundred OPs screaming that we should end nuclear power plants and FEAR FEAR FEAR radiation because nuclear is sooooo bad, while during the same time I see zero OPs that tell the truth about radiation from coal power plants it makes me wonder what people are thinking.

Count the millions of tons of uncontrolled, uncontained, uninspected, and unregulated Uranium, Thorium, and Cesium that coal plants either spew into the air or dump in open pits and ponds. No federal regulation, most states do not regulate coal waste at all.

What do you think is the answer why the same old crowd of posters who regularly bash nuclear power never have a single bad thing to say about coal?

[FBaggins]

2. Just watch how nonabecquerel's of uranium from Fukushima demand action...

...but TONS of uranium from each coal plant each year is not a priority.

I particularly get a gut laugh out of the true believers who think there's a difference because that's man-made uranium and this is natural uranium.

As if (even if there were such a thing) "millions of times as much" isn't relevant.

[txlibdem]

5. +1

And then the coal industry mixes the hazardous waste that comes from "fly ash" with enough "bottom ash" and tons of lime -- and then sell it to the concrete industry as an additive!

Hazardous waste, when you add many tons of benign stuff becomes a legal, high value product. Some of us on DU may have our homes or apartments built with the stuff and we'd never know it. It's definitely used on roads.

I wonder what people would say if the nuclear industry tried the same crap.

[jpak]

4. "Whoops! All you anti-nukers better rethink your love of coal power plants..."

What horseshit - if you have read the ORNL paper, you would know that it compared the design basis releases (not actual releases) from a PWR, a BWR and coal-fired power plant before many of the Clean Air Act emission controls were established.

Emission of radionuclides from the PWR were below the coal plant

but

Emission from the BWR were HIGHER than the coal plant

Many nuclear plants - today - are releasing tritium and other radionuclides in quantities far greater than their designed allowable emissions.

Pronucular Fail

Epic

yup

[FBaggins]

6. What's the largest amout of tritium that has been reported released?

Emission from the BWR were HIGHER than the coal plant

What did it count as "emissions"? If uranium was scrubbed as particulates from the stack and ended up in an ash pile somewhere... did it count as an emission?

Emission of radionuclides from the PWR were below the coal plant but Emission from the BWR were HIGHER than the coal plant

Twice as much power in the US comes from PWRs as BWRs... and was the comparison on a per-plant basis or a per-GW basis?

Frankly... I don't buy it. Are they counting spent fuel as an "emission"?

[jpak]

8. Because if they counted spent fuel - "emissions" from nukes would be orders of magnitude > coal

This study has been used by nuke supporters for decades - yet they continue to ignore the fact that BWRs are dirtier than older coal plants with respect to radionuclide emissions.

yup

[FBaggins]

10. So you're going to dodge ALL of the questions?

What do you think that implies for your position?

What's the largest amount of tritium released in recent years? It's laughable that you even include it in a comparison to TONS of uranium.

Does the uranium that comes out of a coal plant as ash get counted as an emission or not?

Was the comparison on a relevant basis or not?

"emissions" from nukes would be orders of magnitude > coal

I rather doubt it. A large reactor has about 100 tons of fuel in it and "emits" about a third of that every couple years.

[SpoonFed]

29. Uh

I rather doubt it. A large reactor has about 100 tons of fuel in it and "emits" about a third of that every couple years.

except for this cases where 1500 tons accumulates on the roof storage of a site in japan and explodes into the upper atmosphere.

Pronucoalar fail.

[FBaggins]

66. Wrong again

Were you under the impression that coal plant operate for one
year and then shut down?

Their emissions "explode into the atmosphere"
[b]every day[/b]... not just when the plant fails like your
argument.

And there isn't any evidence that anything like that occurred
at Fukushima.

[txlibdem]

12. Orders of magnitude? What a laugh!

The only orders of magnitude is that coal plants put out billions of tons of hazardous waste and nuclear plants but out a few hundred tons.

Scientific American:
"Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste"
...from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Here's a comparison between a "clean coal" plant (Kingston Fossil Plant) and a nearby nuclear power plant (Watts Bar):
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLEAN COAL WASTE VS. NUCLEAR
...snip...
About 96 percent (by weight) of the Kingston plant's waste has vanished into the air through tall, twin smokestacks
...snip...
The ultimate waste of nuclear power generation will likely consist only of fission products that decay after only 400 years to a level of radioactivity equal to the uranium ore from which the fuel originally came. Kingston produces 400,000 times more waste, all released into the environment. Watts Bar's waste stream is fully contained and minuscule

...from http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17565
---------------------------------------------------------------

And to summarize:
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American public has been led to believe that nuclear power is extremely dangerous and that nuclear waste disposal is an unsolved problem. Those beliefs are based on preposterous distortions perpetrated by irrational environmentalists and an irresponsible mass media. In reality, a reactor meltdown would have to occur every two weeks to make nuclear power as deadly as the routine emissions from coal-fired power, from which we get about half of our electric power in the United States. (Note: some newer nuclear power plant designs cannot possibly meltdown.) And if the United States went completely nuclear for all its electric power for 10,000 years, the amount of land needed for waste disposal would be about what is needed for the coal ash that is currently generated every two weeks.

Anti-nuclear activists like to scare us with horror stories about the "thousands of tons of nuclear waste" that have been produced since nuclear power began some four decades ago. That sounds like a lot -- until you put it into perspective, which anti-nuclear activists and the mass media never do. Consider that one pound of plutonium can produce as much energy as the Yankee Stadium full of coal. And coal-fired power generates something like 100 million tons of waste annually in the United States, or about three tons of ash per second. Every few hours, more coal ash is generated than high-level nuclear waste has been generated in four decades!

Oh, but nuclear waste is far more dangerous than coal waste, isn't it? Actually, it isn't. For a given amount of energy produced, coal ash is actually more radioactive than nuclear waste. How can that be? Simple. The quantity of coal ash is literally millions of times greater than the corresponding quantity of nuclear waste, so even though the radioactive intensity of the coal ash is much less, the overall amount of radiation and radioactive matter is greater.

But nobody worries much about the radioactivity of coal ash because the chemicals in it are far more dangerous. They include several thousand tons per year of mercury and other heavy metals, along with huge amounts of lead, arsenic, and asbestos, for example. Yet even the huge quantities of chemical waste in coal ash are of little concern compared to the gaseous emissions from burning coal, which kill an estimated 10,000 to 50,000 Americans every year, depending on which study you believe. As a point of reference, even the lower estimate approaches the rate at which Americans died in the Viet Nam war, and the higher estimate greatly exceeds it, yet the media rarely report on those deaths.

...from http://russp.org/nucfacts.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[PamW]

25. I doubt he knows what an "order of magnitude" is.

Orders of magnitude? What a laugh!
===================

I doubt he knows what an "order of magnitude" is.

Time to hit Google or Yahoo, and do some homework, jpak.

PamW

[jpak]

31. You don't know what an order of magnitude is - do you

The radioactivity of spent fuel produced by a single nuclear reactor is orders of magnitude greater than any and all radioactivity emitted from combustion of coal in a similarly sized coal-fired power plant - on an annual or life cycle basis.

and more if you include the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle

Do the math

if you can

yup

:rofl:

[txlibdem]

34. The UCS and all of science disagrees with you

I like how you end each post with rofl. It tells the reader how much seriousness to ascribe to your thoughts.

[jpak]

36. I know what I'm talking about and I stand by those statements

and ignorant pronucular pseudoscience bullshit always amuses me

yup!

:rofl:

[PamW]

41. You stand by statements you don't understand.

I know what I'm talking about and I stand by those statements
====================

Evidently you are standing by statements that you don't understand.

You've read some drivel from some anti-nuke site and then you go around
parroting it without understanding it.

Rather than use invectives, why don't you tell us where the problem lies.

For example, please tell us how uranium enrichment is done, and why you
claim it represents a hazard.

PamW

[jpak]

51. You obviously have never heard of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

or the Radiation Exposure Compenstation Act

Which covers uranium miners and millers & nuclear workers at uranium enrichment plants

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-energy.htm

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program delivers benefits to eligible employees and former employees of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), its contractors and subcontractors, or to certain survivors of such individuals, as provided in the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). This program also includes benefits for certain beneficiaries of Section Five of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

Congress passed a major amendment to the EEOICPA that became effective on October 28, 2004. The amendment replaces Part D of the Act, which provided for assistance from the DOE in obtaining state workers' compensation benefits. The new program, called Part E, is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC), within the Employment and Standards Administration's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP).


http://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca.html

The United States conducted nearly 200 atmospheric nuclear weapons development tests from 1945 t0 1962. Essential to the nation’s nuclear weapons development was uranium mining and processing, which was carried out by tens of thousands of workers. Following the tests’ cessation in 1962 many of these workers filed class action lawsuits alleging exposure to known radiation hazards. These suits were dismissed by the appellate courts. Congress responded by devising a program allowing partial restitution to individuals who developed serious illnesses after exposure to radiation released during the atmospheric nuclear tests or after employment in the uranium industry: the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA, or the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 2210 note (2006), was passed on October 5, 1990. The Act’s scope of coverage was broadened in 2000.

The Act presents an apology and monetary compensation to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases:

following their exposure to radiation released during the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, or
following their occupational exposure to radiation while employed in the uranium industry during the Cold War arsenal buildup.
This unique statute was designed to serve as an expeditious, low-cost alternative to litigation. Notably, RECA does not require claimants to establish causation. Rather, claimants qualify for compensation by establishing the diagnosis of a listed compensable disease after working or residing in a designated location for a specific period of time. The Act provides compensation to individuals who contracted one of 27 medical conditions. It covers all states where uranium was mined and processed, as well as specified counties in Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, where significant fallout from the atmospheric nuclear testing was measured.

The U.S. Attorney General established the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program within Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation Section in April 1992. The DOJ promulgated regulations for carrying out the program that permit use of existing records so claims could be resolved reliably, objectively, and non-adversarially, with little administrative cost to either the individual filing the RECA claim or the United States Government. The initial 1992 regulations were updated in 1997 and revised on March 23, 2004.

<more>

It's paid out more than $6.9 billion in compensation to thousands of nuclear workers - including workers at uranium enrichment plants...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_5f3ccf81-cfc6-59ce-94c1-5ce2a95a003b.html

<snip>

Eligible individuals or survivors may receive a lump sum of $150,000 plus medical expenses for covered conditions caused by exposure to radiation, beryllium or silica while working for the Department of Energy or as a contractor or subcontractor.

Potentially eligible former workers and their survivors should contact the DEEOIC's Paducah Resource Center at 1-866-534-0599 or go to www.dol.gov/owcp/energy for more information.

The department said it has so far provided more than $143.6 million in compensation and medical benefits to eligible Missourians, and more than $6.9 billion nationwide. (Jeffrey Tomich)

<more>

Here's the charts for the Paducah and Portsmouth uranium enrichment plants...

http://www.dol.gov/owcp/energy/regs/compliance/charts/compensation_statistics_graphs.htm

Anyone that actually worked at a national nuclear laboratory would know about these programs.

you do not.

speaks volumes.

yup

[FBaggins]

67. 6.9 is more than 44 in your mind?

Or have you never heard of black lung disease?

[jpak]

40. Yeah - all of science

now that's funny

:rofl:

[txlibdem]

46. Except the "scientists" who are on the payroll of the Koch Bros or Big Coal

Sorry, I didn't mean to include those imbeciles in my statement.

I stand corrected!

[jpak]

52. Which ones are those? The ones in Fairy Tales?

yup

:rofl:

[txlibdem]

58. This may be one of your best posts yet - the one with the most intellectual content anyway

yup

:rofl:

[PamW]

24. WRONG!!!

This study has been used by nuke supporters for decades - yet they continue to ignore the fact that BWRs are dirtier than older coal plants with respect to radionuclide emissions.
=========================================

The Oak Ridge paper included BWRs in their study too - since BWRs represent about 50%
of the US nuclear fleet.

The main point of the Oak Ridge article is that coal plants toss actinides - uranium
and thorium into the atmosphere as a part of normal operation. Uranium and Thorium
are alpha radiation emitters. I thought all the anti-nukes were well-versed in what
happens when you get alpha emitters in your lungs. You hear the anti-nukes cite that
chapter and verse all the time.

In both PWRs and BWRs, the actinides are locked in the reactor. Absent a major accident
with gross fuel melting, the actinides stay put.

Both PWRs and BWRs meet NRC regulations with regard to release of radionuclides.

The coal plants wouldn't meet NRC regulations, but they aren't required to under US Law,
so coal plants can legally operate.

However, coal plants are radiologically "dirtier" than both PWRs and BWRs.

PamW

[kristopher]

27. Wonderful, finally a sane recitation of that study...

You wrote:

The Oak Ridge paper included BWRs in their study too - since BWRs represent about 50%
of the US nuclear fleet.

The main point of the Oak Ridge article is that coal plants toss actinides - uranium
and thorium into the atmosphere as a part of normal operation. Uranium and Thorium
are alpha radiation emitters. I thought all the anti-nukes were well-versed in what
happens when you get alpha emitters in your lungs. You hear the anti-nukes cite that
chapter and verse all the time.

In both PWRs and BWRs, the actinides are locked in the reactor. Absent a major accident
with gross fuel melting, the actinides stay put.

Both PWRs and BWRs meet NRC regulations with regard to release of radionuclides.

The coal plants wouldn't meet NRC regulations, but they aren't required to under US Law,
so coal plants can legally operate.

However, coal plants are radiologically "dirtier" than both PWRs and BWRs.

Yes that is exactly what the paper says. Now what do you say we deal with the way the paper is misused by fission supporters.

That occurs in two ways. First, it is used to create the impression that the overall threat of radiation from nuclear is less than that from coal; which, when the full fuel cycle is considered, is absolute rubbish.

Second, it is used to justify claims that radiation itself is safe - as in, you've been living with if for years and it hasn't hurt you.

Don't you agree that the paper does not support those conclusions? That when the full fuel cycle for nuclear is examined, it's impacts re all issues with radioactive externalities is far greater than the threat posed by coal; and that showing coal to be "bad" does not logically make fission "good". After all, the total external costs for fission in the areas of safety, wastes and proliferation are far greater than anything related to the existing, viable renewable alternative.

[txlibdem]

38. It's fun to watch you just making crap up

"radiation itself is safe - as in, you've been living with if for years and it hasn't hurt you."
I've never read, heard or seen any nuclear power proponent claim that radiation is safe. That is why nuclear power plants have so many backup safety systems and control the fuel from the moment it is processed, burned, then stored in its containment system. Yet coal puts out the exact same radioactive substances but in many times the amounts -- and the coal industry does nothing, not a single thing, to contain them.

The truth about coal and all fossil fuels is that radiation is equally dangerous no matter where it comes from. Coal puts out radiation completely uncontrolled, uncontained. It spews out the smoke stack or gets dumped into open pits or slurry ponds. Radiation is Radiation, Uranium is Uranium, Thorium is Thorium, Cesium is Cesium. Remember that? Yet all the anti-nuker posts claim that the world is on the verge of death and destruction but all will be just peachy if we get rid of those damn NOOK-yoo-LURs. When the truth is that nuclear power plants, even including the disasters that have happened during the past 40 years, still put out less radiation than coal power plants, cause only a fraction of the deaths that coal power plants do just by their normal operation.

"it is used to create the impression that the overall threat of radiation from nuclear is less than that from coal; which, when the full fuel cycle is considered, is absolute rubbish."
We both know that *that* statement is complete rubbish. You are not counting the full fuel cycle of coal at all. If you did then you would include radioactive gas Radon to coal's tally, the acid chemicals that are allowed to pollute rivers and streams, and the fact that every poisonous substance in coal either goes into the air through the smokestack or gets dumped into open pits or ponds. Totally zero containment.

Your argument is not only baseless it is an embarrassment to you.

Lie to yourself, lie to your anti-nuke fellows, but don't think that you can tell such an outrageous lie on DU and not get called on it.

[PamW]

43. Couldn't disagree with you more...

That when the full fuel cycle for nuclear is examined, it's impacts re all issues with radioactive externalities is far greater than the threat posed by coal; and that showing coal to be "bad" does not logically make fission "good".
=====================================

I couldn't disagree with you more. According to the Oak Ridge report:

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

Each year coal power plants discharge some 14,000 tons of uranium and thorium
into the atmosphere. In NO part of the nuclear fuel cycle, or the cycle
taken in total, is there the discharge of that much radioactive material to the
environment.

In addition, and not addressed by the study, coal fired power production spews
mercury and other heavy metals and toxins into the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Coal is responsible for thousands of deaths each year.

Nuclear is NOT responsible for thousands of deaths each year, so I would
say that nuclear is NOT a greater threat than coal. Never was, and never
will be.

Nobody is saying that coal burning is "good". However, the burning of coal has been
"accepted". There are not a bunch of anti-coal wackos marching and protesting at coal
plants and filing lawsuits to stop coal plants to the same degree as nuclear.

Nuclear is more benign than coal, but it is nuclear and not coal that gets all the
opposition and obstruction from the hypocritical wackos in the name of environmentalism.

PamW

[kristopher]

47. That's like saying a bullet isn't lethal because lead is present at ore levels in the environment

You've had two chances today to show you can be honest. You've spurned both.

[txlibdem]

62. Where did you pull that one out of???

Bullets and lead and ore in the environment??? Are you feeling OK?

You didn't answer any of the points brought up. Trying to side-step the truth?

[jpak]

32. You have obviously never heard of uranium mining and milling or fuel fabrication or enrichment

or uranium or radon releases from mines or mills - they far greater than what is released from coal-fired power plants.

Furthermore - you are WRONG.

BWRs do not comprise "50% of the US nuclear fleet"

From the NRC...

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/power.html

<snip>

There are currently 104 licensed to operate nuclear power plants in the United States (69 PWRs and 35 BWRs), which generate about 20% of our nation's electrical use. For more information about operating reactors, see the location map, list of power reactors, and NRC Project Managers.

<snip>

35/104 = 33% not 50%

your credibility is less than that

yup

:rofl:

[txlibdem]

39. Why are you not counting coal mining???

Your post is a one-sided argument. And once again the rofl at the end tells the reader that what you write is pure BS. Yup.

Coal mining releases Radon, acid chemicals, Methane, and untold gallons of contaminated water. And don't forget the nice, gentle and kind practice of mountain top removal.

"Aerial surveys show that mountaintop removal mines have leveled anywhere from 15 to 25 percent of the mountains in southern West Virginia, creating grasslands where forested peaks used to be. Many experts believe this land will never support the hardwood forests that are native to Appalachia. We are, in essence, conducting a massive experiment with the mountains of southern Appalachia."
... from http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~sp134601/leaf/mythsandfacts.html


Reference:
http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/coal/whydirty.cfm
/edit to add:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal#Effects_of_mining

[jpak]

42. I am not defending coal - only pointing out the convenient amnesia of the pronucular argument

when it comes to the nuclear fuel cycle

yup

[txlibdem]

48. You ARE defending coal when you use a one-sided argument such as that

This is the same argument I have with people who love gasoline cars and I say that electric vehicles are the future and gasoline/diesel days are numbered. They try to start counting pollution from the gas tank of their cars but want to include the electric power plant, the mining, transporting, etc.

Any idiot can "win" a one-sided argument. The proper way is to use the same comparison for both sides. And when you do that, coal puts out far more, many times more, radiation than nuclear, causes far more deaths -- even when you include any nuclear disasters in the past 40 years.

You don't have to love nuclear to pose a fair and balanced comparison between it and coal.

[jpak]

55. bullshit

yup

[PamW]

45. Whatever....

You have obviously never heard of uranium mining and milling or fuel fabrication or enrichment
==========================

The argument doesn't hinge on a particular percentage of the nuclear power plants being
BWRs as opposed to PWRs. In both PWRs and BWRs, the actinides, like uranium are locked
in the fuel inside of the reactor. These solid materials are going nowhere barring a severe
accident.

Are you against your local hospital having a Cobalt-60 machine or "gamma-knife" as it has
been called to fight cancer. Are you not afraid that the Cobalt-60 atoms are going to
escape from the machine in the middle of the night when nobody is looking and escape the
boundaries of the hospital and sit silently on the sidewalk outside and irradiate you as
you pass by?

No - the Cobalt-60 doesn't do that, and neither does the uranium in either a PWR or BWR.

However, the coal plant is different. The coal plant is busy spewing uranium up the stack
with the rest of the combustion products and out into the environment.

Of course I know about uranium mining, milling, fabrication and enrichment. Apparently I
know a lot more than you about it, because I know the above do not pose a threat.

As to my credibility, it is only low with anti-nukes that don't like to know the
scientific truth, because it puts a lie to the hyped scare stories that they use
to stampede an ignorant public.

PamW

[jpak]

53. The scientiifc truth? Can you say Fukushima?

nope

[txlibdem]

59. Can you say coal kills more people than Fukushima and Chernobyl combined

Know thy enemy.

[FBaggins]

61. Every year

Heck... probably every few weeks.

But who cares?

[PamW]

63. Sure - Fukushima

The scientiifc truth? Can you say Fukushima?
==============================================

I understand what happened at Fukushima, certainly a lot better than you.

However, Fukushima, although unfortunate, is not as bad as what the anti-nukes
and the media are hyping it out to be.

For example, which accident has killed more people, Fukushima or the crash of
Air France Flight 447 which was lost over the Atlantic which resulted in 228 fatalities.

Has Fukushima caused 228 fatalities?? Is Fukushima ever going to cause 228 fatalities?

Fukushima has resulted in the dispersal into the environment of a certain amount of
radionuclides. However, when all is said and done, and those radionuclides are dispersed
widely in the environment, they will be dwarfed by the amount of radionuclides that
Mother Nature herself produces.

Each reactor contain a core with a mass of about 100 tonnes. There are several core masses
on the site if one includes the fuel pools.

However, each year coal plants put 14,000 tons of uranium and thorium into the atmosphere,
can we have been doing that for many decades. Think how much uranium and thorium is in
the environment due to that practice and compare that to what has been released at Fukushima.

That's the problem with the anti-nukes. The unquestioningly and without critical thinking,
accept that Fukushima is some disaster that it really isn't.

Scientists know the numbers and how to keep it all in perspective.

PamW

[jpak]

69. What an ignorant post - this disaster is still unfolding

and you know how many excess cancer deaths will result from the Level 7 major accident?

Scientists draw conclusions from data - you just make shit up.

what hosrseshit

yup

[txlibdem]

82. Please provide a link to show how many deaths from Chernobyl

If you can find one for Fukushima please provide that as well.

You claim you wish us to draw conclusions from data -- please provide the data.

[jpak]

87. And you know the number of excess cancer deaths that will result from this?

It will take decades for some of those cancers to develop.

You have no clue how many will die.

yup

[FBaggins]

88. And if you don't know how many... claims of hundreds of thousands is reasonable?

That really makes sense to you?

[txlibdem]

89. I'm pretty sure this is the same poster who was indeed putting a high number to Fukushima deaths

Or was that his twin brother? Either way, I can't tell them apart based on their habit of just making stuff up and evading the question.

Notice how jpak didn't answer the questions nor even try to produce a single fact to back up his position. FAIL. Mega Anti-Nuke Fail.

[jpak]

90. I have never claimed any such number

truy again

yup

[FBaggins]

91. Wiould you agree that those who do have no basis for the claim? n/t

[jpak]

92. No one has made those claims

yup

[FBaggins]

93. Arnie did... and more than one poster here parroted it.

And Busby said 400,000 would get cancer.

Are you dodging the question?

Would you consider such an estimate to be reasonable or not?

You have some time to think. I'm off to the gym.

[SpoonFed]

98. Apparently it's credible to the likes of...

ECRR's Chris Busby who has so much more credibility than you that you shouldn't be referenced in the same sentence. Go on, spew some nuke industry character assassination filth again.

[FBaggins]

102. You need to tell jpak. Not me.

He doesn't appear to believe that even the wildest anti-nuke would be that far off.

And no... I'm not sure that Busby is "credible" to describe how to tie shoes... let along nuclear power.

Actually... that's unfair. If you can't get a reputable scientific journal to publish your BS... he can also teach you how to start your own (sans "reputable" of course) or self publish. :rofl:

[SpoonFed]

105. let me summarize a list of people you believe are credible...

Credible
1. FBaggins

Not Credible
2. Everyone else.

And let me add an (incomplete) list of people you have attempted character assassination on, since I've been paying attention on E/E,

1. Dr Masashi Goto, CNIC
2. Arnie Gunderson, Fairewinds
3. Prof Chris Busby, ECRR

and basically anyone who disagrees with you. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out if any of these three people I've mentioned are more credible than you and your incessant spin doctoring and downplaying of the nuke fission power plant industry's man-made disaster in Japan for the past 7 weeks.

[FBaggins]

106. What an odd use of the word "summarize"

You just used it as a synonym for "invent" or "make up".

I don't remember saying anything about Masashi Goto, but I'm perfectly willing to "own" rubbishing Gundersson and Busby. Neither is considered credible by anyone outside of their own little lunatic fringe. They make a great interview if you want to scare people... but their science is next to worthless. They are exactly the same as the tiny minority that insist they have a "scientific" proof for creationism... and their fans are the folks who follow UFOs and think Bin-Laden's death was faked, 9/11 was an inside job, and Obama's birth certificate is a fraud.

Quite a crowd you've associated yourself with. Essentially an "appeal to a LACK of authority".

And no... I don't restrict "credible" to myself. Unless you think it's just a coincidence that the ACTUAL experts in the field (Health physicists, etc) agree with me.

[SpoonFed]

110. hot fbags air, does not contain radiactive cesium to my knowledge

You just used it as a synonym for "invent" or "make up"

Is this some thinly veiled accusation that I'm lying? It's easy to find the posts where you attack these individuals as having no credibly in comparison to yourself and your understanding of science, physics, statistics, engineering and reasoning to name a few things.

I don't remember saying anything about Masashi Goto

This is just because you can't keep track of the pro-nuke nonsense you keep spewing out. Similar to the way that all the predictions, imaginary examples and unequivocal statements of fact (later shown to be false) that you have made since the discussion of Fukushima started, has disappeared from your memory.

If you kept your statements restricted to analysis of facts that were backed up with legitimate data, it wouldn't be so hard to keep track. Instead, like your reply to the abbreviated list of credible people you have attacked (I've left out the list of credible people on DU who routinely point out your shortcomings from the list) you just go on a tear with the same old bluster of accusations of "lunatic fringe", "want to scare people", "their science is next to worthless", "tiny minority", and a laundry list of further nonsense. Just more of the wide brush strokes by which you attempt to paint anyone and anything that disagrees with the safety of nuclear fission power generation and I suspect more to the point, anyone who disagrees with you as ridiculous.

ACTUAL experts in the field (Health physicists, etc) agree with me

Prof Busby and the Physicians for Social Responsibility seem to disagree with the Fbags, oh my. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkYCWTpUuLU)

[FBaggins]

111. Lying? nope.

It's a not-at-all veiled accusation that you haven't in any way "summarized" what I said. You were instead (as usual) building the strawmen that you require for debate.

Prof Busby and the Physicians for Social Responsibility seem to disagree with the Fbags, oh my.

What a shock. The scientific community disagrees with Prof Busby.

I am therefore quite pleased to have him disagree with me.

And yes, you may feel free to add Caldicott to the list of people you worship but who have no credibility on the subject.

[txlibdem]

104. So you agree with Busby's figure of 400,000 cancer deaths from Fukushima?

You cite him as an authority with "so much more credibility" than Baggins so you must agree with Busby's number of 400,000 deaths from Fukushima.

In case you haven't been reading any of the posts here, that's less than half the number of deaths that coal power plant pollution cause EACH YEAR.

Please, all you anti-nukers, continue to bring facts that prove you are WRONG, facts that prove you have lost the argument.

Fukushima is a tragedy and the death toll from the earthquake and tsunami is still being counted. I hope that you anti-nukers will end your sickening and inhuman practice of using that tragedy to further your political agenda.

[txlibdem]

7. Are you calling the Union of Concerned Scientists a bunch of LIARS???

I'm shocked at you.

Your own "environmentalists" state that coal emits more radiation and you say I'm the one who's lying???

:dunce:

PS, I trust your "scientific" comparisons about as much as I'd trust President Donald Trump.

[jpak]

9. You have obviously not read the ORNL report - your opinions are based on ignorance

yup

[FBaggins]

11. Do you think the UCS has read it? n/t

[txlibdem]

14. You are impervious to facts - even when they come from environmentalists

You obviously haven't read anything except anti-nuke propaganda and you are dodging the facts that I have linked to and quoted directly.

[PamW]

26. If so - then they should be reported to the NRC...

Many nuclear plants - today - are releasing tritium and other radionuclides in quantities far greater than their designed allowable emissions.
==============================================

If so then they should be reported to the NRC. If they are emitting in excess of the
allowable emissions, then that is a violation of law.

Each nuclear power plant has a resident NRC inspector.

The problem here is that anti-nukes don't know what is allowable and what isn't.

The anti-nukes think that ANY release of tritium in the water is a violation.
What the anti-nukes don't know is that there is tritium in our water, naturally.
The anti-nukes think that all radioactivity has to be man-made. What they are ignorant
of is that Mother Nature makes tritium.

High up in the atmosphere, the "solar wind" from our own star, the Sun impinges on our
atmosphere. One of the components of the solar wind is high energy neutrons. When these
neutrons interact with the nitrogen in our atmosphere, then trigger an "(n,T)" reaction:

7N14 + 0n1 --> 6C12 + 1T3

The newly created tritium combines with atmospheric oxygen to form tritiated-water which
falls to the Earth as rain. Rain and all the water on the planet is naturally tritiated.

The anti-nukes don't know this, so when they measure some tritium in the water downstream
of a nuclear power plant, they run around like "Chicken Littles" claiming the reactor is
"leaking".

They never think of measuring the water upstream of the nuclear power plant. If they
did, they would find just as much tritium in the water.

PamW

[jpak]

35. The NRC is well aware of tritium releases from US nuclear plants - you obviously are not

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info.html

Tritium contaminated ground water has been detected and measured at more than 20 US nuclear plants - and reported to the NRC

It is not "natural"

Your essay on tritium is ignorant tripe and the "Nature Does It SO IT'S OK" NEI bullshit argument is beyond laughable.

No "scientist" would post that kind of nonsense.

yup

[PamW]

49. Of course a scientist would - it is called perspective.

Your essay on tritium is ignorant tripe and the "Nature Does It SO IT'S OK" NEI bullshit argument is beyond laughable.

No "scientist" would post that kind of nonsense.
===========================================================

Why don't we require that a hospital have zero tolerance when it comes to
the discharge of germs. How come we don't require that the air that is exhausted
from a hospital be scrubbed and sterilized so that it is absolutely pathogen free.
Why do we not require that the floors of the hospital be 100% sanitized so that
absolutely no germs leave that hospital either by air or by contact?

The reason is; "What good would it do"? The outside world is full of germs anyway
and because of that, there's not good reason to make the air and contact discharges
from the hospital completely sterile.

You and I and everyone else is bathed in radiation and radioactivity. That's what
comprises the natural background radiation. Courtesy of Idaho State University:

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/radrus.htm

There are the sources of radiation / radioactivity that we are exposed to.

How much comes from nuclear power? It's labeled "Nuclear Fuel Cycle" since it
contains the total from mining, milling, fabrication, enrichment, reactor operation,
and waste disposal. So how much is it as a percentage of our total?

The percentage due to the "Nuclear Fuel Cycle" is 0.03%

That's what the little anti-nukes are bellyaching about - mere 0.03%

If we got rid of nuclear power in total and did nothing nuclear, how much would
it reduce your radiation exposure. Answer: 0.03%

Hardly worth mentioning. In return for that 0.03% we get 20% of our electric power.
If the USA were 100% nuclear, it would be 0.15%

So if the USA were 100% nuclear, it would boost our radiation dose by a mere 0.15%,
but in return, we could shut down all the coal plants, and all the gas-fired plants.

We would be free of those thousands of deaths due to coal-fired electricity generation.

Is that 0.15% going to harm you? NOPE - a single flight in an airliner is going to give
you more than 20 times that amount of radiation. So for <5% of the radiation exposure
that practically everyone accepts when they travel by air ( and I'm talking about a
SINGLE flight and not a round-trip ), we could do away with all the climate-changing
and adverse health effects of coal and other fossil fuels.

Sounds like a good bargain to me - but the anti-nukes want a hard ZERO

They are willing to forgo the benefits of nuclear power, and for WHAT?

So your radiation exposure will be 3.59 mSv/yr instead of 3.60 mSv/yr.

BIG DEAL!!!

PamW

[jpak]

54. Do you know how many thousands of nuclear workers have been compensated by the US government

for cancers and radiation-related illnesses caused by exposure to radiation in the nuclear fuel cycle?

I don't think so

a clue

It's close to 20,000 = $6.9 billion in paid claims

That's a BIG DEAL

yup

pronuclear so-called experts...

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

68. FAR fewer than those compensated coal miners

Wrong yet again.

[jpak]

71. So you admit that the nuclear fuel cycle exposes workers to levels of radiation that kills them

and that US taxpayers compensate for those thousands of illnesses/deaths to the tune of $6.9 billion and counting.

Oh yeah - Black Lung compensations are paid by the coal industry - not the taxpayers.

nuclear & coal suck

yup!

[FBaggins]

73. Lol! So a death only counts if taxpayers pay for it?

As opposed to those entire different people who pay power bills?

As if black lung is even the most likely form of death for a coal miner. Try comparing the number of deaths in uranium mines ever to the average year for coal mines.

What a crock.

Coal is more dangerous to the people who mine it... More dangerous to the people who breath in its exhaust... And more dangerous to the planet they live in.

But since you fear that which you don't understand... The rest of us get stuck with more coal.

Thanks.

[jpak]

74. Your non-rebuttal speaks volumes - nuclear power is not safe or clean - it is lethal

yup

[FBaggins]

78. You being uncomfortable with a rebuttal... and one not existing... are not the same thing.

It's certainly clean and safe compared to coal.

[txlibdem]

50. The NRC is aware of Tritium leaks -- you should stop using it as a boogie-man

"The NRC recently identified several instances of unintended tritium releases, and all available information shows no threat to the public."
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-contam-tritium.html

I'm just dying to see what you come up with next...

[SpoonFed]

28. How dare you

Bring up the non-design basis emissions so indelicately when were in the middle of a 4x such scenario now in Japan. You should be screaming about coal coal coal!!!

[jpak]

37. Yeah, the pronuclear contingent is in full ostrich denial mode

Fukushima?

Chernobyl?

never heard of them...

yup

:D

[Turbineguy]

13. Yes, but

this radiation is good for you!

[txlibdem]

15. That is what the coal lobby wants us all to believe anyway

See post #12 for comparative data.

[kristopher]

16. Good. You acknowledge the expertise of UCS.

They certainly do include that in their summary of coal. It is one data point among many that leads to the demonstrably most effective path to a fossil/nuclear free energy infrastructure.

Do we need new coal plants or nuclear reactors to meet U.S. electricity demand?

No, at least not in the near-term. According to a 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report, Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy, the United States will be able to meet projected consumer demand for electricity over at least the next 20 years without building any new nuclear reactors or coal-fired power plants. The study found that the United States could meet electricity demand over the next two decades and reduce power plant carbon emissions by 84 percent by significantly improving energy efficiency in buildings and industry, and by dramatically increasing reliance on clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal and bioenergy.

The Blueprint did include four 1,100 megawatt (MW) reactors that we estimated would be built as a result of existing federal subsidies, 20 new conventional coal plants that were either under construction or approved by 2008, and 12 advanced coal plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) to demonstrate whether this technology will be feasible and affordable at commercial scale. However, all of these new nuclear and coal facilities could easily be replaced with new natural gas plants or additional efficiency and renewable energy, at a lower cost. For example, the total generating capacity added by these new nuclear and coal plants over the next 20 years represents about 10 percent of the new natural gas capacity that was added in the U.S. between 2000 and 2005. In addition, the UCS study was conducted before the recent dramatic increase in projected natural gas reserves resulting from the development of technologies to extract shale gas and the consequent decline in current and projected natural gas prices. It was also conducted before the decline in current and projected electricity demand due to the recession.

A 2010 analysis by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) also shows that U.S. power plant carbon emissions reduction targets could be met primarily with efficiency and renewable energy in the near-term, while new nuclear and CCS plants would not make a meaningful contribution until after 2025-2030. Other studies have gone beyond the UCS Blueprint and EPRI analysis and found that it may be possible to phase out coal and nuclear power1 entirely, and even to reach 100 percent renewable energy globally by 20502.

Can we afford new nuclear plants?

No, at least not compared to other low carbon alternatives. The Climate 2030 Blueprint found that significantly increasing energy efficiency, and expanding the use of commercially available renewable energy technologies would be less expensive than building new nuclear reactors. Over the last decade, the projected cost of building nuclear plants has skyrocketed, rising much faster than the costs of other power generating technologies (Figure 1) 3 and has remained more expensive, which is consistent with long-term historical experience.4

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/solutions/big_picture_solutions/do-we-need-coal-and-nuclear-power.html

More details on UCS plans for energy here: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/solutions/big_picture_solutions/do-we-need-coal-and-nuclear-power.html

[txlibdem]

19. I only posted the one article from them, finally admitting that coal puts out more radiation

My opinions are formed by looking at facts and using logic and intelligence to filter the crap from the truth. In this case the UCS wrote the truth when they admitted that each and every coal power plant puts out far more radiation than nuclear power plants.

But you filter that info and focus on "we don't need any nuclear power." I guess you use a different set of criteria to determine what is truth in your eyes.

What it says to me is that we need to use every ounce of zero-carbon energy that we can get -- and that includes nuclear power plants. What we do not need is coal and the other fossil fuels, we need to end their use ASAP.

[NNadir]

17. This is very, very, very OLD news, but given that it only took the Concerned "Scientists"

about 50 years to discover this well known fact shows that possibly one or two of them actually learned to read.

This web page from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has been on the internet almost as long as their has <em>been</em> an internet:

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

The ignorance of the Union of Concerned "Scientists" of nuclear issues once resulted in anger on the part six Nobel Prize winners, including one to sue their stupid asses for misreprenting their, um, science.

This comes from Richard Wilson's http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/pp884.html">obituary for Hans Bethe:

Hans was a conciliator. When in 1988 half a dozen liberal Nobel laureates were upset with the Union of Concerned Scientists for using their names (as they had used Hans' name) in a position paper against nuclear power, and one was threatening legal action, it was Hans who calmed them down. In 1997 at an energy conference held by the Global Foundation, it was my privilege to be Chairman at the final panel session on nuclear power. Hans and Edward Teller, who disagreed on military uses of nuclear energy, expressed complete agreement with each other on the need for nuclear power. I understand it was the first time their wives, who were present at the meeting, had talked to each other for 20 years.

A broken clock reading midnight at midnight is still not a credible instrument. Neither is the Union of Concerned "Scientists." To see how credible the Concerned "Scientists" are, one only need look at the quality of people here who cite them here in this little hellhole.

One should not cite them as authorities on anything, since they know very little about anything related to energy, which is why the group of Nobel Laureates, all of them scientists (without quotation marks) in the real world were pissed off.

[madokie]

21. So DU is a hellhole to you now huh?

Damn I'm happy to read that :rofl:

"To see how credible the Concerned "Scientists" are, one only need look at the quality of people here who cite them here in this little hellhole."

Can we say cooked goose :rofl: cause thats what nuclear energy is now, a cooked goose. :rofl:

Oh for your information this place has been such a much better place for discussion this last 4 or 5 weeks during your 'noted' absence.

Whats the matter, can't you get anyone to listen to or buy your wares elsewhere? Didn't think so.

[NNadir]

57. Yeah.

Richard Wilson's remarks speak for themselves.

Richard Wilson is something called a "scientist." A "scientist" is a person who looks at data. He is also an intellectual.

Hatred of intellectuals by ignoramuses is nothing new of course, but frankly, I'm more than a little sick of looking at it.

The anti-intellectual, anti-scientist, anti-nukes have been predicting the death of nuclear power for many decades.

Very soon, people who can compare numbers will notice that the anti-intellectual, anti-science types still can't count and still think that all 25,000 people who died in the earthquake were killed by radiation sickness.

The fact is that this, like every other bit of drivel dripping out of the mouthes of anti-intellectual, anti-science types is very much like the predictions of the "death of nuclear power" by mindless types who can't count after Three Mile Island, and after Chernobyl.

The fact is, kiddie, that anyone who looks, can easily learn that 5,000 people per day die from air pollution, and the rate will only accelerate with climate change. The fact that anti-intellectual, anti-science types sit here crowing happily about a tsunami that killed 25,000 - about 5 days of deaths from air pollution - and happily cheering about it, fills me with moral and ethical disgust.

The fact is that the anti-intellectual, anti-science types are going to have a very hard time producing ONE dead body from their little irrational fear fest. If 20 people die from Fukushima - which after all involved an earthquake and a tsunami - the fear mongers will suddenly announce that each of them is worth 100,000 deaths from air pollution.

Have a happy day expressing glee and joy over a natural disaster.

I really can't stomach, morally, looking at this tripe any more.

[jpak]

60. How's the molten salt breeder reactor coming along?

Can I talk to Pam now?

:rofl:

[PamW]

64. The MSRE was shutdown in 1969. Nobody is working on that technology

How's the molten salt breeder reactor coming along?
====================================================

The only experiment on a molten salt breeder reactor was the
MSRE - Molten Salt Reactor experiment which ran at Oak Ridge
from 1965 to 1969.

Nobody has been working on a molten salt breeder in decades.

Are you really that far behind in your understanding of science?

Did you actually think people were still working on a molten salt
breeder?

PamW

[jpak]

70. He claimed he invented one in his backyard

Lots if people here fell for it

It was a sick delusion

yup

[AnEngineer]

153. The MSRE was shutdown in 1969 (but research has continued)

The only experiment on a molten salt breeder reactor was the
MSRE - Molten Salt Reactor experiment which ran at Oak Ridge
from 1965 to 1969.

Nobody has been working on a molten salt breeder in decades.

Are you really that far behind in your understanding of science?

Did you actually think people were still working on a molten salt
breeder?

PamW

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

Actually Pam this area of research is still quite active. Unfortunately current funding for research is not happing in the United States. This technology was pioneered at ORNL using our tax dollars, but current development on commercialization is being carried out in France and China. If you examine the current research you will find many reference to the ORNL MSRE project. France and China are developing commercial products that are based on reports of fundamental research that was carried out by scientists employed at our government research laboratories.

As a former employee at a federal laboratory I have first-hand experience with this type of waste and abuse in the government. The waste and abuse is caused by constantly shifting political agendas from the people in charge of funding research (i.e. Congress). Anytime ideology trumps rational thought in the decision process the taxpayer suffers. It is very frustrating to see yet another example of political decisions obliterating years of research by dedicated scientists. This blame can be shared by both the right and the left. The right wants to cancel all government spending (unless it is for national defense) and the left want to cancel anything that contains the word nuclear in the spending. Both sides are misguided in their reasoning for not funding this important project.

I will venture to guess that Benjamin Franklin would have been a strong advocate for a federal program to develop this particular form of nuclear power. He would have looked at the science behind the technology and seen a sensible technology that would have rendered his stove design obsolete. He would have seen a design in which safety was a first priority. For him it would be a step forward for science to see such an invention put to practical use.

The "Energy from Thorium" website is an excellent starting place to learn more about this technology (Energy from Thorium). All of the ORNL documents on the MSRE program have been scanned into PDF files and made available on the website. This includes the design documents for building a 1GW power plant based on MSR technology.

This is a very promising technology that eliminates the dangers of nuclear power that are specific to the uranium based light water reactor (LWR) technology. The LWR was originally designed during WWII as a tool for producing isotopes that can be used in building nuclear bombs. Unfortunately because of the economic consequences of the intensive funding for LWR technology for defense, the deployment for commercial use was cheaper that the deployment of the less well developed MSR technology. As a result LWR technology is used in almost all of the reactors operating in the world. The technology was developed using money from the national security side of the budget, so economic justifications and public safety were not a significant factor in the decision process. The contractors who built the LWRs then capitalized on the technology by selling reactors in the commercial sector. The long term profits came from the sale of very expensive fuel rods. It is interesting to note that the liquid reactor design removes this profit center. Thorium is very cheap and the refueling process is about as complicated as adding a pinch of salt to a soup that has been simmering on your stove for the last couple weeks. Perhaps the entrenched nuclear industry saw LFTR as a threat to their profitable business model of selling proprietary fuel rods to the commercial sector. In this sense the economics of a LWR is like the economics of an ink-jet printer.

One of the advantages of a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is that instead of creating bomb making material it can be used to dispose of the nuclear waste that was produced by the legacy LWR technology. The fission process in the LFTR splits the hazardous isotopes of uranium and plutonium into smaller and safer elements.

Nuclear power has been given a bad rap because of political decisions about technology that was funded during the Cold War. It is time to move on. Current engineering studies suggest that it is possible to design a nuclear reactors that can operate continuously and safely for 100 years. It is time to start a Liberty Ship program to deploy thousands of these LFTR reactors. With this fleet of reactors we can establish energy independence that is based on a safe and ultra-green technology.

[txlibdem]

154. Another benefit to Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: 1000 year supply of fuel

Versus about 55 years of Uranium left.

A related benefit to LFTR is that every nation on Earth has Thorium but there are only a few nations with Uranium mines. If your nation runs off of Thorium reactors you cannot be threatened with your fuel supply being cut off. It's everywhere -- even in sea water.

[madokie]

75. Pam's not here man

That requires a different login

[PamW]

65. You can say that again - it's DISGUSTING

The fact is, kiddie, that anyone who looks, can easily learn that 5,000 people per day die from air pollution, and the rate will only accelerate with climate change. The fact that anti-intellectual, anti-science types sit here crowing happily about a tsunami that killed 25,000 - about 5 days of deaths from air pollution - and happily cheering about it, fills me with moral and ethical disgust.
===================================

There's no limit to the contempt and opprobrium I have for all the anti-nukes that have
been crowing about a natural disaster as costly in human lives as the events in Japan;
and they are so happy because they think it is good for their parochial cause.

Sick, sick, puppies.

PamW

[jpak]

72. Sorry - the Fukushima apologists are disgusting and ignore ((((reality))))

sick puppies

yup

[txlibdem]

96. Please bring your facts to the table -- you've said nothing of substance yet

Making comparisons based on facts and truth is ignoring reality? Whose reality is that one wonders?

Please back up your claim that anyone on DU is a Fukushima apologist. Link? Quotes? None to be found.

Your post is squarely inside the usual anti-nuker "fact-free zone."

[bananas]

94. Right-wing conservative hate speech: "There's no limit to the contempt and opprobrium I have"

"There's no limit to the contempt and opprobrium I have for all the anti-nukes"
That's just right-wing conservative hate speech.
It's disgusting.

[txlibdem]

97. You cite no facts or quotes, not even an informed opinion. Junk posts not needed here

Please back up your claim that what the poster said is "right wing hate speech." You have made a claim yet provide no link, no quote(s) to back it up.

Is that how you think you'll convince anyone? Just shows you have nothing to say as far as I can see.

[bananas]

95. What unbelievably disgusting crap - and I'm talking about you. nt

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

30. Hey - welcome back!

Nuclear power still sucks

yup

[Gregorian]

18. Well now my posts don't sound so silly do they?

I learned this in a thermodynamics course in my fourth year of uni. They were estimating one Chernobyl per year coming out of coal chimneys.

It makes one wonder just how much of the cancer we see is caused directly by radioactive material.

[txlibdem]

20. Please post more often on the topic

With the dozens and dozens of fear mongering posts since Fukushima began I found it simply intolerable that the simple minded are up in arms to end nuclear when coal puts out so much more radiation, as part of its normal operation.

[Gregorian]

22. Don't get me wrong. I'm completely opposed to nuclear. For the same reason.

It's not a matter of degree when it comes to radioactive particles. One Pu238 in your lungs is what it takes to start trouble.

I see no reason to be taking risks when we don't have to.

[txlibdem]

23. Nothing wrong with that

We probably disagree only on when to get rid of nuclear power.

I firmly believe that we will never rid ourselves of our addiction to coal, oil and natural gas without a temporary expansion of nuclear power. I've written here a number of times that a proper energy mix to shoot for is either 40/60 or 30/70 nuclear to renewables ratio. When we can get to 70% renewable energy then we start shutting down the nuclear, replacing with more renewable energy as we go.

Electric vehicles are a must to rid ourselves of the stranglehold of oil and increases in efficiency will help us get to the goal.

[SpoonFed]

33. I can think of another area of disagreement...

Why dont you run that great floating cities of evacuees by gregorian to find out what he/she thinks about it

[txlibdem]

44. Bringing up things from an entirely different OP???

Whatever. If you don't want to live in a floating city then don't move to Florida, Manhattan, or much of the East Coast. Personally, I think floating cities might be a good idea one day. My mind is not closed to new ideas.

PS, your snide comments do not bother me because I consider the source. It just tells me I'm on the correct track.

[madokie]

76. Your reply shows you to be a liar

I often times wonder what you know about a certain new jersey salt breeder reactor too

[txlibdem]

77. MADokie = Kris??? Now you're just making crap up, too.

Tell me, oh swami of the coal pit, how does any of this cast me as the liar???

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

80. Always the gentleman.

Doesn't matter how wrongheaded he gets... at least he's always civil. :sarcasm:

[madokie]

81. Who rattled your chain anyway

[txlibdem]

83. In the interests of a civil discussion, I'll be the better man and apologize

I know I can sometimes use a hurtful turn of phrase but I usually keep a tighter lid on it.

I'm sorry if that made you mad. If it makes you feel any better, I don't like it when people accuse me of being pro-coal (which has been implied by certain posters who claim that supporters of nuclear are secret coal supporters -- a preposterous claim).

What I aim for in my posts is truth and fair comparisons and I call out people who attempt childish debate tactics and evasion when they realise that they have lost the argument because the facts and truth are not on their side. I'm not saying that's what you do, I'm just saying that it is rampant among the anti-nuke crowd here on DU.

[madokie]

84. Peace

[SpoonFed]

99. wow...

things are taking a toll on and there is apparent cognitive dissonance affecting some pro-nuke supporters, including the onset of paranoia. There isn't just one mythical anti-nuke boogie man out to get you, there are lots. Boo.

[txlibdem]

103. Ha ha. Cute attempt to turn reality on its head

At least I got a chuckle out of your post.

I will say, it's a novel approach to try to cast us pro-nuclear (aka sane) people as the paranoiacs. And speaking of cognitive dissonance, I'm sorry, but you anti-nukers have the patent on that. Or is that a 99-year lease with an option to extend into infinity...

The facts: your anti-nuke vocal minority wish to spread Fear FEAR F-E-A-R of radiation -- if it comes from a nuclear power plant. But when shown facts that coal spews out many times the amount of radioactive material, and coal's radiation emissions are not controlled in any way, not contained, not kept from the air, water or land in any way -- you shrink back to silence or start hurling insults (or worse, just start making crap up).

The anti-nuke problem is that facts and truth are NOT on your side. Plain and simple.

[SpoonFed]

108. What paranoia you ask?

Madokie = Kris, that's what.
Add short term amnesia to the list.

it's a novel approach to try to cast us pro-nuclear (aka sane) people as the paranoiacs.

I wasn't making some gross generalization (as you are apt to do) when struggling for substance in an argument, I was specifically making this statement directed at you, solely.

The facts: your anti-nuke vocal minority wish to spread Fear FEAR F-E-A-R of radiation -- if it comes from a nuclear power plant. But when shown facts that coal spews out many times the amount of radioactive material, and coal's radiation emissions are not controlled in any way, not contained, not kept from the air, water or land in any way -- you shrink back to silence or start hurling insults (or worse, just start making crap up).

Where do I begin with your latest pile of repetitive garbage?

fact) anti-nuke vocal minority
rebuttal) unsubstantiated gross generalization, I counter with the suggestion that most people who read E/E agree with the "anti-nuke" side since it seems like the same five or so pro-nuclear zealots are the only ones jumping all over whatever factual information is being posted that paints the nuclear industry (correctly) in a bad light

fact) spread fear of radiation
rebuttal) there has been an attempt to analyse and discuss the risks and serious consequences of radiation but you have been nothing but pollution. please cite a post where anyone who could be considered "anti-shitty-nuke-industry" has stated the imperative, "fear radiation". It's only you and other hysterical defenders of nuclear power who have used that imperative as a claim made by your adversaries. You'll find no end of examples of concern and where people have been suggesting this stuff is bad for human health.

fact) coal's radiation emissions are not controlled in any way, not contained,
rebuttal) you presume that we are all located in the same legal jurisdiction as you, but sorry, this is the internets and the whole world isn't as fucked up as the USA or TX.

fact) you shrink back to silence
rebuttal) try to understand that silence can mean acquiescence. you might find that people are silent while actually in agreement with the rare valid point you make due to the fact that they don't want their reputations to be tainted by association with all the rest of the ridiculous crap you spew

fact) start hurling insults
rebuttal) I was taught to not dish it out if I couldn't take it, clearly, you weren't.

fact) making crap up
rebuttal) like imagining a good solution for evacuees in Japan is to build floating cities? or are you casting some vague generalization that your critics are just plain lying? citation required.

The anti-nuke problem is that facts and truth are NOT on your side. Plain and simple.

You're entitled to your misguided interpretation of reality, the rest of us don't have to agree with you though.

[txlibdem]

109. Par for the course: another fact-free anti-nuke post

You make a lot of claims yet bring no sources, no links, no quotes, no proof at all except the fevered delirium of your anti-nuke zealotry (which taints every word you write).

And why the personal attack about floating cities? You really have a bee in your bonnet over that for some reason. I would ordinarily think it funny but when it comes at the end of a fact-free post that deflects criticism about as well as "I'm rubber and you're glue" it makes me wonder why you keep bringing it up. You apparently feel threatened by the idea, I just can't fathom the reason why. (get it... fathom... ha).

[SpoonFed]

112. Why can't these floating cities just be hovercities?

> And why the personal attack about floating cities?

So, if I think your proposal of floating cities for evacuees is stupid, that's a personal attack? So I guess thinking that nuclear power is a shitty way to boil water, that is also a personal attack? You might want to learn to divorce your personal feelings from an argument. DU won't sting so much.

> You really have a bee in your bonnet over that for some reason.

Hmm? Oh, not really a bee in a bonnet, more of a laugh in the belly. You really gave the gift that keeps on giving with that one.

> You apparently feel threatened by the idea, I just can't fathom the reason why

Wow, you're quite imaginative in your attempts at mind reading. Substitute highly amused for threatened. Does it bother you that I keep mentioning your amusing proposal? It speaks directly to your ability (or specifically your inability) to understand technical matters, construct reasoned arguments, your general lack of credibility and almost always provokes a response that discredits your position further due to your knee jerk reaction and subsequent crap throwing. It's also just a really funny mental picture. My mental image of these wonderful things are much more nuanced than that lame 3D CG stuff from your original link. I kinda imagine you at a captain's wheel up top some place. Or maybe you're on a deck chair and a Japanese hovercity superior robot crew are commanding the vessels.

How many fathoms down is your sunken idea of floating cities for the Japanese, now?

[txlibdem]

113. You see what I mean?

It's got you positively flummoxed for some unknown reason.

Fight on, good warrior, against the evils of floating cities! I'll continue to enjoy your perturbation.

[SpoonFed]

115. hahahaahahaah n/t

don't use up all your vocabulary on me, you've almost used up all the f-words.

[txlibdem]

116. You make a mockery of yourself

Please explain to the DU community why you are so obsessed with these floating cities. Does it physically harm you in some way? Does it put you in mental distress? I cannot understand your opposition.

[kristopher]

118. It isn't opposition, it is derision.

It typifies the way your beliefs are divorced from reality in a particularly easy-to-appreciate way.

[txlibdem]

123. Kris says he appreciates me! OMG, I'm blushing.

Call me, Kris. We'll pal around, maybe see a movie...

:rofl: <== see, you've all got me doing it now. Nuts!

[struggle4progress]

56. Here's a USGS webpage on flyash:

... the concentration of most radioactive elements in solid combustion wastes will be approximately 10 times the concentration in the original coal. Figure 2 illustrates that the uranium concentration of most fly ash (10 to 30 ppm) is still in the range found in some granitic rocks, phosphate rocks, and shales ...
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

Coal ash is a gigantic environmental problem. But the uranium content is not the primary concern

[txlibdem]

85. Coal is an environmental problem but uranium content is not the primary reason

True. CO2 and the poisonous substances that coal spews out into the air like Mercury, Lead, Arsenic and other heavy metal toxins are the primary reasons why we need to immediately end the use of coal worldwide.

But doesn't it sound strange when one energy source (nuclear) has the government watching them night and day over keeping Uranium, Thorium, Cesium, etc., under perfect tight control at all times -- yet coal just pushes it out the smoke stack or piles it in open pits and "ash" ponds? And each coal plant puts out 5.8 tons of Uranium a year, 11 tons of Thorium a year -- none of it contained, none of it controlled, right out into the open environment. And the "ash" pits and "ash" ponds, due to the way scrubbers work, have between 10 and 100 times the concentration of Uranium and other radioactive material than the coal had in it before burning. I think that warrants a discussion.

Please take a look at posts #12, 38, 39, and 48, and of course the links there and in the original post.

[FBaggins]

86. Exactly right. Uranium is WAY down on the list of dangers from coal

And yet, even though it isn't in the top five dangers from coal... that danger is greater than the uranium from reactors.

Which is why coal needs to go before we consider cutting back on nuclear power.

[SpoonFed]

100. Why not both at the same time?

before we consider cutting back on nuclear power

Hahaha. The royal we will ponder cutting back on coal at some point? I find that hard to believe given your ongoing defense of all the filth and practises of the kookie nookie fission industry.

[FBaggins]

101. Because together they make up 2/3 of our electricity generation.

It's going to take quite some time to get renewables from 4% up to 70%... and even that assumes that we don't expand natural gas generation during that time or increase demand (neither of which is reasonable).

Can I make that any simpler for you?

[txlibdem]

117. It's impossible to make it simple enough for anti-nukers to grasp

They are incapable of independent thought so you waste your time trying to convince them of anything. All they have are the anti-nuke talking points. I picture their views as being like the back lot at a movie studio: it looks real from only one angle but fails the test of reality when seen in the light of day or under anything but a cursory scrutiny.

[SpoonFed]

120. Laughing so hard my side hurts...

I picture their views as being like the back lot at a movie studio

You mean, like some place where they'd shoot a movie about floating cities of the future?

but fails the test of reality when seen in the light of day or under anything but a cursory scrutiny.

Like the idea of floating cities?

[txlibdem]

124. Everyone is not laughing WITH you, they're laughing AT you

Your silly antics are just so comical.

And before your HIGH-larious comments about floating cities goes viral let me just state that a US aircraft carrier is called a floating city by some. Wha??? Yup. When a ship is large enough to hold 5,000 humans, plus dozens of jets and the food, water, supplies and fuel for them all to stay at sea for 6 months at a time... it's damn well a city in my book.

My brother served honorably on an aircraft carrier and I'll bet if you were dropped onto the flight deck of one you'd change your tune pretty quick.

[Someguyinjapan]

128. I'll show you what's comical

And it ain't anyone else's antics but your own...

Yeah, I know I said I'd stop responding, but after jaunting around Shikoku the past weekend, I couldn't resist the gems you dropped here...

a US aircraft carrier is called a floating city by some

Wow... where to begin with this one? While a US aircraft carrier is considered by "some" (whatever that magical number is) to be a floating city, it is considered a warship by all, as that is what it's primary function is. It was not-in any way, shape or form-designed to be a floating city. And correct me if I'm wrong, but a US aircraft carrier looks nothing like the floating cities from those articles that you posted. Nor do the floating cities have any facilities for storing aircraft that fly about dropping bombs and sh_t on people.

it's damn well a city in my book
Well, that settles it then-according to the Book of You, if you consider it so, so must everyone else.

Anywho... to the issue you at hand; down in Shikoku over the weekend, I happened to spy this from my car and was immediately reminded of your "there's hardly any good land left in Japan" chatter:

/>

See those buildings on the side of that mountain? That would be about half of the town below. And why? Because the Japanese would rather build towns (and cities) that run half-way up the sides of thousand-meter high mountains than to build your nuclear-powered, aircraft-carrying floating cities.

I'll bet if you were dropped onto the flight deck of one you'd change your tune pretty quick
If I was dropped onto the deck of a US aircraft carrier, I'd say, "Wow! I've just been dropped onto the deck of an aircraft carrier!" Your point being?

[txlibdem]

130. That's a nice picture

I don't know if it's just the angle or bad eyes but I can't tell the difference between that scene and any of a dozen communities in the hill country here in Texas on the way to Shreveport. Please tell me they still have beer vending machines on the street!

[Someguyinjapan]

131. Um, yeah

Taken through the windshield of a moving car, so not the best photo. So, what you are saying is that people in Texas hill country also would rather build towns and cities up the sides of thousand meter hills (more commonly known as mountains) than build floating nuclear-powered, aircraft-carrying cities. Is that right?

I could show you others, but no doubt you'd just go on with your game of one-oneupmanship and totally miss the point that with every response, you move further away from your original statement because even you are beginning to realize the immensity of the folly you presented.

You know about the beer vending machines? Cool! That must mean your idea of floating cities for tsunami and nuclear fallout refugees must be spot on.

[txlibdem]

134. See post #133

I just proved that it's cheaper than rebuilding on land! Whoops. Now who one-ups whom?

[Someguyinjapan]

139. *Sigh*

Another example of a poorly-thought through idea...

"City floating on the sea could be just 3 years away"
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-09/tech/floating.cities.seasteading_1_floating-cities-platforms?_s=PM:TECH

Great. So the tsunami/radiation refugees MIGHT be able to move in to their new floating cities in 3 years if construction were to start TOMORROW. I guess they'll just have to make do sleeping on futons in crowded high school gyms and community centres until then, right?

There are several unknowns about future attempts to create floating cities, said Christian Cermelli, an engineer and architect with Marine Innovation and Technology, based in San Francisco.
Cermelli, who is part of a team of designers creating a blueprint for the first seastead, said it's unclear if construction is possible -- or what it would cost.

So, what was that cost estimate again? And when might enough spaces be ready to accommodate the 120,000+ refugees?

20 years from now:

•Seasteading population:
At least 20,000 full-time seasteaders worldwide.
http://seasteading.org/mission/additionalreading/timeline

Even the best, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds (LSD) estimates put the ability to accommodate all the refugees at somewhere past 20 years from now. But don't worry; since Japan has the most rapidly aging population in the developed world, many of them will be long dead by then so you will have less spots to build. And that is even if construction is possible. But don't worry; I am sure your legion of technologically superior Japanobots will cut down the time to something manageable like a decade or so from now.

All your proved is your capacity to entertain through the inane.

[SpoonFed]

132. you are so wrong

and correct me if I'm wrong, but a US aircraft carrier looks nothing like the floating cities from those articles that you posted.

They could be painted green.

I've seen pictures in books of warships painted with patterns at the library.

[SpoonFed]

129. I now support your idea... with reservations.

And before your HIGH-larious comments about floating cities goes viral let me just state that a US aircraft carrier is called a floating city by some. Wha??? Yup. When a ship is large enough to hold 5,000 humans, plus dozens of jets and the food, water, supplies and fuel for them all to stay at sea for 6 months at a time... it's damn well a city in my book.

I'll just ignore your suggestion that I'm a pot-smoker and also that you don't really understand what "going viral" means and focus on the financial and technical arguments.

The new Ford-class carriers are (according to wikipedia at least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford_class_aircraft_carrier) projected to cost $14 billion plus $9 billion US dollars each with a capacity to carry about 4700 persons (+1, you as honorary vice-admiral).

So if we take your claim of what, about 120,000 evacuees (I don't know where you got this revised figure) divided by 4700 passengers, we need about 26 of these carriers to hold this projected number of people.

It will cost $14 billion + $9 billion x 26 carriers for an approximate cost (not including any fighter, bomber and rescue aircraft they will need) of $244 billion US dollars.

Since they can only spend 6 months at sea, we'll have to buy a complementary set of carriers for the other 6 months of the year since a carrier can only stay at sea for 6 months, that will mean a total cost of $488 million dollars a year for resettling these evacuees. Lets hope there are no more evacuees this year.

Now, an operating cost of $488 quadrillion seems totally reasonable as every life is precious and also deserves a sailors life at the same time.

I have only one reservation and that is the strategic military advantage (at least in a naval sense) that the Japanese will have acquired through this humanitarian effort and we all remember what happened the last time the Japanese were a ferocious naval power in the Pacific.

I think this proposal is now untenable on the basis of national security concerns alone and I believe as a god fearing American you will also agree.

[txlibdem]

133. Now we're getting somewhere

I'll take the figure of $244 Billion US because it's silly to think that you have to have two ships when one can just return to port every 6 months to pick up supplies: you wouldn't really need two fleets.

Now we just have to figure out how much it's going to cost to rebuild the devastated areas in the Fukushima area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By Carsten Germis, Henning Peitsmeier and John Ritter

23rd March 2011 2011-03-23 ​​19:28:00

In Japan faces enormous costs. The Japanese government estimates that by the devastating earthquake two weeks ago, reconstruction costs of fees of up to 25 trillion yen (217 billion euros). /My note: that is $322 Billion US at this moment.

...snip...

Only in the most heavily devastated provinces of Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima, the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure and destroyed buildings to 12.7 trillion yen to be estimated.

...from http://economicsnewspaper.com/policy/german/earthquake-and-tsunami-japans-reconstruction-will-cost-217-billion-e-3960.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So a little over half goes to those 3 provinces, $161 Billion US. Uh-oh, I might be in trouble because some of that has to go to Iwate and Miyagi provinces and I only calculated the number of evacuees from Fukushima as 120,000.

HuffPo says there are 140,000 evacuees from the exclusion zone around Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushimi Daini.
...from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-power-plant-140000-evacuated_n_834974.html

Great! Now I've got less cash and more people to accommodate on the floating city. If I fudge the math and say that half of the $161 B goes to build the floating cities ($80 B) then I'll have to cut some salaries of the top brass in order to fit all this into the budget.

But how much will the floating cities actually cost? Do they need all of the same expensive stuff that an aircraft carrier needs? Not really. That should make them cheaper. Here's a company that is developing a ship designed for just that purpose but based on the cruise ship model which they call a "seastead":
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
How much will seasteads cost?

The Seasteading Institute commissioned marine engineering firm Marine Innovation & Technology to design Clubstead, a prototype seastead design. Clubstead has 368,200 ft^2 of room space for 200 guests with staff quarters to accommodate up to 70 people. The total estimated price tag: $114,333,000. Their estimates suggest that Clubstead can be built at a cost of $311/ft2 of usable space, roughly comparable to real estate costs in cities like San Francisco and New York.

...from http://seasteading.org/about-seasteading/top-10-questions#Top10Cost
---------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's $114 million for 270 people. But we have 140,000 so we'll need 518 of these. Ignoring any efficiencies of scale and fluctuations in costs from building the first to the last, we can simply multiply $114 million by 518 to get the total cost: $59,224,494,000 ($59 Billion US).

So I couldn't build them all US-class aircraft carriers but I could build them cruise ships and have $21 Billion left over ($80 Billion - 59 Billion). Maybe I'll buy a few helicopters to fly the passengers around, or some speed boats for water sports and visits to see the land lubbers?

Well, it looks like I might just earn that honorary Vice-Admiral title after all.

/edit to correct math error: 322 / 2 is 161, not 166: definitely bed time for this guy.

[SpoonFed]

146. The only place we've ended up...

is my shear disbelief in your absolute ability to determine what is sarcasm, deliberate mathematical mistakes, illogical thinking and "taking the piss".

[txlibdem]

147. You've made a lot of claims but provided no backup at all - should the world ignore your post?

Please provide some links or quotes to back up your accusations.

PS, I'm too busy to look up the phrase "taking the piss" so you get a pass on that one... :hi:

[struggle4progress]

107. Here's Gabbard's estimated global total radioactivity release from coal, 1937 - 2040:

... Thus, by combining U.S. coal combustion from 1937 (440 million tons) through 1987 (661 million tons) with an estimated total in the year 2040 (2516 million tons), the total expected U.S. radioactivity release to the environment by 2040 can be determined. That total comes from the expected combustion of 111,716 million tons of coal with the release of 477,027,320 millicuries in the United States. Global releases of radioactivity from the predicted combustion of 637,409 million tons of coal would be 2,721,736,430 millicuries ... http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

So, over a century, he estimates a cumulative worldwide radiological "release" (mostly in ash) under 3 x 10^6 curies

Let's compare that to just a few bad days at Chernobyl, where perhaps 14 EBq (14 x 10^18 Bq) was released -- or over 3 x 10^11 curies

So if we had been burning coal, at present rates, since humans first walked the planet, the coal burning wouldn't have had as much radiological impact as the Chernobyl accident. (And actually, that's simply an impossible scenario: if we burned all our coal at present rates, we'd run out in a century or two)

Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to hate coal, but comparative radiological hazard isn't on the chart

[SpoonFed]

119. Thanks for the post n/t

[txlibdem]

121. The source link you provided proves you are wrong

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million (ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium. For a large number of coal samples, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Using these values along with reported consumption and projected consumption of coal by utilities provides a means of calculating the amounts of potentially recoverable breedable and fissionable elements (see sidebar). The concentration of fissionable uranium-235 (the current fuel for nuclear power plants) has been established to be 0.71% of uranium content.

...snip...

Because existing coal-fired power plants vary in size and electrical output, to calculate the annual coal consumption of these facilities, assume that the typical plant has an electrical output of 1000 megawatts. Existing coal-fired plants of this capacity annually burn about 4 million tons of coal each year. Further, considering that in 1982 about 616 million short tons (2000 pounds per ton) of coal was burned in the United States (from 833 million short tons mined, or 74%), the number of typical coal-fired plants necessary to consume this quantity of coal is 154.

Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.

... from your source, and that is only ONE YEAR (1982)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, to summarize, we have 51,700 pounds of U-235 (about 26 tons), 3.640 tons of Uranium, and 8,960 tons of Thorium released into the environment with no controls, no containment and no regulation to speak of (most states have ultra lax coal regulations). What's the problem? Why can't we count the Becquerels and the millisieverts and get a very favorable pro-coal number?

Here's why:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the clay in cat litter does give off radiation in very small quantities. There is naturally occurring radiation all around us; the radiation in cat litter comes from trace amounts of uranium, thorium, and potassium-40. Many other consumer products are also radioactive. Among these are some ceramic tiles (which can contain uranium), glossy magazines (which are sometimes coated with material that's high in uranium and thorium), and Brazil nuts (which have a fair amount of radium).

The quantity of radiation in cat litter—and all of the other consumer products listed above—is small enough that it poses no risk for either humans or their pets. So, why can't screening devices distinguish between common sources of radiation and the material used to make a nuclear bomb? For one, the most common ingredients in bombs, uranium-235 and plutonium-239, don't give off very much radiation at all. To suss out these materials, a detector must be set to a very high sensitivity. If the sensitivity of the screening device is high enough, then naturally occurring radioactive materials can set off a false alarm. (A small percentage of the uranium found in nature, for example, happens to be in the form of the U-235 isotope.)

...from http://www.slate.com/id/2120491/
Note: the longer the half-life, the less radiation is given off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not make the huge emissions from coal any less dangerous. It just means that the accumulation of radioactive matter from each coal plant gets to fly under the radar of detecting equipment. It does NOT mean that the quantities of these cancer causing radioactive elements that go out the coal chimney stack won't lodge in your lungs and give you cancer, it does NOT mean that dumping thousands of tons worth of it in open pits and "ash" ponds is safe or even advisable.

Why does this anti-nuker say that your Chernobyl data is suspect?
"For Chernobyl, actual doses were so poorly recorded or estimated, that all studies since then have been both difficult to design and easy to criticize as inaccurate."
...from http://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2011/04/measuring-low-level-radiation-damage.html

Yet you claim an exact level of radiation given off in a "few bad days at Chernobyl."

This university study shows that only those workers directly involved in the cleanup at the Chernobyl site were exposed to anything above what a normal human would during his or her lifespan.
...ref: http://pulse.pharmacy.arizona.edu/math/lesson_gifs/chernobyl1_gifs/Chernob6.pdf

And UN studies show that your estimates are the highest of any that have been published. Nice cherry picking of data but you've proven nothing.

[SpoonFed]

122. Please please please

If you're going to subject us to bouts of your faulty reasoning, can you at least have the courtesy to adhere to some sort of sane method of separating the material you are quoting from that of your own statements, that doesn't make the average person's eyes bleed?

the div mark-up works for me...

[txlibdem]

125. Only because you are so special to me...

Nah. What the heck are you thinking? Most of the anti-nuke posts are barely worth responding to. My scripting chops are reserved for the lucky few that I actually give a (bleep) about.

[SpoonFed]

145. Clearly you are incapable of common courtesy...

My scripting chops are reserved for

Just another example of how clueless you are. Markup tags are simple sequences of text that change the representation of information which they enclose. Scripting on the other hand is something entirely different. Does not surprise me in the slightest, you don't know the difference.

Your continuous frothing at the mouth while throwing around terms and concepts you don't understand has become beyond boring.

*This message does not contain an endorsement of coal power.
**This message was not written from the holodeck of a floating city.

[txlibdem]

148. Yes, clearly our interchanges on DU have proven that "I'm the jerk"

You may be technically correct with the distinction between markup tags and "actual scripting."

But you fail to mention that DU uses a form of BBCode, many of whose tags can be used on DU. When I use my "Windoze" computer I have a browser add-on, which makes it easier to insert the div, etc., tags (I added the tags I want under the user config screen). Lately, I've been on my Linux laptop and it's just too much time to search out a browser add-on or even keep those available for copy & paste. Replying to anti-nuker silliness deserves as little of my time as possible.

There now. That was a civil response. Perhaps just not the one you were hoping for, maybe?

[SpoonFed]

149. Let me just continue to correct your errors...

You may be technically correct with the distinction between markup tags and "actual scripting."

I'm not technically correct. I'm simply correct. Markup is not scripting and scripting is not markup. Furthermore, your use of quotations around the words actual scripting, implies those were said by somebody. I never said the word actual. You've construct another imaginary quotation.

But you fail to mention that DU uses a form of BBCode, many of whose tags can be used on DU.

Actually, wrong again, it uses a subset of HTML, with the < and > replaced with by square brackets. It says on every posting page and there is a link to a pop-up window with examples. Also, I did not fail to mention it. It is exactly what the word markup means in the context of my post.

When I use my "Windoze" computer I have a browser add-on, which makes it easier to insert the div, etc., tags (I added the tags I want under the user config screen).

I don't think anyone really cares what computer or operating system you use, I certainly don't. Completely irrelevant to the fact that you are using the wrong terminology. Just another clear example of you injecting irrelevant content into every post.

Lately, I've been on my Linux laptop and it's just too much time to search out a browser add-on or even keep those available for copy & paste.

And I guess you're too lazy or dumb to just click the "HTML lookup table" at the top of each posting area form.

Replying to anti-nuker silliness deserves as little of my time as possible.

Your repeated use of derision serves no purpose. Recently every post of yours contains some sort of derisive little aside against "the anti-nuke nutjobs", which I find rather amusing, and which suggests to me that you're suffering from a lack of self-confidence and anxiety because you're arguments are non-existent and you know that you are in over your head.

There now. That was a civil response. Perhaps just not the one you were hoping for, maybe?

I couldn't care less if you are civil or not, but I understand there are rules on the forums that must be followed. The only thing I do care about is either a) you make valid arguments or b) you shut up.

The only reason I brought up the fact that you used the term scripting incorrectly was to demonstrate, as your reply and this message clearly does, that you gloss over details in such a gross and roughshod manner that almost everything you contribute here suffers from a lack of clarify and attention to detail.

I'm overly polite by using the word contribute to describe your posts.

[txlibdem]

150. Your answer is in post #148

eom

[SpoonFed]

151. Translation...

Yes, SpoonFed, you are entirely correct in all the points you made so I am going to go back to pretending that they were never written. This is exactly how you act now that your bubble has been burst on the whole coal radiation > nuclear radation argument. You ignore the fact that you are wrong and repeat yourself.

[txlibdem]

152. Your post was nothing but repitition ad nauseum

I don't have time to waste on copy and pasted nonsense. You've proven nothing in the replies to my earlier post, you've proven nothing now.

[struggle4progress]

126. The Gabbard webpage at ORNL is the source of the whole discussion, and it is linked

by the link in the OP

So most of this thread is debating Gabbard, whether or not people recognize it, and for that reason, I cite Gabbard's numbers: they are the numbers under discussion

I rather dislike the Gabbard webpage, as it rather incoherently wanders between mass, radioactivity, and dose estimates, and because its discussion of doses from nuclear plant relies on design basis estimates, rather than on actual emissions

In fact, much of what is on the Gabbard page is simply nonsense; here, for example, Gabbard suggests coal ash poses a nuclear weapon proliferation threat:

Because electric utilities are not high-profile facilities, collection and processing of coal ash for recovery of minerals, including uranium for weapons or reactor fuel, can proceed without attracting outside attention, concern, or intervention. Any country with coal-fired plants could collect combustion by-products and amass sufficient nuclear weapons material to build up a very powerful arsenal, if it has or develops the technology to do so. Of far greater potential are the much larger quantities of thorium-232 and uranium-238 from coal combustion that can be used to breed fissionable isotopes. Chemical separation and purification of uranium-233 from thorium and plutonium-239 from uranium require far less effort than enrichment of isotopes. Only small fractions of these fertile elements in coal combustion residue are needed for clandestine breeding of fissionable fuels and weapons material by those nations that have nuclear reactor technology and the inclination to carry out this difficult task

Such claims are simply laughable: extracting enough fissile material, from coal ash, in order to make a nuclear weapon, would require enormous financial and energetic and technical resources -- with enormous facilities for chemical separation and isotopic enrichment

Estimates for the Chernobyl release vary by perhaps two orders of magnitude; I found the 14 EBq figure on a standard nuclear industry site. Divide it by ten or a hundred or a thousand: the Chernobyl release still dwarfs coal releases

Since we are all discussing Gabbard, I quoted Gabbard as saying coal burning will release 2.7 million curies between 1937 and 2040

If you don't want to discuss Chernobyl, we can discuss TMI or Fukushima

For comparative purposes, consider the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island:

The total radioactivity released during the accident was 2.4 million curies. See: Thomas M. Gerusky. "Three Mile Island: Assessment of Radiation Exposures and Environmental Contamination." In: Thomas H. Moss and David L. Sills: The Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident: Lessons and Implications. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences,1981, p. 57 http://echo.gmu.edu/tmi/

For further comparative purposes, releases of a single isotope (I-131) from Fukushima may exceed 2.4 million curies; see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2206

[SpoonFed]

127. Coal emissions into weapons...?

Such claims are simply laughable: extracting enough fissile material, from coal ash, in order to make a nuclear weapon, would require enormous financial and energetic and technical resources -- with enormous facilities for chemical separation and isotopic enrichment

I'm not expert on the subject. Could you give me an approximate number in US dollars as to the enormous financial and energetic and technical resources required. Furthermore, could you give me a reasoned analysis as to whether this enormous endeaver would be on the same scale as... wait for it... would be required to build floating hover cities for Japanese evacuees?

[struggle4progress]

135. Coal ash consists mainly of compounds like silicates, alumina, and iron rust:

a rather glassy or ceramic material, which has been formed at high temperature in an oxidizing environment, so it won't be very reactive. The first challenge is to extract a trace element from it

Coal ash is (say) 10 ppm natural uranium. A good quality uranium deposit is about 20% U308 -- say, 20 000 times richer in uranium than coal ash. The chemical problem of extracting an element, from a sample which is 20% of that element, is quite different from chemical problem of extracting an element, from a sample which is 0.001% of that element. Coal ash contains almost everything at low concentrations, so in the initial stages of a separation attempt, you're going to get a "soup" that contains all manner of stuff at very low concentrations. To overcome the entropic barrier presented by the extreme dilution, you will need some very favorable reactions

Weapons-grade uranium is about 85% U-235, with a critical mass of some tens of kilograms. Natural uranium is about 2% U-235 49% U-238, and 49% U-234. Thus, you need to start with at least 40x more natural uranium than the amount of weapons-grade uranium you hope to obtain

What's it going to take to produce ten kilograms of weapons-grade uranium from coal ash? At 10 ppm natural uranium, you can't get more than 10 g natural uranium from a metric tonne of coal ash, so 10 kg of natural uranium requires at least 1000 metric tonnes of coal ash; multiplying by 40, you'd need at least 40 000 metric tonnes of coal ash to produce ten kilograms of weapons-grade uranium. The actual numbers will be much worse, since you cannot expect quantitative extraction of a trace element, and you can't expect easy isotopic separation. You're actually contemplating a very substantial industrial enterprise

For perspective, consider this: the average abundance of uranium in crustal rock is about 2.5 ppm. If you can figure out a feasible way to extract uranium from coal ash, you can probably figure out a feasible way to extract uranium from most rocks: there's only a factor of about four in the trace concentrations

[txlibdem]

137. You've got your facts exactly backwards

Coal ash is not 10ppm natural uranium. The coal starts off at between 1 ppm and 10 ppm in its natural state. Coal ash increases the Uranium and Thorium concentrations between 10 times to 100 times that of the natural coal.

Comparing "a good quality uranium deposit" to coal is a waste of gray matter. There are very few Uranium mines in the world and the supply is tightly controlled. You can't walk in to the local big box store and order up a few tons. Nations that the US is trying its best to keep from getting any nuclear material will never gain access to any of it. First logical fallacy.

Separating a tiny percentage concentration of a substance from the ash would be expensive if you want pure grade stuff. If you just want to get enough to cause havoc somewhere then that would be easy. All you'd have to do is separate only the Mercury poison from the toxic coal ash. Or any one of the dozens of highly toxic heavy metals that are in coal ash. If you want to separate out only the radioactive material then that is an easy task with well known (thanks to Pakistani Nuclear Scientists) processes. Remember, they're not trying to make an ultra pure end product, a 50/50 blend or a 10/90 blend of Uranium/ash would be just fine to cause widespread havoc.

Massaging the numbers to make it sound like we can all take a mud bath in the nearest coal pond is pure fantasy. Do so and you will die. This is the point of this entire OP: coal puts out far larger quantities of far more toxic stuff than a nuclear power plant -- and the coal industry gets to dump the costs of their poison onto the rest of us, never has to pay for the 1 million deaths each year caused by coal power plant pollution.

[struggle4progress]

140. Table 2.--Comparative results for EPA-NBS interlaboratory trace element study

(All values in parts per million ...) ...
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c735/table2.htm

Uranium in coal comes in, on average, a bit over 1 ppm in the table

[txlibdem]

142. It depends on where the sample is taken: Uranium in coal varies from 1 to 10 ppm

"Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million (ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium. For a large number of coal samples, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively."
... http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

And from the same source:
"The concentration of fissionable uranium-235 (the current fuel for nuclear power plants) has been established to be 0.71% of uranium content."

Isn't this the same source you quoted to say that coal is so safe we should be bathing in it??? It says that in some parts of the US, coal contains 10 ppm of uranium and, therefore, 25 ppm of Thorium. That figure then would include .071 ppm of fissile Uranium-235.

That doesn't sound all that bad. 0.071 parts per million is all. What a wimp you must be if you can't roll around in an ash pit with 0.071 parts per million of nuclear reactor fuel, Uranium-235 in it.

It all depends on where you live or, more accurately, where your local coal power plant gets its coal from. There is a chance that you could be deluged with 10 times the "average" amount of Nuclear Reactor Fuel that floats freely out the smoke stack of the coal power plant or is stored in open pits and ponds for the wind to pick up and toss into the air.

If a nearby nuclear reactor announced that it was pulverizing its reactor fuel and letting out 11,371 pounds of uranium-235 (more than 5 tons) into the air in the form of tiny particles that could float on the winds and land anywhere downwind (wherever the wind might be blowing that day)... you'd be picketing outside that nuclear power plant within two seconds! Why does coal get a free pass for doing just that???

*note: U-235 data from the same source as above, data from the year 1982 only.

/edit to correct this sentence: Estimated cumulative Uranium-235 release in the US alone from 1937 to the year 2040: "1031 tons of uranium-235"

[struggle4progress]

143. You stoop to putting words in my mouth, so we're done here.

:hi:

[struggle4progress]

136. If you want a crude cost estimate, the US has spent something like 5.5 trillion

on 70 000 nuclear weapons, or around $80 million per weapon. That, of course, is inflated in a sense, since it involves more than producing weapons grade material, but it is also deflated by the economies of scale associated with assembly line production

The Manhattan project cost about $2 billion. That, of course, is inflated by the research activities related to the initial weapon development, including plutonium reactors, but it is deflated somewhat by the fact that they had good quality ores from which it was relatively easy to extract uranium into acid baths

To feasibly build weapons from coal ash, you need (1) a chemical plant nearly good enough to extract uranium economically from backyard soils plus (2) an isotopic enrichment plant something like the old K-25 plant. The first problem would require a substantial research effort. The second is not a trivial investment either

[txlibdem]

138. That means that any oil rich nation can do it with just a few days worth of oil profits

So we'll be paying them to kill us with their oil pollution, and paying them to build their death factories as well.

But remember boys and girls -- be VERY afraid of nuclear power plants! Booga-Booga! Haha, scared ya! :dunce:

[struggle4progress]

144. This idea's been knocking around for over a half century. ORNL looked at it in the early 1950s.

As far as I can tell, nobody has made any real progress with it. From time to time, somebody loudly promises to get rich doing this, and after a while nothing happens

[SpoonFed]

141. Are you willing to sign an NDA?

To feasibly build weapons from coal ash, you need (1) a chemical plant nearly good enough to extract uranium economically from backyard soils plus (2) an isotopic enrichment plant something like the old K-25 plant. The first problem would require a substantial research effort. The second is not a trivial investment either

There must be some market efficiencies in the form of economies of scale for building these chemical plants that you are overlooking. I'd assume that advanced Japanese robotic manufacturing techniques could build alot of small, nearly good enough chemical plants, very quickly and that would make extraction of uranium from my and my neighbour's yards that much easier. I'm not thinking about bombs here but maybe I could start a high tech start up to compete with the big guys in the nuclear fission power fuel supply industry based solely on superior Japanese technology.

By extension, if we were to instruct these robots to build these factories on some sort of floating structure, then they could sail from place to place, harvesting an almost infinite amount of uranium from the backyard environment all over the world, and never have to worry about short supply for the nuclear power industry fuel cycle. This is a really great idea, actually.