Atmospheric releases of Uranium and Thorium at 18 tons per average Coal plant? True?

[NYC_SKP]

I have never heard this assertion until today, in another thread.

It seems to be true, as a worse-case scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant#Radioactive_trace_elements

An average coal plant releases 18 tons of uranium and thorium into the air every year.

From trace elements in the coal that they burn.

Compare that with 33 tons of waste produced by a nuclear reactor of the same size, all of which is carefully contained away from the environment, and 97% of which can be reprocessed into fresh fuel.

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

1. I suggest you take it up with the post's author

if they can't provide a link, it's pretty worthless.

[eqfan592]

2. There is a citation link on the wiki page for those numbers.

I haven't read the entire article (really just skimmed the beginning a bit) as I'm at work, but it appears that this is the source of the numbers.

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

[struggle4progress]

17. That webpage is bullshit and easily debunked. Let's think through one of his typical claims:

The energy content of nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is greater than that of the coal consumed

Now, of coal, there is no nuclear fuel released by combusting coal, though there are traces of U and Th in coal; these traces are almost entirely contained in the flyash. The effective energy value of U or Th traces in a material depends on the energy costs required to extract the element and process it into usable fuel. The flyash would seem preferable to the coal itself as a U or Th source, since these heavy elements are much concentrated in the flyash

If it were really true, that The energy content of nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is greater than that of the coal consumed, then one could burn the coal and use it as an energy source for extracting the U and Th from the flyash and processing them into nuclear fuel -- but nobody does this. The flyash is about as radioactive as typical shales -- and nobody mines shales for U and Th, because they aren't rich enough sources

What the asshole really means is something like If you completely disregard all the costs required to extract U and Th from coal and to convert that U and Th into fuel, then you could make more money selling the energy from the U and Th then from the coal -- which might be true, in the same sense that If wishes were horses then beggars could ride is true

[eqfan592]

80. Perhaps you should make mention of this on the wiki-page?

Just a thought. :)

Now if only you'd rely on rationality and empirical evidence when it came to a certain other issue as well..... ;)

[kristopher]

3. So you see this as a POSITIVE REASON TO BUILD NUCLEAR POWER?

Man, that is some kind of perverted logic. I mean that is fairly long piece at the link and a lot of conclusions are possible. The fact that you chose to key on a deceptive plug for nuclear power instead of the idea that BOTH are problematic is fucking bizarre thinking in overdrive.

[NYC_SKP]

4. No, nothing of the sort. There's a thread in GDP that had a reply with those figures.

I don't see how you could infer from my OP question support for nukes.

jeeeze! :P

The question is about coal and the products of combustion, nothing more.

Here is that other thread, it's not a pro-nuke OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7647620

[kristopher]

6. What is the takeaway from the snip you chose?

"An average coal plant releases 18 tons of uranium and thorium into the air every year.

From trace elements in the coal that they burn.

Compare that with 33 tons of waste produced by a nuclear reactor of the same size, all of which is carefully contained away from the environment, and 97% of which can be reprocessed into fresh fuel."

As I read it that says, since coal is emitting so much uranium and thorium, we'd be better off using a technology that recycles 97% of it for fuel."

What did you think it said?

[NYC_SKP]

10. Those are huge quantities, I was shocked. I wanted verification from those on this forum.

Specifically you, kristopher, or one of the other few I trust.

I replied in the original thread, to asking for a link.

When the other poster gave me a link, I added it to my querie here, which makes me look confused (oh, well).

But the reason for asking here is as I claim-- wanting verification of that huge number.

Tons of uranium out of a smokestack?

Shit, sounds more great ammo AGAINST COAL, and for clean sources, no?

It reminds me of my response to CFL alarmists, that more mercury comes out of the coal plants that run to burn incandescents.

So, really, there is nothing pro-nuclear in anything I've written. The quote "33 tons of waste" was included just to give the question context, they weren't my words, that wasn't my purpose.

sheeesh!

[kristopher]

11. Criticism retracted and apology offered.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Accepted!

:thumbsup:

We may differ a little on nuclear, which to me is only acceptable because coal is so much worse, but we agree on the promise of green sources and new technologies.

I'm saddened by the news (to me) of these radioactive emissions from coal, but it's great information to share in the fight against coal.

Remarkable numbers.

On another theme, I was given a personal tour of where Bridgelux (Cree Competitor) LED arrays are created and developed.

These are awesome, I've been playing with a few loose ones, I love this stuff!

Proprietary epitaxy over a sapphire substrate.

Their latest:
# Luminous Flux:5000lm
# LED Color:Cool White
# CCT:5600K
# Color Rendering Index:65
# Viewing Angle:120°
# Forward Voltage:25.4V
# Forward Current:2.1A



http://www.newark.com/bridgelux/bxra-c4500-00000/high-brightness-led-arrays/dp/60R6542

[eqfan592]

16. By the way...

..this is what I was talking about when I said "knee jerk much?"

But glad to see things are all good now! :)

:toast:

[joshcryer]

The last part of that Wikipedia quote does indicate a pro-nuclear bias, of course.

So it's understandable where it comes from.

It would still be knee jerk since intuiting ones position is difficult by nature in a text-only environment.

[joshcryer]

20. dupe

dupe, stupid flv downloader

[kristopher]

21. So what's your conclusion now that you've read posts 7, 9, & 15?

Three people gave you good information to place the emissions in perspective, so what do you think?

[eqfan592]

5. wow, knee-jerk much? (nt)

[kristopher]

9. Nothing knee-jerk about it.

It is an accurate reading of the content and message of the OP. Remember - the real message is that they BOTH suck.

Compare to the data from the USGS:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html




Forms of Occurrence of Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash
The USGS has a current research project to investigate the distribution and modes of occurrence (chemical form) of trace elements in coal and coal combustion products. The approach typically involves (1) ultra sensitive chemical or radiometric analyses of particles separated on the basis of size, density, mineral or magnetic properties, (2) analysis of chemical extracts that selectively attack certain components of coal or fly ash, (3) direct observation and microbeam analysis of very small areas or grains, and (4) radiographic techniques that identify the location and abundance of radioactive elements.

Most thorium in coal is contained in common phosphate minerals such as monazite or apatite. In contrast, uranium is found in both the mineral and organic fractions of coal. Some uranium may be added slowly over geologic time because organic matter can extract dissolved uranium from ground water. In fly ash, the uranium is more concentrated in the finer sized particles. If during coal combustion some uranium is concentrated on ash surfaces as a condensate, then this surface-bound uranium is potentially more susceptible to leaching. However, no obvious evidence of surface enrichment of uranium has been found in the hundreds of fly ash particles examined by USGS researchers.


Health and Environmental Impact of Radioactive Elements Associated With Coal Utilization
Radioactive elements from coal and fly ash may come in contact with the general public when they are dispersed in air and water or are included in commercial products that contain fly ash.

The radiation hazard from airborne emissions of coal-fired power plants was evaluated in a series of studies conducted from 1975–1985. These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment. For the average citizen, the radiation dose from coal burning is considerably less. Components of the radiation environment that impact the U.S. population are illustrated in figure 4. Natural sources account for the majority (82 percent) of radiation. Man-made sources of radiation are dominated by medical X-rays (11 percent). On this plot, the average population dose attributed to coal burning is included under the consumer products category and is much less than 1 percent of the total dose.

Fly ash is commonly used as an additive to concrete building products, but the radioactivity of typical fly ash is not significantly different from that of more conventional concrete additives or other build-ing materials such as granite or red brick. One extreme calculation that assumed high proportions of fly-ash-rich concrete in a residence suggested a dose enhancement, compared to normal concrete, of 3 percent of the natural environmental radiation.

Another consideration is that low-density, fly-ash-rich concrete products may be a source of radon gas. Direct measurement of this contribution to indoor radon is complicated by the much larger contribution from underlying soil and rock (see fig. 4). The emanation of radon gas from fly ash is less than from natural soil of similar uranium content. Present calculations indicate that concrete building products of all types contribute less than 10 percent of the total indoor radon.

Approximately three-fourths of the annual production of fly ash is destined for disposal in engineered surface impoundments and landfills, or in abandoned mines and quarries. The primary environmental concern associated with these disposal sites is the potential for groundwater contamination. Standardized tests of the leachability of toxic trace elements such as arsenic, selenium, lead, and mercury from fly ash show that the amounts dissolved are sufficiently low to justify regulatory classification of fly ash as nonhazardous solid waste. Maximum allowable concentrations under these standardized tests are 100 times drinking water standards, but these concentration limits are rarely approached in leachates of fly ash.

The leachability of radioactive elements from fly ash has relevance in view of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) drinking water standard for dissolved radium (5 picocuries per liter) and the proposed addition of drinking water standards for uranium and radon by the year 2000. Previous studies of radioelement mobility in the enviroment, and in particular, in the vicinity of uranium mines and mills, provide a basis for predicting which chemical conditions are likely to influence leachability of uranium, barium (a chemical analog for radium), and thorium from fly ash. For example, leachability of radioactive elements is critically influenced by the pH that results from reaction of water with fly ash. Extremes of either acidity (pH<4) or alkalinity (pH>8) can enhance solubility of radioactive elements. Acidic solutions attack a variety of mineral phases that are found in fly ash. However, neutralization of acid solutions by subsequent reaction with natural rock or soil promotes precipitation or sorption of many dissolved elements including uranium, thorium, and many of their decay products. Highly alkaline solutions promote dissolution of the glassy components of fly ash that are an identified host of uranium; this can, in particular, increase uranium solubility as uranium-carbonate species. Fortunately, most leachates of fly ash are rich in dissolved sulfate, and this minimizes the solubility of barium (and radium), which form highly insoluble sulfates.

Direct measurements of dissolved uranium and radium in water that has contacted fly ash are limited to a small number of laboratory leaching studies, including some by USGS researchers, and sparse data for natural water near some ash disposal sites. These preliminary results indicate that concentrations are typically below the current drinking water standard for radium (5 picocuries per liter) or the initially proposed drinking water standard for uranium of 20 parts per billion (ppb).

Summary
Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm. The vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated radioactivity, compared to common soils or rocks. This observation provides a useful geologic perspective for addressing societal concerns regarding possible radiation and radon hazard.

The location and form of radioactive elements in fly ash determine the availability of elements for leaching during ash utilization or disposal. Existing measurements of uranium distribution in fly ash particles indicate a uniform distribution of uranium throughout the glassy particles. The apparent absence of abundant, surface-bound, relatively available uranium suggests that the rate of release of uranium is dominantly controlled by the relatively slow dissolution of host ash particles.

Previous studies of dissolved radioelements in the environment, and existing knowledge of the chemical properties of uranium and radium can be used to predict the most important chemical controls, such as pH, on solubility of uranium and radium when fly ash interacts with water. Limited measurements of dissolved uranium and radium in water leachates of fly ash and in natural water from some ash disposal sites indicate that dissolved concentrations of these radioactive elements are below levels of human health concern.



Figure 3 _photographs The above observation is based on the use of fission-track radiography, a sophisticated technique for observing the distribution of uranium in particles as small as 0.001 centimeter in diameter. Figure 3 includes a photograph of a hollow glassy sphere of fly ash and its corresponding fission track image. The diameter of this relatively large glassy sphere is approximately 0.01 cm. The distribution and concentration of uranium are indicated by fission tracks, which appear as dark linear features in the radiograph. Additional images produced by USGS researchers from a variety of fly ash particles confirm the preferential location of uranium within the glassy component of fly ash particles.


Figure 4 Percentage contribution

[joshcryer]

13. Nuclear sucks as much as Coal-CCS, but you knew that.

The implication from your post was that nuclear was as bad as coal without carbon capture. Which of course is non-sense.

[kristopher]

14. I was explicit - nothing implied - "the real message is that they BOTH suck"

[joshcryer]

18. Readers: nuclear does not suck as much as conventional coal.

[joshcryer]

19. Readers: nuclear is comparable to coal with carbon capture.

[kristopher]

22. Only in a limited way.

Coal with CCS doesn't have the long term waste problem, nor does it have the potential for dramatically enabling the spread of nuclear weapons should it become a large part of the global solution to AGW. The only way they are compare favorably is that they are both extremely expensive in terms of money and energy required to operate should we deploy them on a large scale.

The only positive attached to either is that they address AGW. Other than that both have a significantly worse environmental footprint that the other non-carbon alternatives.

The upshot is that both coal and nuclear suck. It doesn't matter whether it is coal with CCS or a conventional coal plant - both coal and nuclear suck as an answer to AGW and our energy security needs.

[joshcryer]

24. Coal will always have a long term ash waste disposal problem.

Nuclear has no chance of replacing coal, but it is now known that simultaneous deployment of many nuclear reactors reduces costs dramatically.

[kristopher]

25. It isn't "known"; it is claimed. No proof has ever materialized

And the facts of projects in the field dispute the claim.

You aren't seriously comparing fly ash to nuclear wastes are you?

They BOTH suck.

[joshcryer]

26. The fact comes straight from an article you posted.

I don't have it handy but it discussed the "increased cost of nuclear plants," adding that more research needed to be done with regards to costs of building several nuclear plants at the same time.

(Scientists, they tend to not practice knee jerk opinions.)

[kristopher]

30. I'm aware it is discussed, but we have ample evidence

to conclude the probability of success is low.

Also it is against the basic idea of how economies of scale work. Think of all the subsystems and main components that are unique to use in a nuclear power plant.

You can't get substantial savings from economies of scale by building 100 units or even 1000 units. Those kind of savings are realized by high volume production. It is a poor application of the concept.

[joshcryer]

32. So you dispute the factual observation that that is exactly what happened?

That is what happened when they were building the things at pace.

We'll see if it happens again if China actually builds them.

[kristopher]

33. You'll have to provide more evidence than your claim.

[joshcryer]

37. Feel free to remind me of the paper, since you are "aware" of it.

If you are aware of the point I am making then you can't dispute it, because it is a factual observation of history.

[kristopher]

39. I said I'm aware of the claim, there is no proof so you're starting to squirm.

[joshcryer]

42. Meh, I'm not going to look for the paper that *you* posted.

If you actually read the paper that *you* posted you'd know what I'm talking about. The guy analyzed historical costs of nuclear and said that nuclear was "getting more expensive." He then noted that nuclear when built en masse was cheaper. He did not have an explanation for it.

[kristopher]

44. It is a common false claim made by the nuclear power industry that has never materialized.

[joshcryer]

48. I looked for it, I suspect you know what paper I am referring to.

You did post it several times, after all. It was an analysis done by an anti-nuke guy. I'll let you have this one, I couldn't find the paper.

But again I suspect you know the one I am talking about.

[kristopher]

51. Most analysis of nuclear are not favorable because nuclear sucks.

[joshcryer]

56. Nuclear has no chance in hell of displacing fossil fuels.

In that respect it does suck.

But not for the ignorant reasons posted in this thread.

[bananas]

7. Radioactivity releases from nuclear operations dwarf radioactivity releases from coal

Cut-and-paste mangles the urls, valid links in the original post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3592611&mesg_id=3592910

struggle4progress Sun Nov-09-08 06:40 PM Response to Reply #13

17. Radioactivity releases from nuclear operations dwarf radioactivity releases from coal

Natural uranium is not very radioactive: 25,280 Bq/g or 0.000000683 Ci/g or 0.683 Ci/metric ton. So the annual 392 ton of U from coal corresponds total radioactivity of 267 Ci

In comparison, the Chernobyl accident released at least 100 million Ci (see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/NucEne/chern... ) -- and perhaps a hundred times that

The Three Mile Island accident released something like 2.4 million Ci, including 13-17 Ci radioiodine; see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/216/4542...

In 1981, average routine tritium emissions from the Pickering plant in Canada were 1350 Ci/mo to the atmosphere and another 625 Ci/mo to local waters; see http://books.google.com/books?id=xlTv3smyZQYC&pg=PA10&l...

Thus the local radioactivity releases from Chernobyl and TMI correspond respectively to about 375000 and 9000 years of burning coal worldwide at the current rate. The local radioactivity release from Pickering for 1981 corresponds to about 75 years of burning coal worldwide at the current rate. Note that I have mentioned only two incidents at two plants and one year at a third for nuclear, disregarding releases from fuel manufacture and waste handling -- while for coal I am discussing worldwide nuclear emissions from all plants

Nuclear fuel manufacture also has release potential

The 1999 Tokaimura criticality accvident in Japan released at least 162 TBq or about 4378 Ci of noble gases and radio-iodine

Beyond such exceptional cases, there are so-called "routine" releases from operating nuclear power stations: these can also be substantial individually and in aggregate will dwarf the radioactivity releases from worldwide coal consumption


Finally, I will add:

When considering "small" releases, the spatial and temporal features of the release are important: no one sane would consent to having a particle containing a nanogram of plutonium in his/her lung -- but that is rather different from a worldwide total combined release of a nanogram of plutonium into the atmosphere from thousands of locations over the course of a year

[joshcryer]

23. The difference is that a properly operated, safe reactor, releases 100 times less...

...radiation than properly operated, safe coal plants.

[kristopher]

27. Since nuclear is a complex human designed and operated system it will fail

Not considering the failures and the potential radiation risks of nuclear power being an integral part of nuclear proliferation is simply dishonest.

WTF are you trying to prove?

[joshcryer]

29. Jacobson includes it and puts it on par with Coal-CCS.

I am trying to put a more neutral bent to the kneejerk responses in this thread.

[kristopher]

31. No, you're just trying to being goad me.

[joshcryer]

34. I told you every time you compare coal to nuclear without the CCS disclaimer...

...that I would correct you on it.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

36. Coal with CCS, coal without CCS, and nuclear power ALL suck.

[joshcryer]

38. Coal without CCS is not comparable to coal with it, and nuclear.

That is a fact.

[kristopher]

41. Yes it is. They all three have a horrible environmental footprint.

Different degrees of horrible are irrelevant.

[joshcryer]

43. One displaces millions and kills tens of thousands annually. The other two don't.

One of those things is not like the other.

[kristopher]

45. If that's how you think it is proper to evaluate it...

[joshcryer]

50. What other way is the "proper way to evaluate it"?

[kristopher]

53. That entire class of energy technologies suck. It's a distiction without a difference.

[joshcryer]

60. You compare something that kills hundreds of thousands yearly to something that kills...

...hundreds of thousands over the span of a half century. You are not here for people nor the environment.

[kristopher]

62. They ALL suck. I want renewables, you want nuclear. That says it all.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[eqfan592]

79. Just to clear something up....

...I don't think most people around these parts necessarily want nuclear over renewables. It's more a matter of something we can do large scale now to reduce the amount of garbage we are pumping into the air while the technology evolves for renewables to step up to the plate in a larger fashion.

I know you totally disagree that nuclear is worth the cost, and that's a fair disagreement, but lets make sure we are framing things fairly here. I love remewables and I already have a plan to do my part and get my home off the grid (when I own my own home that is ;) ). And I love the thought of them going large scale. But it seems to me that, from a practical and long term standpoint, dealing with the waste from nuclear will be less hazardous than dealing from the waste that is created by coal, and that we would be well served to invest resources both in cleaner nuclear power as well as in renewables.

[bananas]

88. Nope - you can expect another meltdown from "properly operated, safe reactors"

It's estimated that properly-operated "safe" Generation II reactors melt down roughly once every 10,000 reactor-years (MIT's 2003 report gives that estimate and also calculates the actual measured melt-down rate which IIRC is around 2,000 to 3,000 reactor-years).
Most of the roughly 440 reactors worldwide are Generation II, so we can expect a meltdown roughly every (10,000 reactor-years / 400 reactors) = 22.7 years.
Chernobyl was 24 years ago ... tick ... tick ... tick ...
They want to keep most of the existing reactors running for another 20 years or more, if they do, then it's highly likely that there will be another meltdown among these properly operated, safe reactors. (Hopefully it will be more like TMI than Chernobyl, but it is possible for the containment to fail.)
As struggle4progress points out, that will once again dwarf releases from coal:

Thus the local radioactivity releases from Chernobyl and TMI correspond respectively to about 375000 and 9000 years of burning coal worldwide at the current rate.

[joshcryer]

73. I haven't done the full numbers, but it's obvious the math in that link is wrong. NNadir...

...got it right. It's sick to have to say that.

[struggle4progress]

76. I've been known to make arithmetic mistakes. Feel free to point out any you find.

I doubt if you'll find enough to change the overall conclusions though

[joshcryer]

78. Eh, I don't really care to do it because I don't parrot nuclear, I just like robust analysis.

I think the original cite is probably accurate.

[struggle4progress]

82. Well, I went through the arithmetic carefully for you and posted the results

[struggle4progress]

81. Lets go through the math:

... specific radioactivity of natural uranium (25 kBq/g) ... http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf14.html
This is essentially the number I gave: 25,280 Bq/g

1 Bq is about 2.7027027027E-011 Ci (See: http://online.unitconverterpro.com/conversion-tables/convert-alpha/radiation---activity.html )
So 1 kBq = 2.7027E-08 Ci and 25.28 kBq = 6.8234E-07 Ci and 25,280 Bq/g = 0.000000683 Ci/g = 0.683 Ci/metric ton, since there are 1000000 g/metric ton. These are the numbers I gave

Current world coal consumption is about 7075 million short tons (See 2007 figures: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1115.html )
This is essentially the figure I used. Reckoning a short ton as about 10/11 of a metric tonne would give something like 6500 million metric tonnes

.. In the majority of samples, concentrations of uranium fall in the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million ... http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html
This is the link I cited before

The total natural uranium in 6500 million metric tonnes of coal is expected to be about 6500 - 26000 metric tonnes

According to Table 12.4 at p303 in Coal Geology (Larry Thomas) about 1.5% of the uranium in coal is released in flue gases and the rest in concentrated in the ash; see http://books.google.com/books?id=4oYWx90ybY8C&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=coal+%22fly+ash%22+fraction&source=web&ots=2pioUqF5j1&sig=-JEzm_SP_MHBprBoGsZ3SfOJg4M&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=34&ct=result
We therefore expect an annual world atmospheric release of 0.015*6500 - 0.015*26000 metric tonnes of U from coal combustion. These numbers are 98 - 390 metric tonnes of U. In the link cited, I used the figure 392 metric tonnes U

Compute now the Ci released by 0.683 Ci/metric ton: 98 - 390 metric tonnes of U = 67 - 268 Ci
In the link you don't like, I gave the figure 267 Ci

So if you want to fuss about my calculation here, I think you shouldn't fuss about the arithmetic. You might sensibly fuss that I left out thorium or that I ignored daughter products in equilibrium. The specific activity of natural thorium is about 2.2E−7 Ci/g = 0.22Ci/metric tonne (see: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?chunkKey=09016334800475ed ) which is a bit less than that of natural uranium. Uranium and thorium occur in comparable concentrations in coal, so including natural thorium wouldn't quite double the estimate. What about correcting for daughters in the actinide chains? If one assumes equilibrium, the total decays from the daughters at each stage of the chain must equal the total decay of their parents, so the total activity can't exceed the above estimates multiplied by the length of the longest chain. Looking up the actinide decay chains suggests a factor of maybe 8. So if you want to be grumpy, we'll say 10 and estimate that world coal combustion releases 2670 Ci radioactivity from natural U and Th and their daughters -- as un-captured flyash particulates approximately as radioactive as shale

It's not uncommon for a nuclear power site to release about that much radioactivity to the environment in a year: in 2004, for example, Beaver Valley reported releasing 2449 Ci tritium, Byron Station reported releasing 2520 Ci tritium, and Diablo Canyon reported releasing 2951 Ci tritium

So NNadir's link is actually bullshit

[wtmusic]

89. And the rest of the uranium that's "concentrated in the ash" ends up where?

In the environment, or course (somehow we jumped to assuming that only atmospheric releases are releases into the environment)

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/007/coal-ash-pollution-contaminates-groundwater-increases-cancer-risks.html

[struggle4progress]

90. (1) Yes, the ash is a serious problem, but (2) it is only about as radioactive as shale, and so

(3) it is not a radiological problem. Moreover, (4) the OP concerned atmospheric releases and (5) it gave a highly inaccurate number for such releases

I will add: the proper point-of-view is Facts first, analysis second.

None of our energy sources are benign, and there are gigantic political problems associated with any attempt to cut US energy consumption in order to protect human health and safety and the environment. An accurate discussion of the issues is essential

[bananas]

85. I can't respond to that, because I can't see NNadir's posts

The moderators have forced a "mutual ignore" on us.

Mutual ignore notification
From: Skinner
Date: Feb-04-10 06:56 AM

This is an automated notification to inform you that the DU
Administrators have put in place a mutual ignore between yourself and NNadir.

Neither of you will be able to see messages posted by the other while
you are logged in to Democratic Underground. You will not be able to
reply to the other person's messages or post responses in their
threads, and likewise they will be blocked from responding to you.

We trust that both individuals involved will comply with the spirit of
this decision, and will not try to circumvent this mutual ignore.

Thank you for your understanding.

Skinner, EarlG, and Elad
DU Administrators

[NNadir]

8. The amount of uranium released by coal burning is found in a nice article by an ORNL scientist

that has been available on the internet for many years:

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

[struggle4progress]

15. Uranium U and thorium Th concentrations in coal are both typically around 1 - 4 ppm

See my comments in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=109238&mesg_id=109516

The US burned about 1,045,141 short tons of coal in 2007. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table26.html

That translates to a total of 1 - 4 short tons U and 1 - 4 short tons Th, using the 1 - 4 ppm figures above

U and Th are heavy nonvolatile metals; they will mostly appear in the flyash, which is approximately as radioactive as ordinary shale; about 99.5% of the flyash is captured

Conclusion: total annual atmospheric releases of U and Th for the entire US from coal are of the order of 200 - 800 pounds, mostly in the form of uncaptured particulates that are approximately as radioactive as shale

[joshcryer]

28. Natural background radiation still dwarfs, absolutely dwarfs, what humans release.

This is including nuclear bombs.

However, since coal plants do release magnitudes of harmful substances which are able to get into our food and water supplies (which otherwise would not be there) one can attribute them for far more ailments than nuclear has ever created.

And given that coal is the largest producer of the CO2 greenhouse gas, which will undoubtedly result in displacing a billion or more people within the next century, I think it is clear what technology poses the most danger for our civilization and species.

[kristopher]

35. You're wildly distorting the facts. Both technologies suck.

[joshcryer]

40. Can't actually respond to my statements, eh? Typical kristopher.

[kristopher]

46. Your "statements" are nothing but wild hyperbolic claims with no basis.

[joshcryer]

49. It is well known here that you deny the needed urgency of CO2 reduction.

[kristopher]

47. Thanks for the information.

Worth repeating:
The US burned about 1,045,141 short tons of coal in 2007. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table26.html

That translates to a total of 1 - 4 short tons U and 1 - 4 short tons Th, using the 1 - 4 ppm figures above

U and Th are heavy nonvolatile metals; they will mostly appear in the flyash, which is approximately as radioactive as ordinary shale; about 99.5% of the flyash is captured

Conclusion: total annual atmospheric releases of U and Th for the entire US from coal are of the order of 200 - 800 pounds, mostly in the form of uncaptured particulates that are approximately as radioactive as shale

[joshcryer]

52. Don't forget the Physicians for Social Responsiblity "Coal Report":

http://www.psr.org/coalreport

Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal's contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.

Viewed in this way, the totality of coal's impact on health becomes clear. Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.
Respiratory Effects: Air pollutants produced by coal combustion act on the respiratory system, contributing to serious health effects including asthma, lung disease and lung cancer, and adversely affect normal lung development in children.
Cardiovascular Effects: Pollutants produced by coal combustion lead to cardiovascular disease, such as arterial occlusion (artery blockages, leading to heart attacks) and infarct formation (tissue death due to oxygen deprivation, leading to permanent heart damage), as well as cardiac arrhythmias and congestive heart failure. Exposure to chronic air pollution over many years increases cardiovascular mortality.
Nervous System Effects: Studies show a correlation between coal-related air pollutants and stroke. Coal pollutants also act on the nervous system to cause loss of intellectual capacity, primarily through mercury. Researchers estimate that between 317,000 and 631,000 children are born in the U.S. each year with blood mercury levels high enough to reduce IQ scores and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.
Global Warming: Even people who do not develop illnesses from coal pollutants will find their health and wellbeing impacted due to coal's contribution to global warming. The discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere associated with burning coal is a major contributor to global warming and its adverse effects on health and wellbeing worldwide, such as heat stroke, malaria, declining food production, scarce water supplies, social conflict and starvation.

In addition to the impacts from pollutants emitted during coal combustion, the report pinpoints negative health consequences at each step of the coal life cycle. Coal mining leads U.S. industries in fatal injuries and is associated with chronic health problems among miners. In addition to the miners themselves, communities near coal mines may be adversely affected by mining operations due to the effects of blasting, washing, leakage from "slurry ponds," the collapse of abandoned mines, damage done to streams and waterways, and the dispersal of dust from coal trucks during transportation. Slurry injected underground can release arsenic, barium, lead and manganese into nearby wells, contaminating local drinking water supplies. The storage of post-combustion wastes from coal plants also threatens human health. There are 584 coal ash dump sites in the U.S, and toxic residues have migrated into water supplies at dozens of sites. While every stage of the coal life cycle impacts human health, the combustion phase exacts the greatest toll.

http://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.html

[kristopher]

55. Coal and nuclear both suck

***************************************

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[joshcryer]

58. Coal kills that many people *every single year*. Nuclear is comparable to coal-CCS.

[kristopher]

61. That is short term, myopic, self serving argumentation.

[joshcryer]

72. Worth reading if you don't know how to multiply by 1000 and read a spreadsheet.

I took the guys statements for granted (didn't even go to the page), but I should know better.

[joshcryer]

54. The radioactivity from coal is not the most detrimental aspect of coal pollutants:

http://www.psr.org/coalreport

Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal's contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.

Viewed in this way, the totality of coal's impact on health becomes clear. Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.
Respiratory Effects: Air pollutants produced by coal combustion act on the respiratory system, contributing to serious health effects including asthma, lung disease and lung cancer, and adversely affect normal lung development in children.
Cardiovascular Effects: Pollutants produced by coal combustion lead to cardiovascular disease, such as arterial occlusion (artery blockages, leading to heart attacks) and infarct formation (tissue death due to oxygen deprivation, leading to permanent heart damage), as well as cardiac arrhythmias and congestive heart failure. Exposure to chronic air pollution over many years increases cardiovascular mortality.
Nervous System Effects: Studies show a correlation between coal-related air pollutants and stroke. Coal pollutants also act on the nervous system to cause loss of intellectual capacity, primarily through mercury. Researchers estimate that between 317,000 and 631,000 children are born in the U.S. each year with blood mercury levels high enough to reduce IQ scores and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.
Global Warming: Even people who do not develop illnesses from coal pollutants will find their health and wellbeing impacted due to coal's contribution to global warming. The discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere associated with burning coal is a major contributor to global warming and its adverse effects on health and wellbeing worldwide, such as heat stroke, malaria, declining food production, scarce water supplies, social conflict and starvation.

In addition to the impacts from pollutants emitted during coal combustion, the report pinpoints negative health consequences at each step of the coal life cycle. Coal mining leads U.S. industries in fatal injuries and is associated with chronic health problems among miners. In addition to the miners themselves, communities near coal mines may be adversely affected by mining operations due to the effects of blasting, washing, leakage from "slurry ponds," the collapse of abandoned mines, damage done to streams and waterways, and the dispersal of dust from coal trucks during transportation. Slurry injected underground can release arsenic, barium, lead and manganese into nearby wells, contaminating local drinking water supplies. The storage of post-combustion wastes from coal plants also threatens human health. There are 584 coal ash dump sites in the U.S, and toxic residues have migrated into water supplies at dozens of sites. While every stage of the coal life cycle impacts human health, the combustion phase exacts the greatest toll.

Again, human radiation release pales in comparison to background.

[kristopher]

57. No it doesn't

***************************************

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[joshcryer]

59. I'm not playing your copy-paste games. Hopefully readers will read the "Coal Report."

[kristopher]

63. I agree they should if they are unaware of coal's dangers.

They should also read the full article this abstract describes:
***************************************

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.


...The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

Coal in any iteration and nuclear power both suck. We need the sustainable, clean, safe energy system that renewables can provide.

[joshcryer]

66. Coal-CCS does not suck as bad as coal without CCS.

[struggle4progress]

68. I argued against a bullshit claim, and you attempt to turn my argument into something else

I merely pointed out, carefully, that the claim a typical coal plant releases 18 tons of U and Th is hogwash

If you want to provide any practical ideas in this forum on how to reduce US use of coal, I'm sure you'll find many of us very interested

However, I regard your claim, that human radiation release pales in comparison to background, as misleading: it depends greatly on exactly which region you consider and over what period. The US atomic tests, for example, quite clearly exposed certain down-winders to rather high radiation doses over certain time periods, with easily identifiable cancer clusters resulting

[joshcryer]

69. Indeed, and so does banana's statement about nuclear radiation (along with your original...

...claim about "nuclear released radiation").

But it should be stressed, the OP believes coal produced radiation is a big deal. Even if their numbers were wrong it doesn't change the fact that coal pollutants are bad even if they were completely and utterly radiation free.

[struggle4progress]

70. No. You misunderstand the OP. The nuclear industry typically lies about their releases

and frequently makes dishonest comparisons. The "coal plants release more radioactivity than nuclear plants" is an old nuclear industry misrepresentation going back thirty-five or forty years

There are, of course, plenty of reasons to dislike coal. There are also plenty of good reasons to dislike nuclear. And there are plenty of good reason to dislike dishonest discussion

[joshcryer]

71. You do realize that the US did not burn "1,045,141 short tons" of coal in 2007, right?

1,045,141 * 1,000 = 1,045,141,000 short tons.

I do think that the comments about coal effects not related to radiation are pertinent and on topic.

[struggle4progress]

75. Oops! That WAS very sloppy of me! Many thanks for the correction!

So the totals are 1000X what I indicated in my post: not 200 - 800 pounds but perhaps a total of 20 - 80 tons of U and Th released in the US -- and still in the form of particulate matter approximately as radioactive as shale. But unless there are no more than five coal plants in the US, the average US coal plant can't be releasing 18 tons annually, as claimed in the original post: the claim is still wild BS

If one wants to discuss the environmental impacts of coal, then of course discussing CO2, Hg, SOx, and other releases is certainly relevant. Nobody in their right mind thinks coal combustion is innocuous

[joshcryer]

77. It's unclear where that 18 number comes from.

I don't know if it was an earlier Wikipedia edit or if the OP conjured it up. It certainly isn't supported by the numbers, however I think the current Wikipedia edit is accurate (since it uses words like "could" and "may" since this estimate is wildly simplistic).

Radiation effects of coal are still small though when compared to background radiation. But let's not kid ourselves about nuclear releasing more radiation, because it doesn't (even if you include meltdowns or other catastrophic releases).

[struggle4progress]

83. In #81 above, I point out three releases in 2004 from US nuclear sites,

each of which is about the same size as the total radioactivity released annually worldwide from U and Th and their daughters in coal

[joshcryer]

74. Confirmation bias yet again downplays the threat of fossil fuels.

Check your math next time, please.

[struggle4progress]

84. See #75. the overall conclusion regarding number in OP remains unchanged.

[kristopher]

64. Please be sure to read posts 7,9, and especially 17.

struggle4progress summed it up this way:
The US burned about 1,045,141 short tons of coal in 2007. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table26.html

That translates to a total of 1 - 4 short tons U and 1 - 4 short tons Th, using the 1 - 4 ppm figures above

U and Th are heavy nonvolatile metals; they will mostly appear in the flyash, which is approximately as radioactive as ordinary shale; about 99.5% of the flyash is captured

Conclusion: total annual atmospheric releases of U and Th for the entire US from coal are of the order of 200 - 800 pounds, mostly in the form of uncaptured particulates that are approximately as radioactive as shale

[joshcryer]

67. And don't forget post #52. Radiation is the least of ones worries with coal emissions.

[NNadir]

86. It's nice to see another anti-nuke defend coal fly ash and greenwash it...

My contention is that 100% of anti-nukes are fossil fuel apologists. If there was ever a QED this amusing thread is one of them.

By the way, Alex Gabbard, someone who is an ORNL scientist - if you know something about what scientists even are has a very different figure than the one "calculated" by the old fart anti-nuke doing anti-nuke math: Gabbard's figure is here: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

The idea that you know anything at all about the physical chemistry of uranium is ridiculous on its face.

If this uranium were coming out of nuclear plants you'd be swearing that everyone would die from it.

Since it's from the dangerous fossil fuel industry, you couldn't care less.

[struggle4progress]

87. Since I can't find anyone saying anything nice about coal in this thread,

it's unclear to me why you think anybody here is an "apologist" for fossil fuels: everyone seems to recognize the substantial environmental damage associated with fossil carbon use; some of us just see the potential for substantial (if different) damage from nuclear as well

There are indeed serious problems associated with coal ash. I don't see anyone in this thread pretending otherwise. The issue with coal ash is not, however, its very low actinide content. It's worthwhile to discuss actual issues associated with coal ash, but it's pointless to discuss bogus issues

Personally, I find your constant personal attacks -- on people who don't share your nuclear enthusiasms -- rather predictable and tiresome

[NNadir]

91. Oh stop it. You're breaking my heart. There is NOT ONE anti-nuke who would apply

the same standards to any form of energy that they apply to nuclear energy which is clearly to insist that nuclear - and only nuclear - be zero risk.

There is no such thing as risk free energy. There is only risk minimized energy and that energy is nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be better than all the shit anti-nukes don't care about. It doesn't need to be perfect to be better than everything else. It merely needs to be better than everything else, which it is.

In the selective attention of the anti-nuke cults every other form of energy, coal, solar, wind, and the gas industry (which in my opinion owns the anti-nuke industry lock, stock and barrel) can kill at will.

Here's another clue though. Although you don't care about toxicity issues associated with, say the solar industry, the nuclear standard is the highest standard on earth: Your denialist toys could not possibly meet it: Producing tens of exajoule scale energy for decades with zero loss of life.

This may come as a surprise to you, but even the German government is beginning to look at the waste problem associated with solar energy, leachability in landfills etc. Solar can't and won't stand the scrutiny.

Nor do I believe your bull claim that you give a rat's ass about coal. If you did, you couldn't have possibly produced the ridiculous and laughable "calculation" that the airhead praised above, since you would have understood implicitly, as I do, the difference between powder ridge coal and Appalachian coal, the difference between anthracite, lignite, etc.

You would give a rat's ass about the fact that while you can not produce even a single incidence of death in this country from nuclear energy outside of Chernobyl - that an aberrant operation - that tens of millions people on this planet have died since the 1950's from coal power.

You couldn't care less unless - gasp - it involves thorium or uranium.

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke who isn't proposing the stupid and failed and toxic so called renewables industry who isn't advocating to shut the world's largest source, by far, of climate change gas free primary energy first.

I have NEVER met a single anti-nuke, NOT ONE, who has proposed a phase out of dangerous fossil fuels, because there is NOT ONE renewable facility in the world that can operate with anything near the capacity utilization of a coal plant - 70 to 75% availability of nameplate ratings - never mind a nuclear plant, running at the highest capacity utilization of any form of energy on this planet.

Finally there is the issues of who pays the paychecks of the well financed anti-nuke industry.

Both Josschka Fischer, Germany's "Green" Foreign Minister, and Gerhard Schroeder former Chancellor of Germany, engineers of Germany's nuclear phase out, work for GAS companies now, gathering six figure salaries for doing nothing but putting lipstick on the gas pig and pretending that "solar and wind will save us" while being paid by fascistic Russian gas interests. And then there's Amory Lovins who loves to collect "consulting fees" from Shell, Chevron, Conoco and the rest of the dangerous fossil fuel waste dumping companies.

Spare me your disingenuous bull, thank you.

Have a fantastic evening.