|
|
|
|
|
|
by iharhajster
3304 days ago
|
|
|
Interesting points. Keep in mind though, this article is from 1978. Technology and law regulation for reducing dangerous concentrations of gases from flue gases at coal power plants improved since then. I don't know for nuclear. I recently was leading electrical works for new DeNOx (SCR) plant at one coal power plant. Since my country entered EU, the allowable safety margins improved forcing the power plant owners to either invest in purification plants or shutdown by 1st jan 2018. |
|
|
Maybe I should have phrased my original objection more strongly: the headline of this HN piece, the original headline in Scientific American, and many commenters writing here are unambiguously wrong about certain points. Coal ash is not more radioactive than waste from nuclear reactors. Ordinary commercial reactors, operating normally, emit far more curies of radioactive material than is present in the fly ash emitted from coal plants. The effective exposure of populations to radioactivity is however lower for reactors than for coal plants due to the differing chemical/biological characteristics of the different radionuclides emitted. That's pretty interesting! But that key point which produces the counterintuitive lower-effective-exposure result is completely lost in the SA article. Over the past decade I have mostly seen this Scientific American article used as a club to bash people who "just don't understand" nuclear power. It's a sad triumph of tribal affinity over comprehension.
Coal is certainly far worse than nuclear power when you broaden the criteria beyond radionuclide release. Most of the world's coal plants are still operating without state-of-the-art pollution controls for mercury, acid gases, and particulates. Even with modern emissions controls for acute pollution hazards, coal emits a lot of CO2 for each MWh generated. But the overall superior environmental and human health profile of nuclear power should not tempt people to spread falsehoods in its defense.