Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by blablabla123 2636 days ago
> - coal produce radioactive waste too

That's quite a statement. Do you have references?

I mean the nuclear waste from nuclear power plants is ridiculously difficult to handle because of its high temperature. It has to be wrapped in layers of containers - after cooling off for months (years?) in a water bath.

> It boggles my mind that Germany made a great effort on renewable, and used this extra energy to close nuclear plants rather than coals ones. (At the beginning they even had to open more coal plants!) This means that Fukushima (which made Germany close its nuclear plants) killed a lot more people in Germany than in Japan.

Fukushima lead to closing of Nuclear power plants, obviously, and not coal plants. The share of renewables in Germany increased a lot. To my knowledge the only coal power plants that were set up in the recent years were really modern ones. Therefore I cannot follow the argument, could you elaborate?

> Recall that coal is 1000 times more deadly than nuclear per unit of energy (including the nuclear accidents).

Recall also that there is no insurance that covers nuclear power plants but driving a car without insurance is not allowed in most countries.

The difference between coal and nuclear energy is that the latter is very close to the limits of what we can control.

1 comments

> That's quite a statement. Do you have references?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

> Coal is largely composed of organic matter, but it is the inorganic matter in coal—minerals and trace elements— that have been cited as possible causes of health, environmental, and technological problems associated with the use of coal. Some trace elements in coal are naturally radioactive. These radioactive elements include uranium (U), thorium (Th), and their numerous decay products, including radium (Ra) and radon (Rn). Although these elements are less chemically toxic than other coal constituents such as arsenic, selenium, or mercury, questions have been raised concerning possible risk from radiation. In order to accurately address these questions and to predict the mobility of radioactive elements during the coal fuel-cycle, it is important to determine the concentration, distribution, and form of radioactive elements in coal and fly ash.

Okay, that's surely a thing. In some regions like Southern Germany there is increased natural radioactivity in cellars that leads to more cases of lung cancer as far as I have heard.

But I'm quite sure this is still a completely different radioactivity problem one needs to cope with: hot, long living and very active material vs. cold, rather inactive material with short range radiation.