Is Coal better than Nuclear?

Question

A protest is currently waging in Britain on a site that a coal-powered plant is destined to open however the guy in charge said "target Nuclear instead." I am sure that Nuclear is practically green compared to the huge pollutance of coal?

Thanks.

Answer 1

If you are a coal miner, own a coal power company or are a politician that takes money from coal interests (or has ties to a coal miners union) then coal is better than nuclear.

Answer 2

Two answers. First, coal smoke releases far more toxins than nuclear, providing the nuclear is run safely. There is also technology called a pebble bed reactor that makes nuke plants much more safe and reliable.

So on this level, nukes would seem safer.

But as with all things, there's a couple of hitches. We still, after sixty years of nuclear technology, have not come up with any viable and affordable way of dealing with nuclear wastes... and in the end, they are more hazardous than any other industrial by-product. Plus which, those particular by-products can be turned into weapons, because the enriched uranium that comes from nuke plants can make bombs of all varieties.

So, IF the plants are built well, IF they are run honestly, IF they bother to figure out a solution to rad wastes, and IF we can be sure to keep the waste stream away from the nutjobs that abound in our world, nukes would be the answer.

But personally, I think there are other much better answers, and the conversation is being monopolized by the coal/oil/nuke guys well new science just can't get a break.

Ever hear of ocean thermal conversion, dry-bed geothermal, bobbing ducks tidal power, directional dome windmills? They somehow can't seem to find a place at the table. But they all work.

Answer 3

Coal is a known technology, and you can be sloppy in operating a coal plant and still not have problems.  Coal emits CO2, and some folks think that is bad.

In theory nuclear is a lot cleaner, but plant operations have to be more precise, and most utilities don't seem to be able to pull it off without a lot of change in their culture.  However, nuclear emits no CO2, and some folks would think that is really important.

There are professional protestors who don't really care about what they protest, like professional terrorists who love to destroy stuff while mouthing some "cause".

That is why the guy said to go after nuclear, to get the protesters off the site and bitching about something else, like nuclear or frankenfood.

Answer 4

Hopefully, your question may be moot.  MIT has released an article in Science magazine several days ago that they are making great headway in photovoltaic panels which can efficiently convert water to hydrogen.  We may be able to power our homes and cars from our back yards in ten years.  

Answer 5

Coal can never be clean fuel. Even “clean coal technology” (CCT) people are talking about, may not be forthcoming, as it seems; nobody is clear about the technology yet.

Disadvantages of power generated by burning of coal are well known. They include:

(i) The main drawback of fossil fuels is pollution. Burning any fossil fuel produces carbon dioxide, which contributes to the "greenhouse effect", warming the Earth. The effect of rise in temperature is disastrous to environment. Agriculture is very sensitive to climate and hence is heavily affected, requiring shifts in crops that cannot be grown in different areas. Livestock also been affected through problems in breeding, diseases. Eventually, the melting glaciers will cause sea levels to rise – causes loss of habitat land, allows inland penetration of salt water which heavily impacts aquatic life. Burning fossil fuel also produces sulfur dioxide, a gas that contributes to acid rain. Acid rain is destroying forests, making lakes unlivable for fish and degrade ecosystem.

(ii) Mining coal can be difficult and dangerous. Coal mining destroys large areas of the landscape.

(iii) Waste disposal for coal-fired power plant is a major issue. Coal-fired power plant produces large quantity of ashes, which is difficult to handle and store. It destroys and pollutes large areas of land. Dust is also generated, causing health problems to human being.

The advantages of nuclear power in relation to coal are:

(i) One of the greatest advantages of nuclear power is that it avoids the wide variety of environmental problems arising from burning fossil fuels - coal, oil, and gas. Nuclear energy does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide, so it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. Thus ‘global warming’ process can be minimized - changing the earth's climate, acid rain, which is destroying forests and killing fish; air pollution etc. Nuclear power checks degrading our quality of life; i.e., the destructive effects of massive mining for coal; and oil spills which do great harm to ecological systems can be prevented.

(ii) It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single plant using small amount of fuel.

(iii) Nuclear power is reliable. This technology is readily available; it does not have to be developed first.

(iv) Produces small amounts of waste. As the quantity of waste generated by nuclear power plant is very small, the disposal of radio-active waste can be easily contained so they can be buried deep underground. Also, more effective ways can be found out as our technology is improving at a very fast pace. Moreover, the quality of radio-active waste improved if we go for reprocessing of spent fuel and reuse of plutonium is incorporated.

(v) Nuclear power is also not so expensive as compare to power from coal. Reprocessing and reuse of plutonium from spent fuel makes it even cheaper than coal based power plant. The concern about proliferation should be taken out of mind as there are much easier, faster, and cheaper ways for a nation to develop nuclear weapons than through a nuclear power program.

Discussions on future dependability for production of clean electric power –

(i) As observed from above, nuclear power has advantages in many areas, including some that have been traditionally viewed as problem areas. It averts the pollution, environmental degradation and above all retards generation of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. It also solves difficult waste management problems.

(ii) In my opinion, the generation of nuclear power should be given most priority, to combat environmental degradation and global warming issues. Wherever there is stagnation in implementing new nuclear power projects, those should be sorted out immediately to get the benefits of nuclear power and to mitigate the global warming process. Any step which mitigates the global warming process has to be adopted immediately, without wasting time, as we may not sustain any more the adverse impact of global warming. Survival of human race is at stake due to global warming.

(iii) In my opinion, if we can generate sufficient clean nuclear power so that our dependence on fossil fuel is reduced to shear minimal – whether for generation of electricity or for transport – the overall environment would be much cleaner.

(iv) Nuclear power may be supplemented by other form of clean energy such as wind energy and solar energy.

(v) For efficient community power backup environment-friendly Sodium-Sulfur (NaS) battery or equivalent should be used extensively along with nuclear power, wind power.

(vi) Transportation including motor vehicles should be run only on clean electric power.

(vii) Another advantage of producing enough nuclear power for the requirement of almost every industry and day-to-day consumption is lesser dependence on bio-diesel, bio-ethanol and other bio-fuel. Use of less bio-fuel means availability of agriculture for more food production – reduction of poverty.

(viii) Research activities should be enhanced in the areas of development of efficient environment-friend batteries and other aspects of nuclear technology.

(ix) As technology advances, we hope to switchover to more environment-friendly nuclear reactor – ‘breeder reactor’ – soon; reducing radio-active waste disposal problem.

(x) Moreover development of FUSION TECHNOLOGY successfully is also not very far; once we do that we have sufficient energy.

For further information on the subject and other environmental issues please refer my blog: http://www.environmentengineering.blogsp...

Answer 6

Do your part; produce plenty of CO2 as the plants need it to live. That will make the earth green...  

Answer 7

The truth is that both have their disadvantages, however coal is one product that can be made to burn cleaner.

but no one has come up with a way to dispose of nuclear waste yet.

I wonder how many nuclear fans would change their mind, if the nuclear waste was to be buried in their back yards.

Answer 8

You have to forgive him because most American’s do not comprehend nuclear recycling. They have been taught for more than 40 years that it can not be done. This is how the oil companies have kept the US from building cleaner lower cost nuclear plants. Nuclear and space based solar are the way to go and then energy could become almost free except for delivery charges.

Answer 9

The number of deaths associated with coal mining run into the thousands.  The number of deaths associated with nuclear power in the US is zero.  

That's a pretty good sixty-year safety record.  

Coal really wrecks the environment.  They're tearing the tops off mountains in the last bit of Appalachia, and they're tearing up the American West to get out coal.  

The physical amount of nuclear waste actually produced is quite small: a semi-trailer's worth of fuel will fill up the biggest reactor for five years.  So the storage of the spent fuel is really no problem except when news directors decide that it is.  Other nations--e.g., France--use mostly nuclear power and haven't had a big storage problem.  

And no, I wouldn't have a problem either living next door to a nuclear power plant or having someone bury spent fuel containers nearby.  Especially because that would put me in the midst of an area that real-estate developers couldn't spoil.