The Hidden Cost of Coal Power

[DerMißingno]

Just to be clear you are suggesting with bring in coal from other places in the country correct? Not import from outside the country because that would be rather silly seeing how we are practically the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Yeah, that's what I meant. The article specifically mentions the west, but I don't know how coal production in the south or midwest is.

 

[H-con]

I don't find any radiation escaping a plant to be acceptable.

You are aware that burning coal also gives away radiation, right? Minuscule amounts, but more than covered radioactive materials generated by a nuclear plant. Generally living near coal and nuclear plants don't really have a risk of getting sick due to radiation. Seeing how even if all other matters were clear, it still wouldn't be good enough due to the release of CO2.


It's easy to say just a few years more. Coal reserves can last a while. You can lull yourself into the belief that you can use coal for some more years, and then make the investments necessary. That's rather naive and shortsighted. The same view will pop up in 10 years. In 20 years. The attitude won't change, because it's the cheapest alternative. Why should we spend more money when we can get it cheaper, right? And those nasty coal plants and coal mines, they're so far away, no one cares about those (at least until you get one in your area at least). Seeing how renewable isn't going to happen any time soon with the absolute lack of commitment that is needed (but hey, we can just use coal until those technologies are developed, and simultaneously not give them the appropriate funds they need for development on a large scale basis), nuclear is the most relevant, environmetally safe option there is. There has been very few large incidents (I can think of three), and if you were to compare the death toll of those with the death toll of coal power, there is no safety reason not to use nuclear over coal. As for economic reasons, the investments needs to be done. It's as simple as that. The sooner the better, seeing we'll both save people's health and more of the environment that way in the process.

 

[Crystal Onix]

Yes, I know accidents are rare. But not rare enough for my liking.

I don't find any radiation escaping a plant to be acceptable.

I may be missing something here, but I don't see how a less-than-1% probability of an above-normal level of radiation escaping from a nuclear reactor, especially if, as Three Mile Island showed us, it can still be safe is worse than a 100% probability of hastening the global warming cycle, pumping a waste product containing a melange of radioactive and toxic chemicals into our air and water, and staying the path toward economic collapse of a magnitude which the world has never seen when we run out.

Of course cheap and effective renewables would be ideal, but every day we put off our commitment to clean, safe and renewable energy which nuclear exists on the path toward is one step closer we take toward disaster and that much harder it will be to avert it.

 

[Lilac Hill]

I like how you're all selectively quoting me, thereby giving your implicit acceptance that everything I've said that you haven't quoted is correct.

Neither do we... It says so in the article. The problem is we do it anyway, so there's the proof that you've missed the point.

That was a joke.

Hence the emoticon.

The solution is to import coal from the west or other places in order to stop blowing up mountains, ruining waterways and destroying communities while coal itself is slowly phased out.

You quite clearly said in the OP that "we are clearly past the point where we need to use coal"...and your solution to using coal is to use coal from another part of the country?

I don't find any radiation escaping a plant to be acceptable.

Considering radiation is produced by many processes (See: the sun) and the amount of radiation leaked at TMI caused no harm whatsoever, I find your conclusion to be irrational.

You are aware that burning coal also gives away radiation, right? Minuscule amounts, but more than covered radioactive materials generated by a nuclear plant. Generally living near coal and nuclear plants don't really have a risk of getting sick due to radiation. Seeing how even if all other matters were clear, it still wouldn't be good enough due to the release of CO2.

Yes, yes, I know this, but a nuclear reactor leaking radiation (due to a meltdown, which is the issue I'm talking about) will give off more than other things.

It's easy to say just a few years more. Coal reserves can last a while. You can lull yourself into the belief that you can use coal for some more years, and then make the investments necessary. That's rather naive and shortsighted. The same view will pop up in 10 years. In 20 years. The attitude won't change, because it's the cheapest alternative. Why should we spend more money when we can get it cheaper, right? And those nasty coal plants and coal mines, they're so far away, no one cares about those (at least until you get one in your area at least). Seeing how renewable isn't going to happen any time soon with the absolute lack of commitment that is needed (but hey, we can just use coal until those technologies are developed, and simultaneously not give them the appropriate funds they need for development on a large scale basis), nuclear is the most relevant, environmetally safe option there is. There has been very few large incidents (I can think of three), and if you were to compare the death toll of those with the death toll of coal power, there is no safety reason not to use nuclear over coal. As for economic reasons, the investments needs to be done. It's as simple as that. The sooner the better, seeing we'll both save people's health and more of the environment that way in the process.

Don't preach to me about short sightedness.

I want to move to renewables as quickly as possible.

But I don't think it's feasible to spend vast amounts of money moving to nuclear as a temporary solution.

More importantly, getting people to use nuclear will actually lengthen the process of moving to renenwables, as people will see nuclear as less of an environmental threat, and therefore won't pursue renewable energy due to a percieved lack of need for doing so.

Countries that develop and can export efficient renewable technologies are going to be the big things in the future. Germany's already on the way there. I suspect a number of other countries will be heading that way too - specifically those who are looking to phase out nuclear power.

I may be missing something here, but I don't see how a less-than-1% probability of an above-normal level of radiation escaping from a nuclear reactor, especially if, as Three Mile Island showed us, it can still be safe is worse than a 100% probability of hastening the global warming cycle, pumping a waste product containing a melange of radioactive and toxic chemicals into our air and water, and staying the path toward economic collapse of a magnitude which the world has never seen when we run out.

Of course cheap and effective renewables would be ideal, but every day we put off our commitment to clean, safe and renewable energy which nuclear exists on the path toward is one step closer we take toward disaster and that much harder it will be to avert it.

Because it isn't 0.

I would think that would be fairly obvious.

And unlike you, I don't think coal will make the world explode any time soon. If we could, I would jump at the chance to run the world entirely on renewables. We just can't at the moment.

 

[Crystal Onix]

Because it isn't 0.

I would think that would be fairly obvious.

And unlike you, I don't think coal will make the world explode any time soon. If we could, I would jump at the chance to run the world entirely on renewables. We just can't at the moment.

I personally don't agree with your analysis of the risks of each, and I'm not into putting words into people's mouths like you just did, but I DO think what we do now affects the future.

More importantly, getting people to use nuclear will actually lengthen the process of moving to renenwables, as people will see nuclear as less of an environmental threat, and therefore won't pursue renewable energy due to a percieved lack of need for doing so.

Countries that develop and can export efficient renewable technologies are going to be the big things in the future. Germany's already on the way there. I suspect a number of other countries will be heading that way too - specifically those who are looking to phase out nuclear power.

I will admit, though, that this is possible, even though nuclear power still has a bad reputation, which I would still expect to convince people to want to invest in renewables, possibly more than fossil fuels because of people who share your opinion no nuclear over coal.

 

[H-con]

I like how you're all selectively quoting me, thereby giving your implicit acceptance that everything I've said that you haven't quoted is correct.

Because it just ends up in cluttered posts, that's what I think anyways.

Yes, yes, I know this, but a nuclear reactor leaking radiation (due to a meltdown, which is the issue I'm talking about) will give off more than other things.

You do realize how unprobable this is, right? Especially with new technology and strict supervision? Compared to the damages coal have done and will continue to cause, but saying no radiation escaping when a slew of other damaging substances are released by burning coal (soot, CO2, sulfates to name some), I don't get your obsession with the advent of a nuclear meltdown when coal has so much other dirt.

Don't preach to me about short sightedness.

I want to move to renewables as quickly as possible.

And continuing to use coal as a cheap resource is a bullshit reason. It's shortsighted, as people always will prefer the cheapest option, and blocking investments in renewables.

Secondary, a complete power grid with renewables isn't going to happen. Now, don't interpret this as I don't want investments in renewables, because I do, but hoping for a complete switch to these sources in the nearest decades isn't going to happen with todays investments, nor do I believe investments will increase as much as it needs either. Nuclear is the best option for delivering power to large amounts of people, and we can use already existing technology.

But I don't think it's feasible to spend vast amounts of money moving to nuclear as a temporary solution.

More importantly, getting people to use nuclear will actually lengthen the process of moving to renenwables, as people will see nuclear as less of an environmental threat, and therefore won't pursue renewable energy due to a percieved lack of need for doing so.

Countries that develop and can export efficient renewable technologies are going to be the big things in the future. Germany's already on the way there. I suspect a number of other countries will be heading that way too - specifically those who are looking to phase out nuclear power.

As long as the waste is handled properly and decent safety measures are in place, nuclear is environmentally safe. It also has a big advantage over hydrocarbons by not releasing CO2, which is one of the biggest reasons to switch over to it compared to coal.

I'm not that optimistic that I actually believe people will switch to large scale renewables (at least in large countries, here in Norway we have enough hydropower, but just damming up rivers to give power to many people could quickly be an environmental disaster as well, so it's not usable anywhere), and nuclear is the best bet for slashing CO2 emissions from power plants as well as generally benefiting the environment from moving away from coal. And I certainly don't think continuing using coal is sustainable on any level. Going nuclear is a step up from hydrocarbons, because developing usable renewable tech for large amounts of people appears to take ages, and I don't think that will change any time soon either.

Perhaps we could switch to thorium as well.

Because it isn't 0.

I would think that would be fairly obvious.

And unlike you, I don't think coal will make the world explode any time soon. If we could, I would jump at the chance to run the world entirely on renewables. We just can't at the moment.

And your ignorance for the environmental destruction caused by coal power compared to the slight chance of nuclear meltdown is worrying. I would think that would be fairly obvious. And just imagine in developing countries, with outdated coal-plants. The environmental damage can take ages to recover.

 

[CrystaI]

Nuclear power is certainly not a good replacement for coal. It can be even more dangerous than coal. The best I think is really the renewable energy sources, which obviously excluded the biofuel.

Nuclear energy does provide much greater amount of energy in somehow a bit lower cost than coal, but to tell the truth, its risk and long term pollution can be even higher than coal. This is not limited to only nuclear generator meltdown, but also the radioactive substances it used during the power generation process. Nuclear power plants produces radioactive wastes during the power generation process, where those wastes contains high amount of very heavy metal and many decayed radioactive materials (those material had been decayed, so radioactivity is lesser than original, but still they are radioactively hazardous to certain extents), which is completely non-renewable and hazardous to environment. The nuclear wastes cannot be reuse, they can only be stored in the limited dumping sites such as deserted lands or underground repositories. However, the radioactive substances in the wastes still has very long half-life, ranging from thousands to millions years, making the land of the dumpling site completely uncultivable, unhabitable and unusable for a very long period. There are already more than 400 nuclear waste disposal site spread all over the world, and still increasing if more nuclear power plants will be build. Also again because of radioactive pollution problem, once the nuclear plant had been built, they can't be removed. There are many abandoned nuclear plants in the world that is old but not yet deconstructed because of that.
Also interestingly, the efficiency of nuclear power generator has direct connection between environment temperature, where this links to global warming. The power it generates can diminish significantly if the generator didn't have enough water supply (specifically speaking, fresh water supply; seawater is hazardous for nuclear reactors) for cooling. Global warming will reduce the water supply in the environment, so efficiency of nuclear reactor will decrease. If global warming continues, the cost of nuclear power will simply become higher than coal.

For the biofuel, its function is actually equals to liquid fuel we use in current days, the only difference is that it is made from biomass (specifically the plant in the category of "consumable food by human") rather than mined from underground. But, that is the main problem.
The biofuel had a major issue of food supply competion against human, a possible contribution to current poverty of the world. Also environment issues like deforestation for land to grow more crops, which then results in other issues like soil erosions, reduction in biodiversity and water resources, loss of plants to reduce carbon dioxide, etc. The hidden cost of biofuel is intensively debatable.

The best solutions to replace fossil fuel power supply is really using the renewable energies such as solar power, wind power, hydro power, geothermal energy, or the few known aquamarine energy.

 

[DerMißingno]

You quite clearly said in the OP that "we are clearly past the point where we need to use coal"...and your solution to using coal is to use coal from another part of the country?

I know what I said, and I stand by that. We are past the point where we need to use coal, but we do anyway. I also said I'm not stupid enough to think we can rebuild the entire infrastructure overnight.

 

[Untouchables_666]

Its interesting reading this thread, comparing a coal plants to nuclear power plants based on safety concerns, while a Nuclear power plant can experience a greater disaster than coal plants the immediate effects to the environment are significantly less, the major problem with the nuclear plants is obviously the cost, with time this should decrease.

 

[Dorothy]

What would you propose using in the meantime?

Nuclear? Seeing how that is the best way to reliably secure power with no CO2, it's the best option if you ask me, and investing in better nuclear technology is one step until we have better solutions for renewable energy.

That, or basically anything that doesn't kill the environment and kill people... Coal causes a bunch of problems, investing more into coal is like walking willingly into a minefield.

a) Nuclear power is costly to get up and going. If you're going to use it, you'd want in to be a long term thing. Not a gap solution.
b) Fukushima/Chenobyl

Both of the incidents you mention were outliers. Generally speaking, nuclear power is incredibly safe.

 

[DerMißingno]

For anyone who's interested, here is a nifty image to help understand radiation doses. Relevant because it compares radiation doses from living near a nuclear power plant to living near a coal plant.

Spoiler