It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants cuts short the lives of over 30,000 people each year.
www.ecomall.com...
A power plant has overexposed its workers to radiation, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing a fine. The plant, though, is not a reactor; it runs on coal. green.blogs.nytimes.com...
In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. www.scientificamerican.com...
But among the most intriguing stats that Downs includes in his report is that “the average coal plant releases 100 times more annual radiation than a comparable nuclear plant.” www.cnbc.com...
While the official severity of the Fukushima nuclear disaster was raised today, very little attention seems to be expended to the millions of people who will die as a result of coal-related accidents, pollution and climate change. breakthrougheurope.org...
This is about 3% of world total CO2 emissions (partly because the hydrogen in gasoline-diesel makes it relatively low carbon intensity (to coal) fuel).
It is said that the coal fires burning in China alone emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the cars and light trucks in the U.S. www.celsias.com...
Internationally, thousands of underground coal fires are burning now. The problem is most acute in industrializing, coal-rich nations such as China. Global coal fire emission are estimated to include 40 tons of mercury going into the atmosphere annually, and three percent of the world's annual CO2emissions. en.wikipedia.org...
A fuller list (without but the honesty of a disclaimer) is here: www.guardian.co.uk...
The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry.
en.wikipedia.org...
deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total” www.appinsys.com...
Tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions.[32] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changedeforestation, mainly in tropical areas, could account for up to one-third of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.[33] But recent calculations suggest that carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (excluding peatland emissions) contribute about 12% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions with a range from 6 to 17% en.wikipedia.org...
In 1999, EPA estimated that approximately 75 tons of mercury were found in the coal delivered to power plants each year and about two thirds of this mercury was emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually.
The multibillion pound project would take plutonium – the residue from the UK's nuclear power plants – and use it as fuel for a 600MW reactor that could provide power for 750,000 homes, according to GE Hitachi.
www.guardian.co.uk...
IFR-style reactors produce much less waste than LWR-style reactors, and can even consume other waste as fuel. en.wikipedia.org...
An investigation by AP reveals how the industry has found a simple solution to ageing: weaken safety standards until creaking plants meet them
www.guardian.co.uk...
It is estimated that the NRC would take five years to approve a conventional reactor — that’s stated as a hypothetical because none have ever actually been approved. The idea of dealing with an exotic new technology is enough to give the Commission a nervous breakdown.
www.freerepublic.com...
The NRC is expected to take at least three years to approve it, due to a backlog of applications at the agency discovermagazine.com...:int=1&-C=
The commission voted to immediately approve the design. This unusual step bypasses the usual 30 day waiting period. Why the concern about a 30 day waiting period after taking 4 ½ years to approve the design is unclear.
www.markstechtock.com...
A United Nations report said Monday that the number of people killed in almost 20 years since the world's worst nuclear accident is 56 - much lower than previously estimated. www.cbc.ca...
Taking in this consideration, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) put the global death toll closer to 27,000 rather than 16,000. ecocentric.blogs.time.com...
Originally posted by SpearMint
We shouldn't use nuclear power until we can be sure something won't go wrong, and there's a method that can't be turned into nuclear weapons. Cons far out way the pros, look ta Fukushima, that's what can go wrong, except it could have much worse consequences.edit on 11/27/10 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by SpearMint
There are over 400 nuclear power stations in operation all over the world right now and hundreds of nuclear powered marine vessels.
And 2 have gone wrong because of extremely serious and grave human error.
Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by SpearMint
The point being it is not a fault of the technology, it is a fault with the people who use it and that is soley where the blame lies.
And is 2 disasters too many? Im not really sure if it is.
Thats less than half a percent failure rate.
Pretty good to be honest, better than cars.
Originally posted by Ixtab
reply to post by SpearMint
Oh right, so Airplanes, Cruise Liners, Trains, Subways.........1 disaster is one too many right?
Hey I know, lets stop using all those things, thats clearly going to help the planet.
What about the water supply?, thats a mass poisoning waiting to happen, and as you say, people always make mistakes!, human error and all that. Right, thats the water board gone aswell.
See, what you should be campaigning for is safer nuclear awareness and safer nuclear technology, not trying to stop it. Its ridiculous.
I'm not talking about an earthquake, I'm talking about the potential consequences if ANYTHING should go wrong for any reason. Fukushima was just an example.
The failings of the Fukushima nuclear reactor were so substantial that three General Electric scientists who helped design the now imperiled reactors resigned from the company.
newsfeed.time.com...–-35-years-ago/
and there's a method that can't be turned into nuclear weapons.
So why has it taken so long for thorium to hit the nuclear power agenda? The key reason seems to be that because it can't be used to make a nuclear bomb, it was largely ignored during the Manhattan project and in the development of nuclear power stations that followed.
www.gizmag.com...
Self-regulation of the IFR's power level depends mainly on thermal expansion of the fuel which allows more neutrons to escape, damping the chain reaction. LWRs have less effect from thermal expansion of fuel (since much of the core is the neutron moderator) but have strong negative feedback fromDoppler broadening (which acts on thermal and epithermal neutrons, not fast neutrons) and negativevoid coefficient from boiling of the water moderator/coolant; the less dense steam returns fewer and less-thermalized neutrons to the fuel, which are more likely to be captured by U-238 than induce fissions. However, the IFR's positive void coefficient could be reduced to an acceptable level by adding technetium to the core, helping destroy the long-lived fission product technetium-99 by nuclear transmutation in the process.[10]
IFRs are able to withstand both a loss of flow without SCRAM and loss of heat sink without SCRAM. In addition to passive shutdown of the reactor, the convection current generated in the primary coolant system will prevent fuel damage (core meltdown). These capabilities were demonstrated in the EBR-II.[11] The ultimate goal is that no radioactivity will be released under any circumstance.
en.wikipedia.org...
Fukushima was built near a fault line, and it wasn't designed properly. It was recommended that it be built to withstand 30 foot tidal waves. They built it so it could withstand 10 foot tidal waves. And it was hit by a 25 foot tidal wave. If they had designed it properly, instead of cutting corners so they could save a buck, it would have never happened.
Originally posted by Ixtab
The problem with nuclear power however, well at least in the UK we simply do not have the money nor the intellectual pool of proffesional scientists who would be to succesfuly operate and maintain up to date nuclear reactors.
So we rely on Coal and Gas. Only 20% of our energy comes from nuclear oddly, even though it really should be the future of energy generation.
But that’s the problem... You can’t trust them... they will never build them to a safe standard because it’s all about making money. The fat bloke with a cigar on a yacht in the Caribbean really doesn’t give a crap about radioactive waste being dumped in the ground 2000 miles away.
edit on 18-5-2012 by Muckster because: (no reason given)