Russia’s Coal Collapse signals the end of the fossil era. From bankrupt mines to battery booms, the global energy transition is accelerating but facing political resistance.
Coal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants, even if you take all the accidents into account.
In a way yes, but only in the sense that nuclear waste is supposed to be well contained and stored for disposal. Still, the accidents are not taken into account, at least in the studies I took a look at. If you have any that says otherwise, please share.
The waste part, for some reason, I thought it was kinda implied. Thanks, anyways.
The part that you say more or less that coal plants produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants even if we take into account nuclear accidents, is the one that made me wonder tbh.
Btw, perhaps, one of the most famous papers about this topic was written in 1978 [abstract, [full pdf](file:///home/myname/Downloads/9362611%20(1).pdf) ], but it doesn’t mention accidents. Actually, in the abstract they say that the study does not even assess, the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy. This one, from 2021, doesn’t talk about accidents, either.
I thought you might have a relevant article or something to share about the accident part you mentionned?
An early estimate for total nuclear fuel material released to the environment was 3±1.5%; this was later revised to 3.5±0.5%. This corresponds to the atmospheric emission of 6 tonnes (5.9 long tons; 6.6 short tons) of fragmented fuel.
The 770 PBq figure is about 15% of the Chernobyl release of 5200 PBq iodine-131 equivalent.
While there remains uncertainty about the amount of radioactive material released from Fukushima, it’s certainly below half of what Chernobyl produced.
From the earlier posted link about coal power plants:
[E]very [coal power] station creates fly ash containing around 5-10 tonnes of uranium and thorium each year.
Now, I totally get that the kind of radioactive materials released by a nuclear accident are different from what comes out of coal plants, and that a concetrated release is more dire than a diluted one - but given that there are ~2500 coal-fired power plants in the world, that means that coal plants produce about 12,500 to 25,000 tons of radiactive material every year.
If what is certainly the worst nuclear disaster produced just 6 tons, I believe that “including accidents” is not inaccurate.
Here’s a fact: Coal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants, even if you take all the accidents into account.
Yikes. TIL
In a way yes, but only in the sense that nuclear waste is supposed to be well contained and stored for disposal. Still, the accidents are not taken into account, at least in the studies I took a look at. If you have any that says otherwise, please share.
Ah, I misspoke. Waste. @magnetosphere@fedia.io dropped this above.
The waste part, for some reason, I thought it was kinda implied. Thanks, anyways.
The part that you say more or less that coal plants produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants even if we take into account nuclear accidents, is the one that made me wonder tbh.
Btw, perhaps, one of the most famous papers about this topic was written in 1978 [abstract, [full pdf](file:///home/myname/Downloads/9362611%20(1).pdf) ], but it doesn’t mention accidents. Actually, in the abstract they say that the study does not even assess, the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy. This one, from 2021, doesn’t talk about accidents, either.
I thought you might have a relevant article or something to share about the accident part you mentionned?
Right up front, I want to sincerely thank you for insisting that I back up my claims. Not kidding, not internet sarcasm; I truly appreciate it.
Let’s take a look here.
According to Wikipedia, at Chernobyl:
Data on Fukushima is more difficult to find, but the World Nuclear Association estimates that:
While there remains uncertainty about the amount of radioactive material released from Fukushima, it’s certainly below half of what Chernobyl produced.
From the earlier posted link about coal power plants:
Now, I totally get that the kind of radioactive materials released by a nuclear accident are different from what comes out of coal plants, and that a concetrated release is more dire than a diluted one - but given that there are ~2500 coal-fired power plants in the world, that means that coal plants produce about 12,500 to 25,000 tons of radiactive material every year.
If what is certainly the worst nuclear disaster produced just 6 tons, I believe that “including accidents” is not inaccurate.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone a “nature preserve,” but…
in a similar note, the DMZ is also very similar, a nature safe haven for endemic species, that was largely extirpated from the rest of both koreas.