According to SciAM “the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. 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.” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste . Yet we continue to develop coal power plants – see http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.aspx - but there has been no ground-breaking on new nuclear plants in the United States since 1974. For the existing nuclear power plants following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced a comprehensive safety review of the 104 nuclear power reactors across the United States. What should we be doing for new energy? Is coal the way to go?
Your are right - nuclear plants have started to be built again. After the Three Mile Island accident planned nuclear projects were canceled. However construction of new nuclear power plants started again in 2013. In 2013, four old reactors were closed: San Onofre 2-3 in California, Crystal River 3 in Florida, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin with Vermont trying to close Vermont Yankee and New York wanting to close a plant near New York City. Loss of nuclear power capacity would be offset by five new nuclear reactors currently under construction. I believe the problems with nuclear power are the waste questions, which have never been addressed, and the risk from unexpected accidents, which is generally more frightening to the public because their knowledge is limited. Coal has real problems but the effects are more gradual and long term, like getting cancer from smoking, and it is more familiar, so the risk is perceived as less than it is. Also the radiation and climate impacts from coal are not as obvious to people as the nuclear risks and the technology is less complex.
How much Hazardous is the process of conversion of coal into clean gas??Because that may be a way forward
Installing Solar thermal plants will greatly reduce consumption of fuel(Coal) in power plants.
I think Nuclear is a clean way of producing energy, but safety is the big question mark, as we know from Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disasters. The nuclear power plant regulation must be review in order to make is much safer and also the radioactive waste produced from power plant must have strict regulation about radioactive waste management.
I am very surprised to see the article that burning of coal produced more radioactive waste as compared to nuclear, and also surprising that US has not build Nuclear power plant since 1974.
would you like to tell me the reason behind this?
Your are right - nuclear plants have started to be built again. After the Three Mile Island accident planned nuclear projects were canceled. However construction of new nuclear power plants started again in 2013. In 2013, four old reactors were closed: San Onofre 2-3 in California, Crystal River 3 in Florida, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin with Vermont trying to close Vermont Yankee and New York wanting to close a plant near New York City. Loss of nuclear power capacity would be offset by five new nuclear reactors currently under construction. I believe the problems with nuclear power are the waste questions, which have never been addressed, and the risk from unexpected accidents, which is generally more frightening to the public because their knowledge is limited. Coal has real problems but the effects are more gradual and long term, like getting cancer from smoking, and it is more familiar, so the risk is perceived as less than it is. Also the radiation and climate impacts from coal are not as obvious to people as the nuclear risks and the technology is less complex.
I'm very interested in the Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactor design.
It has yet to be built as a power generator but the original work at Oak Ridge in the 1960's was promising. There are a number of web sites that claim that thorium is much more common than uranium, thorium consumes much more of itself 99% and the wastes are short lived or useful to NASA deep space probes. Further, the US have a 1000ys worth of the stuff, the LFTR design is a low pressure design and can not explode. The LFTR reactor can be made small enough to fit on a tractor trailer and be moved to locations without power. See:http://energyfromthorium.com/
Exactly John Tainer, general public are unaware of the benefit of producing energy through nuclear plant, they are actually frightened in term of unexpected accident that may occur, which i think is fairly a rare chance.
Anyhow, nuclear is the safe way of producing energy. I strongly believe on nuclear power of producing energy.
Besides its social acceptance and the problem of handling radioactive waste, the economic appraisal of nuclear energy compared to coal and gas, its main competitors, is the most controversial item in the current debate on energy resources.
The most prestigious international research bodies and Universities have undertaken significant studies on costs and competitiveness. However, the conclusions drawn have very often been discordant and the inconsistent findings hint that estimating costs of nuclear energy is a task beset with uncertainty. How can this uncertainty be handled in real terms?
The future of nuclear power in Europe is unclear, in the next two decades it is forecast that several plants will be demolished because of age and in order to maintain the current share of nuclear power in the energy mix would therefore require either that new reactors be built or that the output of existing ones be increased
I agree with Williams's point that one needs to look at whole systems and multiple possibilities in comparative ways rather than single choices. My understanding is that coal and nuclear are two of the main current energy sources in the U.S. and that new energy plants of both could in principle be built and are being built, so it might be worth considering the evidence supporting one versus the other. U.S. power production sources in 2012 were: Coal 37%; Natural Gas 30%; Nuclear 19%, Hydropower 7%. Of these I would assume hydropower might be best and natural gas next in terms of human health and environment. Hydropower plants are more restricted in where they can be built. Natural gas may make sense over nuclear except for the carbon production. I am not sure coal plants make as much sense but this is something I am interested in understanding better.
Despite the concern about CO2 emission from coal, it still represents one of the cheapest way of generating base-load power supply and it is a lot safer than nuclear when things goes wrong. What many people still do not realise is that there has been a concerted global research effort to improve power generation from coal through CO2 capture. At present, work on several pilot plants have demonstrated that up to 90% or more of CO2 emitted from power generation can be captured. I admit there is still more work to be done before this technology is fully implemented at a reasonable cost, but what has been achieved so far has progressed to demonstration plant stage. Wider implementation and adoption could happen in the next 5-10 years and if it does, it could be a huge game-changer in the energy and climate change debate. The attached article gives you more information on one of the most advanced CO2 capture technology from coal power plants.
Article Towards Commercial Scale Postcombustion Capture of CO2 with ...
Really interesting to know this!!
One way out of this is to use and develop more and more Hydro Power Plants.
Channelizing of the existing rivers at a place can be done to feed places where there are no rivers and then Hydro Plants can be built there.
Perennial rivers should be paid special attention to.
of course channeling rivers has impacts too. Damns bury beautiful valleys and land under water with impacts to wild life and the environment. Again it's worth considering the tradeoffs that happen when you want power and which ones might be best choices.
I agree with William..
My two cents to this thread.. we need to curb our power consumption first, rather than increase our production! Ofcourse it is a two fold issue - social as well as technology..
Often people claim that quality of life is directly proportional to availability of electricity - This, in my opinion is absolutely false.. A quick comparison of electricity consumption in 2011.. :
(refer - http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?country=USA&product=indicators&year=2011)
EU-27 (~ 6MWh/capita)
USA ( ~ 13MWh/capita)
Assuming that the quality of life in EU & US is almost the same, the above numbers show that the same quality of life can be ensured with less than half the electricity consumption.. we are not even getting into total energy consumption here!
We can make better lifestyle choices and make people around us aware about these issues!
Coal and nuclear energy are part of the energy mix of several countries and this situation will not change during the coming years. Several countries cannot exclude the use of coal or nuclear energy for the generation of electricity during the coming decades. But what these countries could do is to apply the latest coal technology for the capture of CO2 and built what is known as Generation III and Generation III + nuclear power reactors until that the so-called Generation IV is in the market around 2040-2050.
The participation of coal in the generation of electricity worldwide is the following:World coal production is expected to increase over the next ten to fifteen years by about 30 %, mainly driven by Australia, China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and South Africa. Production will then reach a plateau and will eventually decline thereafter. The main European hard coal producers in 2009 were Russia with 3.8 % of the world total, followed by Poland with 1.3 %. The main European brown coal producers in 2009 were also Russia with 7.4 % of the world total, followed by Poland with 6.2 %. The main European hard coal exporters in 2009 were Russia with 11.1 % of the world total, followed by the Czech Republic with 0.5 %. The main European hard coal importers in 2009 were Germany with 4.6 % of the world total, followed by the UK with 4.6 %, Turkey with 2.4 %, Italy with 2.3 %, and Spain with 1.9 %.
The participation of nuclear energy in the energy mix of several countries in the coming decades is the following: There are several nuclear power reactors that are going to be built in the coming years most of them currently planned are in the Asian region, with fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand. In all, about 160 nuclear power reactors with a total net capacity of some 177,000 MWe are planned and over 320 more are proposed.
In the USA there are plans for 13 new reactors, while five more are under review. it is expected that some of the new reactors will be on line by 2020.
In Finland, construction is now under way on a fifth, very large reactor which will come on line in 2014, and plans are firming for another large one to follow it.
France is building a similar 1600 MWe unit at Flamanville, for operation from 2016, and a second may follow it at Penly.
In the UK, four similar 1600 MWe units are planned for operation by 2019, and a further 6000 MWe is proposed.
Romania's second power reactor is started up in 2007, and plans are being implemented for two further Canadian units to operate by 2017.
Slovakia is completing two 470 MWe units at Mochovce, to operate from 2014.
Bulgaria is planning to build a large new reactor at Kozloduy.
Belarus is planning two large new Russian reactors at Ostrovets, the first to start in 2019.
In Russia, ten reactors are under active construction, one being a large fast neutron reactor. About 14 further reactors are then planned, some to replace existing plants, and by 2017 ten new reactors totalling at least 9.2 GWe should be operating. Further reactors up to 21 are planned to add new capacity. A small floating power plant is expected to be completed by 2014 and others are planned to follow.
Poland is planning two 3000 MWe nuclear power plants.
South Korea plans to bring a further further four reactors into operation by 2017, and another five by 2021, giving a total new capacity of 12,200 MWe.
In China, now with 15 operating reactors on the mainland. Some 26 reactors are under construction and many more are likely to be so in 2012. China aims at least to quadruple its nuclear capacity from that operating and under construction by 2020. On Taiwan, Taipower is building two advanced reactors (ABWR) at Lungmen.
India has 20 reactors in operation, and seven under construction (two expected to be completed in 2013). Twenty further units are planned. 18 further units are planned, and proposals for more - including western and Russian designs - are taking shape following the lifting of trade restrictions.
Pakistan has third and fourth 300 MWe reactors under construction at Chashma, financed by China. There are plans for more Chinese power reactors.
In Kazakhstan, a joint venture with Russia's Atomstroyexport envisages development and marketing of innovative small and medium-sized reactors, starting with a 300 MWe Russian design as baseline for Kazakh units.
In Iran nuclear power plant construction was suspended in 1979 but in 1995 Iran signed an agreement with Russia to complete a 1000 MWe PWR at Bushehr. This started up in 2011 and was grid connected in August. The country is thinking to build a second reactor.
The United Arab Emirates has awarded a $20.4 billion contract to a South Korean consortium to build four 1400 MWe reactors by 2020. Jordan has committed plans for its first reactor to be operating by 2020, and is developing its legal and regulatory infrastructure.
Turkey has contracts signed for four 1200 MWe Russian nuclear reactors at one site and is negotiating similar capacity at another.
Vietnam has committed plans for its first reactors at two sites (2x2000 MWe), to be operating by 2020.
Everyone agrees that the energy future involves reeducating ourselves to live more efficiently, waste less, and use friendlier sources of energy. But it is naive to think that efficiency alone will solve the energy demand problem. Even if everyone agreed to change their lifestyle to live under more efficient and productive criteria, that would take a couple of generations to be implemented. Energy demand will continue to increase for the forthcoming decades due to the enhanced standard of living in developing nations.
Nuclear energy is the only solution in the short/mid term to avoid filling that demand gap with coal or other dirty fuels. The public's concern is unfounded. Nuclear energy is to the energy sector what air travel is to the transportation sector: the safest mean but the most feared. Let's also be reasonable about this.
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) released the new report on 8 February 2017, which is freely downloadable from
http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2016/UNSCEAR_2016_Report.pdf
This "UNSCEAR 2016" report discusses dose from various electricity-generating technologies.
It was found that the coal cycle contributed more than half of the total radiation dose to the global public from electricity generation, and that the nuclear fuel cycle contributed less than a fifth of this. This estimate was made as of 2010 when 40% and 13% of energy were produced by the coal cycle and the nuclear fuel cycle, respectively.
The report further evaluated radiation exposure per unit of electricity generated (again, using the data as of 2010), and concluded that in the short term, the values for the two main electricity generation technologies (coal and nuclear) are about the same. In the longer term such as hundreds of years, accumulation of very small doses from long-lived radionuclides result in larger collective doses from the nuclear fuel cycle.
However, a number of factors determine why countries may select a certain mix of energy generation technologies. Radiation exposure is only one of them.
I think the next fuel source will be thorium used in liquid salt reactors.
It is 95% consumed in the process with very little nuclear waste, and no CO2 production. A thorium reactor could help consume current stockpiles of waste Uranium materials. Thorium is a common over burden to rare-earth minerals so having a way to use it as nuclear fuel would help make rare-eath mining more worth while. Rick Maltese has also posted several very good videos and interviews ; See here : https://youtu.be/WbiheX0vTSA
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy