Studies show that ash from coal power plants contains significant quantities of arsenic, lead, thallium, mercury, uranium and thorium[1]. To generate the same amount of electricity, a coal power plant gives off at least ten times more radiation than a nuclear power plant.
The process of burning the coal concentrates contaminants of all kinds tenfold compared to their original concentration. So even if it isn’t significantly radioactive, we shouldn’t be allowing the other shit in there either.
I’m not defending coal energy. It’s a repeated and factually wrong claim from nuclear power proponents that trace radiation that is more concentrated in ash is somehow on par or even worse than nuclear waste or catastrophes. Just because that claim is wrong doesn’t automatically result in coal ash being fine and dandy.
never seen anyone claim that trace radiation from coal is more of a problem, just that it is a problem. cite someone making this “repeated” claim lol otherwise looks like u did a strawman
Arguing that coal ash is less bad than the very rare nuclear disasters is also a bad take IMO.
Both have issues. It doesn’t mean that we should abandon nuclear for coal, nor the other way around.
Personally I’m a fan of nuclear, and I’m against coal, but realistically, there’s too many data points to argue, and bluntly, I don’t have sufficient information at this time, to competently and fully argue either way.
Fact is, green energy, like solar and wind (among others) are better than both nuclear and coal (and even gas and whatnot). I just don’t want to pretend that either nuclear or coal is a better ecological choice than renewables.
Studies show that ash from coal power plants contains significant quantities of arsenic, lead, thallium, mercury, uranium and thorium[1]. To generate the same amount of electricity, a coal power plant gives off at least ten times more radiation than a nuclear power plant.
The process of burning the coal concentrates contaminants of all kinds tenfold compared to their original concentration. So even if it isn’t significantly radioactive, we shouldn’t be allowing the other shit in there either.
Don’t just tease us with a [1]
My apologies.
D. Grenêche, ‘Déchets radioactifs, la vérité des faits et l’exactitude des chiffres’, Revue nationale du nucléaire, 2019.
Coal energy shouldn’t be used anymore. Recently UK has closed the last coal plant. This is mainly due to renewable energies.
I’m not defending coal energy. It’s a repeated and factually wrong claim from nuclear power proponents that trace radiation that is more concentrated in ash is somehow on par or even worse than nuclear waste or catastrophes. Just because that claim is wrong doesn’t automatically result in coal ash being fine and dandy.
Both have a storage problem. But coal has a destroys the atmosphere problem. So, yes, trade-offs.
You’re moving the goalposts after they debunked the first claim.
“debunking” requires a source… otherwise they just put forth a claim
never seen anyone claim that trace radiation from coal is more of a problem, just that it is a problem. cite someone making this “repeated” claim lol otherwise looks like u did a strawman
Arguing that coal ash is less bad than the very rare nuclear disasters is also a bad take IMO.
Both have issues. It doesn’t mean that we should abandon nuclear for coal, nor the other way around.
Personally I’m a fan of nuclear, and I’m against coal, but realistically, there’s too many data points to argue, and bluntly, I don’t have sufficient information at this time, to competently and fully argue either way.
Fact is, green energy, like solar and wind (among others) are better than both nuclear and coal (and even gas and whatnot). I just don’t want to pretend that either nuclear or coal is a better ecological choice than renewables.