Some old yet still relevant and stunning information follows that I obtained from Tom Gray and others regarding coal combustion:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Not only is ~10^10 tons/yr carbon becoming resident in the atmosphere due to coal combustion, but coal combustion alone adds 22,000 curies/yr of radiactivity to the biosphere. That's ~8x10^14 nuclear disintegrations/sec of new rads. How does this relate to a typical coal fired utility of 1000 MWe? The Radon-222 component alone adds about 2 Ci per 1000 MWe/yr, about 2250 Ci worldwide (~9x10^13 dis/sec), that is entirely exhausted up the stack. Its halflife of 3.8 days means that Rn-222 that goes up returns as fallout in the form of decay chain species of alpha and beta emitters including Pb-210, Bi-210 and Po-210 (Pb-210 halflife is 21 yrs). These rads are in the catagory of Class 1, Very High Radiotoxicity substances. As an example, Po-210 is about 10^5 times more radiotoxic than Pu-239 - the stuff whose mention strikes intense anquish in the hearts of mankind. In terms of relative radiotoxicities, coal exhausts are equivalent to quite a lot of new biospheric additions of Pu-239, but entirely acceptable to the public because coal is OK. Policy makers have our best interests in hand with worldwide coal combustion projected to be more than double the 1990 level by the year 2015. See <http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html> Whatever numbers are used in calculating rad components in coal, the results are big because so much coal is burned. The primary source of the uranium and thorium in coal is due to earth's hydrology, filtering ground water that has seeped through igneous deposits over geological time frames. What's instructive about the trend of increasing coal combustion is that regs are tight for nuclear plants to prevent rad releases, but coal goes un-fettered. The literature (Science, McBride et al 12/8/78) says the ratio of rad releases from nuc/coal is about 100/1, and about 4/1 for the entire nuclear fuel cycle (NCRP Reports 92 & 93). More energy resides in the nuclear component in coal than in the coal itself due to the nuc/chem energy ratio of 5M/1. Other minerals of worth constitute about $200M/yr unrecovered in the US alone, millions of tons each year of unutilized aluminum, iron, magnesium, titanium, etc from about 73 elements. Given stated worldwide commitments to ecologically sustainable technologies for the future (fusion is certainly a leading candidate), ponder the releases from coal, along with declines in fusion and basic research, and wonder if more hot air than commitment is present. There's the Resource Conservaton and Recovery Act saying not to waste resources, yet more Al is exhausted in coal ash than the aluminum industry produces. The Energy Conservation Act: more energy resides in the nuclear component of coal than its chemical component and all of it is wasted. Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, each well intended and showing positive results in the US, but what will happen worldwide as coal combustion grows to meet objectives, for instance China's plan to increase coal combustion 8x by 2015? National priorities resident in similara laws, such as environmental protection and restoration regs, that are increasingly under attack as encumberances to industry and profits. If the world really wants ecologically sustainable technologies, coal is an enormously valuable resource with vast untapped potential, more than $1 trillion/year world wide in mineral and energy wealth. Then there's the proliferation issue. For example, what's to become of millions of tons of uranium and thorium freely exhausted with coal combustion over the years? In a single year's worth of coal production today is 68,000 kg of U-235, and via the net Greenpeace has told the world how to make it into bombs. How much energy? The 68,000 kg of U-235 equates to 377 Mtons of coal. At $17/ton at the mine, that's $6 trillion alone in coal value. Clearly, resource money should be available to support research and create jobs (at home even) to work on these problems. There are ecomominc, security, and even political benefits to be had by going after the energy problem vigorously. A watered down pablum is no answer to feed the masses. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regards, Horace Heffner
