On Feb 27, 2006, at 4:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Coal fired plants are a significant source of ionizing radiation,
also.
Yes indeed. An old post on this (edited for spelling) follows.
However, it is notable that the new emissions free technologies for
sequestering CO2 may solve this problem.
Resent-From: [email protected]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Coal combustion no option
Date: December 8, 2004 3:19:32 PM AKST
To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
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
radioactivity 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 half-life 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 half-life is 21 yrs).
These rads
are in the category of Class 1, Very High Radio-toxicity substances.
As an
example, Po-210 is about 10^5 times more radio-toxic than Pu-239 -
the stuff
whose mention strikes intense anguish in the hearts of mankind. In
terms of
relative radio-toxicities, 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
regulations are tight for nuclear plants to prevent rad releases, but
coal goes
unfettered. 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 nonrecovered in the US alone, millions of tons
each year of non-utilized 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
Conservation 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 similar laws, such as environmental protection
and
restoration regulations, that are increasingly under attack as
encumbrances 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 economic,
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
