On Monday 27 February 2006 21:34, Horace Heffner wrote:
> 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Coal combustion no option
> Date: December 8, 2004 3:19:32 PM AKST
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> 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
]
Had an old engineering prof who said it short: "Coal is a garbagecan!"
He was referring to all the above radioactives and other substances in coal
that one might not want in the atmosphere.
The Chinese are proposing to go to the moon to mine helium-3 for fusion
fuel. They get there before us, our children may end up having to learn
Chinese. Certainly our grandchildren. Survival of the fittest. If we
cannot manage ourselves, others will find a use for us.
Our so called 'recovering space cadet' Jeffrey Bell would have us
go there in a tin can, and leave just as quickly. For that is all you can do
if your vehicle is no more substantial than a tin can the size of the old
Appollo. I wonder if that gentleman ever saw that old capsule that almost
got us marooned just like the Japanese movie: "Marooned". I had the glory of
working on it's electronic subsystems back in the sixties. Old stuff!
Discrete components and minumum integration except for 16 pin DIP simple IC's
containing four gates. That's right, f-o-u-r gates! You had your choice of
AND or NAND!
A better case for a crash program to build a power grid based on
the fast breeder cycle cannot be found given the certainty of wasted nuclear
fuel when coal is mass consumed as above. Eventually the fusion process
using helium-3 will come on line to replace and add to the fission power grid
as we gain in our space program or build a space elevator. The breeder cycle
is in our technical grasp now, however, and we would be foolish and/or
treasonous to our species and our nation if we did not use it. Whether this
cycle is used or not is not up to us anyway. The Chinese are actively
building it. The Japanese are as well. Yet here we are deluding ourselves
with visions of moral grandeur that exist only in the fools paradise that we
call our 'nonproliferation agreements' or 'protections against terrorism.
Every incremental rise in the price of fossil energy increases the pressure
around the world to build this. The asian powers actually admitting efforts
in this direction are only the tip of the iceberg.
And by the way, we are not going to stop either Iran nor Korea in
developing nuclear energy. We are stretched to the limit in Iraq! Notice
our fearless leader is'nt swaying India either. We have to look to our own
energy house first. In the nineteenth century, a nation's strength was often
'measured' by how much electric power they could produce, as without this
power to assist the labor force, a nation's productivity would be little
better that which could be attained by aboriginals. Do we want to become
twenty first century aboriginals. Like I said above, we all know what fate
has historically had in store for aboriginals.
Standing Bear
