Got journals? I’ll start with the first. Nuclear plants only have the potential to put more radioactivity into the environment. This is not born out in reality. It’s like saying flying on an airliner is more dangerous than driving because 270+ people get killed when they crash into the side of a mountain.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045

Radiation doses from airborne effluents of model coal-fired and nuclear power plants (1000 megawatts electric) are compared. Assuming a 1 percent ash release to the atmosphere (Environmental Protection Agency regulation) and 1 part per million of uranium and 2 parts per million of thorium in the coal (approximately the U.S. average), population doses from the coal plant are typically higher than those from pressurized-water or boiling-water reactors that meet government regulations. Higher radionuclide contents and ash releases are common and would result in increased doses from the coal plant. The study does not assess the impact of non-radiological pollutants or the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy.

……rid yourself of the issues that seem to be troubling you so much.

I will help me with my errant nasal hair issue ?

Cool

The study does not asses the impacts of the nuclear plant going tits up.

It’s like saying flying on an airliner is more dangerous than driving because 270+ people get killed when they crash into the side of a mountain.

OMG! Is this true? 😯

2 pages eh…I’d say 5+

Consequently, the energy content of nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is more than that of the coal consumed! Clearly, coal-fired power plants are not only generating electricity but are also releasing nuclear fuels whose commercial value for electricity production by nuclear power plants is over $7 trillion, more than the U.S. national debt. This figure is based on current nuclear utility fuel costs of 7 mils per kWh, which is about half the cost for coal. Consequently, significant quantities of nuclear materials are being treated as coal waste, which might become the cleanup nightmare of the future, and their value is hardly recognized at all.

How does the amount of nuclear material released by coal combustion compare to the amount consumed as fuel by the U.S. nuclear power industry? According to 1982 figures, 111 American nuclear plants consumed about 540 tons of nuclear fuel, generating almost 1.1 x 10E12 kWh of electricity. During the same year, about 801 tons of uranium alone were released from American coal-fired plants. Add 1971 tons of thorium, and the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels. The same conclusion applies for worldwide nuclear fuel and coal combustion.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Could anyone help me interprete this illustration, please?

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/
Isn’t it all a bit like the car v plane argument? More die in cars but a plane crash grabs more headlines. Or is it?

Has anyone seen the boobs thread on NSMB?

what type of power stations? Did you find evidence or correlations? What other factors were correlated with these problems?

?

I wonder how much plutonium is released / created by coal stations?

It does also amuse me that according to the nuclear apologists its dirty coal or nuclear – nothing else is possible and that apparently new nuclear tech will appear to make it all wonderful but coal can never be improved.

nuclear apologists

You use “apologist” about any-one who disagrees with you on pretty much everything. Makes you sound like a ****

Not to spoil the highly enjoyabe nuclear-vs-coal battle, but Japan seems to be turning to oil and natural gas to cover the gap rather than coal, according to most sources.

emsz – Member

nuclear apologists

You use “apologist” about any-one who disagrees with you on pretty much everything. Makes you sound like a ****

Thanks for that 🙂 Only cars and nukes normally

I wonder how much plutonium is released / created by coal stations?

I’ve had a quick Google and can’t find anything, so go on TJ, how much? Or in this case to support your argument, how little?

Could they be called nuclear deniers?

TJ, I’ve been following these nuclear debates on STW for a while now. Every single one ends with you saying no to nuclear. Do you have an alternative source of energy in mind? Unless we go back to the dark ages, are prepared to cover every inch of the country in windmills or just give up on any kind of CO2 controls, how else are we going to proved the power we all need?

ittaika

Been said many times and I really don’t want to go into it again. email in profile if interested but in a tiny nutshell

Energy conservation, alternative, conventional sources in a mix
Remember nuclear is only a small % of the UKs total energy needs

Although you might not be able to reduce the countries co2 production from electricity generation much but significant savings are also possible from other places.

It is possible for the UK to produce less CO2 overall and go nuclear free.

This thread is a honey trap for big hitters.

It might be worth making sure the mods have seen this thread; they’ll need to upgrade the servers before Tuesday morning when everyone’s back “working”.

Either that or they could just close it and link to the 10 pager a month or so ago.

It might be worth making sure the mods have seen this thread; they’ll need to upgrade the servers before Tuesday morning when everyone’s back “working”.

I think you’ll find the mods have already done their jobs. I’m sure it’ll be left open for the aspiring comediens to showcase their work though.

In the mean time.

Why is nuclear important?

Nuclear power is low-carbon, affordable, dependable, safe and capable of increasing diversity of energy supply.

It’s a road that has been far too well trodden though DS.

Someone check the “big hitters thread” rota!

Reasonable turnout thus far, but needs a few more suckers contributors to be lured in with the hope of a meaningful debate 🙂

“Hope of a meaningful debate”?

I’ve scanned this thread, can’t find any 😉

It is possible for the UK to produce even less CO2 overall and go nuclear coal free.

Although you might not be able to reduce the countries co2 production from electricity generation much but significant savings are also possible from other places.

Go on then….

Electricity instead of gas for heating as natural gas runs out

Electricity taking an increasing role in transportation as petrol and diesel run out

Sure – there’s less CO2 at the point of use, but you’ll still need to make that extra electricity from something.

buzz-lightyear –
Member
This thread is a honey trap for retards.

Ftfy