Comments on: Coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410 News & Perspective from the Center for Environmental Journalism Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:55:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Tim Bond http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410&cpage=1#comment-1834 Tim Bond Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:24:43 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410#comment-1834 Define "verge" please, because Fast Neutron Reactors might qualify better under the definition. What is astonishing from the outset, is that we would argue for any sequestration in the context of burning MORE coal versus burning fuel rods in negatively pressurized fully contained reactor vessels which have never failed in this country, ever. I mean lets be honest. It's great to work to limit and reduce the massive pollution being pumped out by the ton into our atmosphere and into our ground water by the coal burning power plants all over the world. It really is smart and admirable to do that. However, when we speak about NEW power plants, which is what this world needs now and well into the future; why on this green-turning black earth would we even entertain the burning of coal before safe, clean, green, abundant nuclear power? With the potential of Fast Neutron Reactors and other breeder types, on the "verge" nuclear fuel has a serious potential to be a real "renewable" source. Setting ore alone as a resource, uranium is found in the earth's crust, in our ocean water. After that Thorium is abundant as well. But once a breeder is successful, it produces fuel so we don't have to tap all these other natural sources nuclear fuel. Define “verge” please, because Fast Neutron Reactors might qualify better under the definition. What is astonishing from the outset, is that we would argue for any sequestration in the context of burning MORE coal versus burning fuel rods in negatively pressurized fully contained reactor vessels which have never failed in this country, ever. I mean lets be honest. It’s great to work to limit and reduce the massive pollution being pumped out by the ton into our atmosphere and into our ground water by the coal burning power plants all over the world. It really is smart and admirable to do that. However, when we speak about NEW power plants, which is what this world needs now and well into the future; why on this green-turning black earth would we even entertain the burning of coal before safe, clean, green, abundant nuclear power? With the potential of Fast Neutron Reactors and other breeder types, on the “verge” nuclear fuel has a serious potential to be a real “renewable” source. Setting ore alone as a resource, uranium is found in the earth’s crust, in our ocean water. After that Thorium is abundant as well. But once a breeder is successful, it produces fuel so we don’t have to tap all these other natural sources nuclear fuel.

]]> By: Michelle http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410&cpage=1#comment-1817 Michelle Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:53:11 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410#comment-1817 The concentrations are different - but one comparison to consider is that per watt generated a coal burning plant generates roughly twice as much uranium as a nuclear plant. There are pilot efforts to extract the uranium from ash/slag heaps, concentrations verge on making this economically feasible. The concentrations are different - but one comparison to consider is that per watt generated a coal burning plant generates roughly twice as much uranium as a nuclear plant. There are pilot efforts to extract the uranium from ash/slag heaps, concentrations verge on making this economically feasible.

]]> By: Tim Bond http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410&cpage=1#comment-1786 Tim Bond Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:51:05 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410#comment-1786 My apologies for the typos. I'm my own worst enemy when it comes to self-editing. By the way, my reactions are intended for the original post, not other replies, although they may apply. My apologies for the typos. I’m my own worst enemy when it comes to self-editing. By the way, my reactions are intended for the original post, not other replies, although they may apply.

]]> By: Tim Bond http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410&cpage=1#comment-1772 Tim Bond Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:34:09 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410#comment-1772 Here's your Fly Ash: CHRONIC EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE: Excessive exposures to respirable particulate (dust) over an extended period of time may result in the development of pulmonary diseases such as silicosis The following carcinogenicity classifications for crystalline silica have been established by the following agencies: IARC: Group 1 carcinogenic in humans NIOSH: Carcinogen, with no further categorization NTP: Known Carcinogen Material may contain crystalline silica, a chemical that has been determined by the agencies listed above to cause cancer and other chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm. Inhalation of dust above established or recommended exposure levels should be avoided by use of proper ventilation and/or use of NIOSH approved respirator. But the main point is that this stuff is pumped into our atmosphere hourly, each year tens of millions of tons! During 1996, the most recent year for which ash statistics are currently available, the electrical utility industry in the United States generated approximately 53.5 million metric tons (59.4 million tons) of coal fly ash. Until 1996, the amount of fly ash produced annually had remained roughly the same since 1977, ranging from 42.9 to 49.7 million metric tons (47.2 to 54.8 million tons).(2) After the Clinton Gore Administration coal fired electricity has increased, as a direct result of Al Gore preventing more nuclear power. In terms of product coal is nuclear power's only competition. Approximately 100 coal fired plants at about 1000 megawatts each have been built since Al Gore was VP. Somebody tell me how much fly ash that is? Here’s your Fly Ash:

CHRONIC EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE:
Excessive exposures to respirable particulate (dust) over an extended period of time may result in the development of pulmonary diseases such as silicosis

The following carcinogenicity classifications for crystalline silica have been established by the following agencies: IARC: Group 1 carcinogenic in humans NIOSH: Carcinogen, with no further categorization NTP: Known Carcinogen

Material may contain crystalline silica, a chemical that has been determined by the agencies listed above to cause cancer and other chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm. Inhalation of dust above established or recommended exposure levels should be avoided by use of proper ventilation and/or use of NIOSH approved respirator.

But the main point is that this stuff is pumped into our atmosphere hourly, each year tens of millions of tons!

During 1996, the most recent year for which ash statistics are currently available, the electrical utility industry in the United States generated approximately 53.5 million metric tons (59.4 million tons) of coal fly ash. Until 1996, the amount of fly ash produced annually had remained roughly the same since 1977, ranging from 42.9 to 49.7 million metric tons (47.2 to 54.8 million tons).(2)

After the Clinton Gore Administration coal fired electricity has increased, as a direct result of Al Gore preventing more nuclear power. In terms of product coal is nuclear power’s only competition. Approximately 100 coal fired plants at about 1000 megawatts each have been built since Al Gore was VP. Somebody tell me how much fly ash that is?

]]> By: Tim Bond http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410&cpage=1#comment-1771 Tim Bond Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:58:26 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410#comment-1771 This is just patently DUMB. Who cares whether spent nuclear fuel is more radioactive. What matters is what is expelled into the environment. You have to put yourself in a position to defend the likes of thorium spewing coal fired power plants to make this point, and all for what? Do you understand that for over 50 years we have been generating so-called "nuclear waste" and where are all the problems? The anti-nuclear lobbyists have worked to prevent it from being stored in a central depository, so the spent fuel remains on site in dry casks when the run out of room in the pools, and STILL no problems. You call it "waste" but none of you even account for the fact that over 92% of the energy originally found in it, remains to be used. So, if your own garbage had that much value, would you call it throw it out? The reality is that because of stringent NRC and EPA standards it's far safer for someone to live near a nuclear power plant than to stand next to the granite statue in the U.S. Capital building, and far more safe than breathing the dirty fly ash which contains thorium and sulfur dioxide and all sorts of other nastys. Before people even begin to discuss the issue of what they call "nuclear waste" they ought to take some time to learn what exactly the material IS, they are prognosticating about. This is just patently DUMB. Who cares whether spent nuclear fuel is more radioactive. What matters is what is expelled into the environment. You have to put yourself in a position to defend the likes of thorium spewing coal fired power plants to make this point, and all for what? Do you understand that for over 50 years we have been generating so-called “nuclear waste” and where are all the problems? The anti-nuclear lobbyists have worked to prevent it from being stored in a central depository, so the spent fuel remains on site in dry casks when the run out of room in the pools, and STILL no problems. You call it “waste” but none of you even account for the fact that over 92% of the energy originally found in it, remains to be used. So, if your own garbage had that much value, would you call it throw it out? The reality is that because of stringent NRC and EPA standards it’s far safer for someone to live near a nuclear power plant than to stand next to the granite statue in the U.S. Capital building, and far more safe than breathing the dirty fly ash which contains thorium and sulfur dioxide and all sorts of other nastys. Before people even begin to discuss the issue of what they call “nuclear waste” they ought to take some time to learn what exactly the material IS, they are prognosticating about.

]]> By: Robert C. Duncan http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410&cpage=1#comment-207 Robert C. Duncan Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:42:23 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410#comment-207 You have missed the point of the Scientific American article. It is obviously not true that coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste, because nuclear waste is so concentrated. However, coal-burning plants do release more radioactivity into the environment than do nuclear plants. Moreover, the number of radioactive atoms emitted per year into the environment by a coal plant is about 1.5 times the number of radioactive atoms which go into (fully contained and stored) nuclear waste of a nuclear plant producing the same amount of electricity. The coal waste is less radioactive just because the radioactive atoms are dispersed within a huge amount of non-radioactive (yet environmentally harmful) material: carbon dioxide, fly ash, scrubber sludge and other gaseous emissions; and because the radioactive half-lives of the uranium and thorium from coal waste is much longer than that of some components of nuclear waste. To be more specific... Coal contains uranium, thorium, radium, radon and other radioactive elements at typical concentrations of several parts per million, ranging up to 50 parts per million or more [see references given below]. This gets concentrated tenfold in coal ash and in airborne particulates (smoke). The amount of radioactive uranium and thorium discharged by U.S. coal-fired plants is roughly 3000 tons per year: 1 ½ times more radioactive atoms (with nearly the same uranium isotope-mix) as from nuclear plants. Nuclear-nuclear waste does contain short-lived radioactive components which are significantly more dangerous; however, this stuff is completely contained, whereas coal-nuclear waste is dumped in landfills and the atmosphere. A careful estimate (J.P. McBride et al, Science 202, 1978) shows that people living near U.S. coal plants receive higher doses of radioactivity than those living near nuclear plants, although coal’s other ravages are worse. The main reference for the paragraph is “Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants” by J.P.McBride, R.E. Moore, J.P. Witherspoon and R.E. Blanco, Science, 8 December 1978, Vol. 202, Number 4372, pp. 1045-1050 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/4372/1045 A draft version of this article is available in pdf format at http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1977/3445605115087.pdf See also http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/144/3616/288 Regarding the total number of atoms in "coal nuclear waste"... Table ES1 of the “Electric Power Annual” http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html says that U.S. coal-fired electrical plants consumed 1.04 billion tons of coal in 2006. McBride et al (previous paragraph) estimate that U.S. coal contains, on average, 1 part per million uranium and 2 parts per million thorium. Thus the annual output of these two radioactive elements from coal-fired plants is roughly 1000 and 2000 tons, respectively. The radioactive waste from all U.S. nuclear plants amounts to 2000 tons annually, of which about 95% is uranium, with a nearly natural isotope ratio (mostly U-238, with 0.9% U-235; as compared to 0.7% U-235 in natural uranium from mines and in coal). You have missed the point of the Scientific American article.

It is obviously not true that coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste, because nuclear waste is so concentrated. However, coal-burning plants do release more radioactivity into the environment than do nuclear plants. Moreover, the number of radioactive atoms emitted per year into the environment by a coal plant is about 1.5 times the number of radioactive atoms which go into (fully contained and stored) nuclear waste of a nuclear plant producing the same amount of electricity. The coal waste is less radioactive just because the radioactive atoms are dispersed within a huge amount of non-radioactive (yet environmentally harmful) material: carbon dioxide, fly ash, scrubber sludge and other gaseous emissions; and because the radioactive half-lives of the uranium and thorium from coal waste is much longer than that of some components of nuclear waste. To be more specific…

Coal contains uranium, thorium, radium, radon and other radioactive elements at typical concentrations of several parts per million, ranging up to 50 parts per million or more [see references given below]. This gets concentrated tenfold in coal ash and in airborne particulates (smoke). The amount of radioactive uranium and thorium discharged by U.S. coal-fired plants is roughly 3000 tons per year: 1 ½ times more radioactive atoms (with nearly the same uranium isotope-mix) as from nuclear plants. Nuclear-nuclear waste does contain short-lived radioactive components which are significantly more dangerous; however, this stuff is completely contained, whereas coal-nuclear waste is dumped in landfills and the atmosphere. A careful estimate (J.P. McBride et al, Science 202, 1978) shows that people living near U.S. coal plants receive higher doses of radioactivity than those living near nuclear plants, although coal’s other ravages are worse.

The main reference for the paragraph is “Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants” by J.P.McBride, R.E. Moore, J.P. Witherspoon and R.E. Blanco, Science, 8 December 1978, Vol. 202, Number 4372, pp. 1045-1050 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/4372/1045
A draft version of this article is available in pdf format at http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1977/3445605115087.pdf See also
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/144/3616/288

Regarding the total number of atoms in “coal nuclear waste”… Table ES1 of the “Electric Power Annual” http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html says that U.S. coal-fired electrical plants consumed 1.04 billion tons of coal in 2006. McBride et al (previous paragraph) estimate that U.S. coal contains, on average, 1 part per million uranium and 2 parts per million thorium. Thus the annual output of these two radioactive elements from coal-fired plants is roughly 1000 and 2000 tons, respectively. The radioactive waste from all U.S. nuclear plants amounts to 2000 tons annually, of which about 95% is uranium, with a nearly natural isotope ratio (mostly U-238, with 0.9% U-235; as compared to 0.7% U-235 in natural uranium from mines and in coal).

]]> By: Scholars and Rogues » Kingston, TN sings “Auld Lang Sludge” (Update #2) http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410&cpage=1#comment-200 Scholars and Rogues » Kingston, TN sings “Auld Lang Sludge” (Update #2) Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:00:58 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410#comment-200 [...] written a piece on how the Scientific American piece talking about fly ash radioactivity has an utterly BS headline. In the interests of disclosure - I’ve used the SciAm piece myself, but did not mention the [...] [...] written a piece on how the Scientific American piece talking about fly ash radioactivity has an utterly BS headline. In the interests of disclosure - I’ve used the SciAm piece myself, but did not mention the [...]

]]> By: M'Lynn http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410&cpage=1#comment-192 M'Lynn Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:18:15 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410#comment-192 The casual reader may not be aware that the pro-nuclear lobby is discrediting coal as a way to promote their fuel of choice. On the other hand, Nuclear may have gotten a bad reputation because their tragedy's are so sensational. Coal just got a taste of this medicine via the TVA disaster. The bottom line is, we are at a point in our population growth and exploitation and abuse of natural resources that the margin of error when it comes to the environments ability to absorb and rebound from human indiscretions is at an all time low. From this day forward we need to be much more mindful, and better stewards. I don't really expect TVA will have the means, or the interest to completely mitigate their disaster. It is simply too enormous. They will make a token effort as it serves their purpose. The rest will be regraded and hydro-mulched, or some such nonsense. Even if TVA were able to substantially clean up the sludge, the costs to ratepayers and taxpayers would be prohibitive. Business interests and investor returns will in the end rule the day. Our hope for survival as a species hinges on changing our priorities in the middle of this circle of blue we find ourselves living on. We must place the environment (that which sustains all life) as well as people - before profits. It will be interesting to see how the TVA spin doctors (public relations) crafts their company line. Arguing the relative radioactivity of one waste compared to another is kind of like discussing the merits of being shot versus being hung or drowned. The conversation ought to be focused on solutions - how are we going to effectively lobby for safe, clean, energy, and put the production of toxic waste behind us once and for all as nothing more than a historical footnote; an shameful period in human history. The casual reader may not be aware that the pro-nuclear lobby is discrediting coal as a way to promote their fuel of choice.

On the other hand, Nuclear may have gotten a bad reputation because their tragedy’s are so sensational. Coal just got a taste of this medicine via the TVA disaster. The bottom line is, we are at a point in our population growth and exploitation and abuse of natural resources that the margin of error when it comes to the environments ability to absorb and rebound from human indiscretions is at an all time low.

From this day forward we need to be much more mindful, and better stewards. I don’t really expect TVA will have the means, or the interest to completely mitigate their disaster. It is simply too enormous. They will make a token effort as it serves their purpose. The rest will be regraded and hydro-mulched, or some such nonsense. Even if TVA were able to substantially clean up the sludge, the costs to ratepayers and taxpayers would be prohibitive. Business interests and investor returns will in the end rule the day. Our hope for survival as a species hinges on changing our priorities in the middle of this circle of blue we find ourselves living on. We must place the environment (that which sustains all life) as well as people - before profits. It will be interesting to see how the TVA spin doctors (public relations) crafts their company line.

Arguing the relative radioactivity of one waste compared to another is kind of like discussing the merits of being shot versus being hung or drowned. The conversation ought to be focused on solutions - how are we going to effectively lobby for safe, clean, energy, and put the production of toxic waste behind us once and for all as nothing more than a historical footnote; an shameful period in human history.

]]> By: John Manuel http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410&cpage=1#comment-190 John Manuel Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:41:43 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410#comment-190 Thanks for your clarifications on this. The Scientific American headline is absolutely misleading. I can only imagine what the people living next to the Cumberland Park (VA)development will think (and say) after getting wind of this "fact" about fly ash. They are justly concerned about the leachate from this site. To suggest that they are at more risk of radiation poisoning than living next to a nuclear waste dump could send them from concern to panic. Thanks for your clarifications on this. The Scientific American headline is absolutely misleading. I can only imagine what the people living next to the Cumberland Park (VA)development will think (and say) after getting wind of this “fact” about fly ash. They are justly concerned about the leachate from this site. To suggest that they are at more risk of radiation poisoning than living next to a nuclear waste dump could send them from concern to panic.

]]> By: Marilyn Elie http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410&cpage=1#comment-187 Marilyn Elie Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:55:28 +0000 http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410#comment-187 Everybody makes mistakes if they work hard enough and live long enough. It is an inevitable function of life. The importnt thing to do is to correct them as soon as possible and as publicly as possible. That's what you've done. Your transparency is really appreciated. The fly ash/nuclear waste comparison is a lie that the nuclear industry has been pushing for years. It's too bad that Scientific American gave it credibility and I share your hope that they will make amends with a clear version of the truth. Congratulations on a good lesson in investigative and honest journalism. Everybody makes mistakes if they work hard enough and live long enough. It is an inevitable function of life. The importnt thing to do is to correct them as soon as possible and as publicly as possible. That’s what you’ve done. Your transparency is really appreciated. The fly ash/nuclear waste comparison is a lie that the nuclear industry has been pushing for years. It’s too bad that Scientific American gave it credibility and I share your hope that they will make amends with a clear version of the truth. Congratulations on a good lesson in investigative and honest journalism.

]]>