Thursday, October 21, 2010


Coal Creates Bigger Environmental Disasters than Nuclear

Concerns about radiation and nuclear used fuel are the primary reasons for public fear of nuclear energy. Radiation and nuclear science are not well understood by the average person. The terminology associated with nuclear science and radiation is, well, very scientific and scary-sounding to a lay person. It is because of this that the tiniest radiation dose from a nuclear energy plant is easily spun to sound like an enormous environmental disaster.
Coal chunk in person's hand
Contrast this sentiment with the apparent lack of concern for actual environmental disasters such as the spillage of a billion gallons of sludge comprised of coal ash and water that occurred in Tennessee in December 2008. A dike collapsed at the coal plant’s retention pond, releasing a massive amount of waste into surrounding lands. The headline(s) were muted and hardly could be considered a headline at all. It is as if the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), who operates the coal plant in Kingston, TN, about 35 miles west of Knoxville, should not be drug through the media-mud like its nuclear counterparts are for far smaller infractions.
For some context, the TVA spill was around one billion gallons of a coal ash and water mixture (coal “sludge”) that befouled over 300 acres of land and the nearby Emory River. One billion gallons is equivalent to about 800 Olympic-sized swimming pools, not an insignificant amount. The spill destroyed three homes and damaged a dozen others. It also contained toxic chemicals such as arsenic, lead, selenium, and radioactive chemicals such as chromium and barium.
TVA has been fined $11.5 million in addition to setting up a $40 million fund for economic development projects in the Kingston area. At least Tennessee officials are holding TVA accountable for their mess.
Contrast this with the extremely frustrating situation at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Vermont officials are in a political-posturing phase, latching onto a trivial and well-controlled incident involving a minute tritium leak at the plant. Rod Adams gave us some perspective on the amount and danger of the tritium leak at VY in a great article on The Energy Collective.
If the leak had been going on for a year before being detected and stopped, the total quantity of fluid that left the pipe would equal 138,000 liters. The total activity released would be 0.35 curies. If a single person consumed every drop of that water, their whole body radiation dose would equal roughly 30 rem.
This dosage of radiation is well below accepted levels for maintaining public health. The well-operated and perfectly safe Pickering B nuclear power plant in Canada releases 40 times as much tritium per day than the VY leak did in one year. That translates into 14,600 times as much tritium released from the Pickering B plant than from the VY leak. Keep in mind that the Pickering B unit is well within their accepted range of tritium release, so even 14,600 times as much tritium as VY is considered perfectly safe for the surrounding population.
The point here is that there is a huge to-do over a tiny issue at a nuclear power plant in Vermont; whereas almost no one talks about the actual devastation caused by a coal plant in Tennessee. And this is just one example out of a long line of environmental and safety hazards occurring at coal, oil and natural gas plants, wells, and mines across the country. It is increasingly frustrating to hear the media and politicians decry the smallest, most insignificant incident at a nuclear power plant when they seemingly turn a blind eye toward huge disasters at coal, natural gas, and petroleum-based power plants.
The only thing that can be done is to try and alter the perceptions and knowledge-level of the public as it pertains to their energy infrastructure. Understanding more about each source of energy including the challenges, costs, and efforts required to produce and distribute electricity, will help people to have a frame of reference when confronted with a news story about this or that “disaster” at such-and-such plant.

19 comments:

  1. this is a good post coz before, i dont know that coal is worse then nuclear energy..
    but i still dont understand how does this happen??
    do u mind explain it briefly.. thank you..
    mohd fazli ramly
    mrfazli@rocketmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hoho...nice post. Coal energy can indeed cause pollution and serious harmful effects to the environment, particularly the atmosphere. But,one we should take into consideration..is radioactive wastes from nuclear energy, can also pose a threat to the environment..oftenly more damaging than CO2. Therefore, it is vital that management of these wastes..be carried out efficiently and, carefully. A suitable waste management plan must be imposed, in order to keep tabs on it..bcoz once these wastes are exposed, than the effects will be more dangerous than the effects made by CO2 and other chemicals from Coal energy. Just a thing to ponder...but me, i fully support the nuclear initiative..just take account the management of the radioactive wastes it produces.
    Peace y'all!

    Ikram bin Mohd Hariffin
    ME083550
    ikramax@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do agree with Ikram..radioactive wastes from nuclear energy, can also pose a threat to the environment..oftenly more damaging than CO2.Look seriously when nuclear disaster accuor.
    One of disaster will be when fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool..:)..isn't it still dangerous??:)

    Kamariah bt Kamaruddin
    ME082753
    kasyahkhairuddin@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. radioactive waste should be disposed safely to prevent ant affect to the environment.Radioactivity diminishes over time, so the waste needs to be isolated for a period of time until it no longer poses a hazard. This can mean hours to years for some common medical or industrial radioactive wastes, or thousands of years for high-level wastes from nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons reprocessing.

    PAVANESVARAAN A/L SUBRAMANIAM
    waraan_2@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. radioactive is very dangerous for people in the world. many serious disaster come from it and we have to avoid from using this term and nuclear energy is the best way.

    MOHD IZHAN BAZLI BIN BASIR
    CE082720
    izhanbazli@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. nuclear accidents are something which we can prevent it from happening and causing damage to our environment, but coal powered plants are accidents happening in fornt of our eyes and we still cant and dont want to do anything about it.
    nuclear is the way

    joel bharath
    me083556
    sect6

    ReplyDelete
  7. As we know,the use of coal as an energy source in developed countries has caused many health problems and environmental pollution..Besides,at least about 300 megawatt coal power plant will burn about 1 million tons of coal a year. Do we realize what the effects of pollution will be produced? Then,the green tech should be started from now. TQ

    arif afifi bin ahmad
    me084865
    megatron_183@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. NPP's reputation is being destroyed by people who don't understand it. Small leaks that wouldn't harm us are being turned into disasters. Public education could solve this i guess?

    YANG GUO XIAN
    ME083672
    iainygx@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. salam n hye..
    Wow, now i know that coal is much dangerous than nuclear. yup, i agree with guo xian that people need to be educated about the facts on nuclear energy. Good job guys!

    HAZIM BIN SHARUDIN
    ME083548
    sena_90@yahoo.com.my

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow. Great facts about the dangers of coal. Well, for the public, nuclear is relatively safe but for the workers, slight health problems are involved. So, if the public knows all the pros about nuclear power, they might give a thumbs up to the project.

    Jan Siong Lim
    ME083552
    jansionglim@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. salam n hai..
    nice article but sory to say i really dnt know da dangerous of coals before this..now i understand why we need nuclear energy to replace coal n gas..but people expecially for malaysian people need to be exposed more about the facts on nuclear energy..tq.

    wan khairi hakimi bin wan abdul aziz
    wankhairi_90@yahoo.com
    ce083464

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good post.
    Yup,burning of coal will give extremely bad effect to the environment.Harmful gases released will be affect human being.
    Lets go for nuclear,reliable,safe and green energy.

    GO GREEN !!
    name: JAFFREEN BIN JAAFAR
    emel: jeff_kyo90@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  13. dismiss coal...replace them with new greener technology.....

    support us to create new world of green environment...

    zero emission CO2 is our priority...it is nuclear energy.

    thanks for commenting the post...very brilliant and contented.

    ReplyDelete
  14. if coal cause more harm to the environment, why still using it??? its time to change to nuclear energy! and malaysia is still very fresh about this nuclear energy, we need to expose malaysian with more knoledge of the advantage of the nuclear energy to the public.

    Justin Peter Joseph
    terbalik_just23@hotmail.com
    ME083557

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think we have to start using nuclear power from now on. Malaysia have to take this serious steps on developing the nuclear power plant.

    Syarifah Nur Hamizah Bt Syed Kasim
    ME083650
    ija_rc@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  16. Indeed. We have been burning coals for so many years to generate electricity and yet it's only recently that we are aware of what could happen in the worst case scenario.
    I agree with Jason that public education has to be done in a gigantic way to clearly clarify what nuclear energy could bring for our greener future. Seriously even some of senior citizens that I asked, they don't like the idea of using nuclear energy because what they still have in their memory is the Chernobyll's disaster.

    Zulfadhli Bin Zahudin
    CE083466
    darhein_90@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  17. Understanding more about each source of energy including the challenges, costs, and efforts required to produce and distribute electricity, will help people to have a frame of reference when confronted with a news story about this or that “disaster” at such-and-such plant.

    Nurul Najiah binti Hashim
    ME083972
    nurul.najiah@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  18. salam..now i know that the coal is more dangerous than the nuclear..coal produce CO2 waste compared with the nuclear..although the nuclear produce the radioactive waste but that waste is managed well..so, nothing to worry about..TQ


    MOHAMAD ASHIFF BIN KAMALUDIN (ME083578)
    ars_shiffy@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  19. Actually, if we really think about it, they are almost the same thing. Whether we choose to use coal or nuclear as a source of energy, they are all going to be handled by us, humans. And as humans, there will definitely going to be little mistakes that eventually leads to accidents and disasters. Anyhow, since Japan, which has been attacked by nuclear weapon, is now using nuclear power generators, the 'fear' of these disasters should not be considered as a factor to stop us from using nuclear as a power source for our country.

    NG KAH HOO
    nakahee_90@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete