Should we replace coal burning power plants with nuclear plants to combat global warming?
Answer:
Yes. But the Global Warming and Anti-Nuke folks saw what I was writing and sent a hailstorm that cut off my power in mid-reply!!
Seeing as to how Global Warming folks can only say CO2 is the one and only thing to control, stopping all coal-fired generation and immediately replacing it with Nuclear would end that part of Global Warming. And if an ice age resulted, they could say they told us so!
But hold! There is more. Coal contains Uranium salts and radioactive degredation products. These are released to the atmosphere, including the very dangerous radon gas. I have read that on the average a coal plant releases more radiation to the atmosphere than a comparably powered nuclear plant. And probably far more radon, since a nuclear plant fissions the uranium into smaller fragments, none like to be as large as Radon.
Nuclear plants are not designed over here like Chernobyl, with flammable Graphite as a moderator, and we do not ever run a Nuclear plant with ALL safeties switched out like the Russians did! Graphite burns fairly easily; water that we use for a moderator burns not at all!
I should note in passing that the workmen who sat on bags of cement to take lunch at one older Nuclear plant construction sites got more radiation from the radioactives in the cement than if they had sat on the running nuclear station!!
I personally worked in and around, and under the reactor containment vessels, of two different operating nuclear power stations, and neither I nor my crew had measurable dosimeter readings in about 3 weeks of work.
We can get even more use and efficiency from Nuclear when the non-scientifically-trained Congress stops panicing and allows the separation of the fissionable elements from the spent rods, and to be recycled into new power rods.
With proper consideration, we can also salvage the heat from the waste products, and generate additional power from it. Or we can just send the waste up on rockets into the sun for permanent incarceration! The sun will not even notice the splash.
One drawback though is we will lose the particulates in the coal plant exhausts, that help put up a dust layer to help control heat accumulation. With the dust pollution layer gone, and the CO2 gone, we might plunge into an intense ice age.
But I am sure our Congress can pass ironclad laws that such is not allowed to happen, at least where US law prevails.
So what are we waiting for...let's get to building nuclear plants, furnish them with Uranium from extra obsolete bombs, and shut down the coal plants. The poor coal mine owners and operators and employees in the plants and the transportation and sales ends of things can go on welfare for a change, right?
Nuclear plants will need many fewer people directly and in support, so there will be economies and prices probably will come down as the conversion is completed. Which should help keep the voters happy.
What are we waiting for? Gooooooo Nuke!!
We = USA ?
Well, coal-fired power stations are the #1 producer of CO2 in America 40%.
I have heard people say we have to start reconsidering nuclear. But I'd rather we address efficiency, waste & alternative fuels - to reduce the need. Find out how much we can reduce the need for coal-fired power stations, befor ewe try to figure out what alternatives to choose.
We should, not only to combat the global warming hoax, but also because it's more cost effective..However, the enviromental cases block any attempts of power companies to open neclear power plants.
with electrical grids supplying our electrical needs neither, who are we kidding. Coal is plain dirty and the technology of nuclear is to expensive, look at Chernobyl
yes but i think we should look more heavily at renewable energy sources. in particular solar. there are many regions of the country where the sun shines nearly year round. even small solar plants should be looked into. many farmers in germany placed solar panels in their grazing fields. they produce their own electricity and even contribute to the local grid and recompensed for it.
wind power is still a little unreliable and i would only use it in areas where a significant amount of energy per year could be produced.
the problem of nuclear is the as it was 40 year ago. namely, what to do with nuclear waste. nuclear plants are no more or less safe than any other form of energy but the waste it produces still must be stored. and until that issue can be addressed i don't think nuclear will go much further.
Nuclear plants are as safe as they can be thanks to the environmentalists. They put safety before profits. Had environmentalists been active in Russia at the time, Chernobyl would have been shut down years before it went bang. But there is the problem of the waste and until we can render it totally harmless, it will always be a problem.
CO2 on the other hand, is far less dangerous in comparison.
I think so. France is 90% nuclear right now. But environmental groups will never allow it. How they got so powerful I will never know.
In this day and age though coal is burned fairly cleanly at power plants. At least the one I work for. And we have at least a two hundred year supply of it. So I think in two hundred years we will find a better way, until then, burn that coal baby.
O ya, we need nuclear power, its not super safe, but is managable, compared to the green house casuing coal burning plants!
I think we should.
Nuclear power plants are very clean and only release steam into the air. One might argue that accidents such as Chernybol makes nuclear power dangerous. This is false. The only reason why this accident happened was because the people there were running a test and turned off all of the safety features. If an accident does happen it only dameages a small part of land.
Coal fired power plants are dirty and the technology of the past. Over 5000 people die on average per year due to cave ins in the mines. Coal power plants release a ridiculous amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Some are carbon monoxide, methane gas, and carbon dioxide.
If we wish to prevent global warming we must cut back drastically on the greenhouse gases put in the air produced by coal fired plants.
Chernobyl and other Soviet-design reactors used graphite to control the reaction. US designs incorporate water. It's an apples to oranges comparison if you know how these reactors work.
While environmentalist have effectively killed nuclear generation for public use here in the US, fortunately they have had no effect on military research into state of the art generation systems. The Navy has had about 100 nuclear vessels with over 5400 reactor years of ACCIDENT-FREE service.
http://en.allexperts.com/e/u/un/united_s...
We have a handle on nuclear wastes, too. Yucca mountain will serve our needs for over a century until we can come up with more creative solutions to nuclear waste disposal and development of alternative energy sources. Wind farms are great - but only when the wind blows. Solar only works during...well, you can figure that one out. Nuclear is the only power source that will give you any time, anywhere energy.
Coal is contaminated with radioactive Uranium and Thorium.
The concentration of radioactive Uranium is so high in some coal that the ash from the coal has been considered as a source for radioacive Uranium for nuclear power plants.
The amount of radioactive Uranium released to the environment from burning coal is much larger than the amount of radioactive elements and compounds that were released to the environment from the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters.
It is very important that we eliminate coal burning for our electricity as soon as possible.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: