Re: Hazards of Coal Burning was RE: Hydrogen as SCAM?

From: Kai M. Becker (kmb@kai-m-becker.de)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 05:09:44 MST

  • Next message: Chuck Kuecker: "Re: Hazards of Coal Burning was RE: Hydrogen as SCAM?"

    Am Montag, 3. Februar 2003 23:55 schrieb Gary Miller:
    > I was under the impression that anyone who burned large volumes
    > of coal now was required to have scrubbers in their smoke stacks
    > that remove particalate matter from the emissions.

    They do, at least in most industrial countries. I know for sure that
    they do here in Germany. That doesn't solve the problem, though. This
    toxic waste has to be disposed somewhere, that's right. But there are
    some important differences between waste from coal burning and
    radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.

    (1) We're talking about a fraction of 2-10ppm Uranium and Thorium in
    coal, which is comparable to granite, sandstone and concrete. That means
    the walls of your house probably contain the same amount of
    Uranium/Thorium and their decay products like coal.

    (2) Coal ashes (and the dust filtered out of the smoke) is not as
    dangerous as highly radioactive waste and not of any value for potential
    bad guys. It can be handled with standard technology without much
    protective gear, because the natural decay of Uranium to Thorium etc.
    consists of alpha and beta ray emitting isotopes. This radiation can be
    shielded with ordinary steal during processing.

    (3) Radioactive waste from nuclear power plants on the other hand
    contains high concentrations of gamma ray and neutron emitting isotopes.
    This type of radiation is difficult to shield, highly dangerous for
    organisms, and neutron radiation embrittles metal and other material.
    This waste also produces heat for a _very_ long time. That means that
    even very slow and very improbable chemical reactions between the waste
    and its containment _will_ happen during the next 10.000 years. It's
    like Murphy's law coupled to an Improbability Drive.

    But as I said: burning fossil fuels is also not the right way. In fact,
    no large scale system is, if it produces something we cannot deal with
    in a safe way, i.e. a complete circle of products. Oil/gas/coal produces
    NOx, CO2, etc. Fission leaves large quantities of highly dangerous
    waste. And all this energy, even from fusion, finally becomes simple
    heat that influences the global climate. It's not the single car or the
    single heater that makes the difference, but the coefficient of n*10^9
    with n>6 and growing.

        Kai

    -- 
    == Kai M. Becker == kmb@cameron.kn-bremen.de == Bremen, Germany ==
    "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 05:13:28 MST