From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 14:21:04 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Kai M. Becker [mailto:kmb@kai-m-becker.de]
Dickey, Michael F schrieb:
> Approximate Thermal Energy release
> Coal - ~6150 kilowatt-hours(kWh)/ton
> Uranium - 2 x 10E9 kWh/ton
>
> What, exactly, makes a material with nearly 1 million times as much
> energy as coal 'uneconomical' Is uranium 1 million times more difficult
to
> mine and obtain? I don't think so. Is uranium 1 million times more
> expensive to transport, process, and use than coal?
(1) AFAIK, coal is not suitable for deadly weapons and therefore of no
value for villains of any kind, including "corrupt despotic theocratic
murderous regimes".
Agreed, and if 'suitability for deadly weapons' was the only consideration
of what type of power source should be utilized, you could make a strong
case against nuclear and for coal. However, other factors include a) cost
b) number of people it kills every year d) monopolistic domination
potentials etc. etc.
(2) Coal is almost no hazard for human health, except when swallowed or
hit on the head and therefore doesn't have to be kept safe and secured
at all times.
Certainly NOT true, the atmospheric irritants emmited by the combustion of
coal, including
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) - respiratory disorders, impaired breathing
Nitrous oxide (NOx) - respiratory disorders, infections, pulmonary diseases
Carbon monoxide (CO) - fatal angina, various other effects
Ozone (O3) - respiratory disorders, impaired breathing, asthma, edema
Particulate matter (PM10) - various toxic particle (organic matter, carbon,
mineral dusts, metal oxides and sulphates and nitrate salts) effects, main
mortality factor due to fossil fuels
Toxic substances, heavy metals - specific substance effects
are estimated by the the WHO in its 1997 report on sustainable development,
to account for 6% of the total 50 million annual global deaths. That's
approximately 3 million deaths *every year* from atmospheric pollutants
released from the combustion of fossil fuels. These are real people dying
real painful deaths every year. 3 million. Outdoor air pollution in the
U.S. due to particulate pollution alone was estimated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in 1997 to cause at least 20,000 premature deaths
each year. 3rd world countries, many of which cook on wood or dung fired
stoves, fare much worse.
(3) The by-products of coal mining can be put back without any hazard
for the biosphere.
Except for the billions of tons of harmful chemicals and radioactive uranium
dumped into the air. Sure you got your facts straight on nuclear power?
(4) Coal ashes is not dangerous and does not need to be kept off our
biosphere for thousands of years.
Except for the radioactive uranium present in it. As well as the arsenic,
cadmium, cobalt, lead, mercury, nickel and vanadium.
(5) Even a very large malfunction in a coal fired power plant could not
devastate a large area, cost millions of lives and billions of Euros
(please read about the effects of Tschernobyl '86 in FSU and Europe).
Sure, Chernobyl killed 31 people when a pressurized steam channel blew (not
even a chemical explosion, let alone a nuclear one) and released approx 6%
of the radioactive contents of the reactor. The accident resulted in 31
short term deaths, with 28 due to extremely high radiation exposures.
Addiotionally, some 200,000 clean up workers received average exposures of
twice the yearly permitted, and a few thousand more receieved ten times the
permitted yearly doses. Of the 116,000 nearby residents evacuated, 95%
received less than the average of the fist group of cleanup workers. A
remaining 400,000 received significantly less than that. For the 1,116,000
total affected out of the workers, evacuaees, and nearby residents, the
predicted long term radiation induced cancer deaths and normally non-fatal
throid cancers are projected to be some 3,500. Mainly late in life. Most
of these could have been avoided had the Soviet governemnt acknolwedged the
nuclear nature of the accident and adminstered the iodide pills it had all
ready stockpiled for just such an incident. However, this reactor would
have never been built, licensed, or operated in any country that gave a shit
about its people, unlike the soviet union, which had a long track record of
sacrificing thousands if not millions for 'the good of the state'.
In addition to the estimated 3 million annual deaths from atmospheric
pollutants...
1984 Bhopal accident at a chemical plant in India caused some 3000 early
deaths and several hundred thousand severe health effects.
Dam failures and overtopping have caused thousands of deaths and massive
disruption in social and economic activities with the displacement of entire
towns - the Varont dam overtopping in Italy and dam failures in Gujarat and
Orissa in India are three such examples, each with several thousand
fatalities.
Severe coal mine accidents causing several hundred deaths are not rare.
Explosions and major fires in the oil and gas industry have involved both
occupational and public fatalities and injuries. A pipeline gas leak
explosion in the Urals involved 500 fatalities.
There are estimated to be a few hundred CO related deaths every year in the
US due to faulty or innefecient fossil fuel burning home heating systems.
On and on...
(6) An exploding LNG tanker may have the mechanical power of a small
A-bomb, but it will not make the whole area inhabitable for years. BTW,
what would you prefer as a terrorist attack, an oil tanker rammed into a
harbour at full speed, or an atomic bomb on the same area?
How difficult do you think it would be to detonate a single hulled tanker
full of LNG with the explosive capacity of a nuclear bomb? How many of
these tankers sit unguarded in ports all over the world?
"All this results in much higher costs for nuclear power systems."
All of this idealogicial intellectual dishonest endorsement of fossil fuels
over nuclear power leads to thousands if not millions of deaths every year.
"Risk assessment calculates the probability of a risk multiplied by the
cost of the consequences. An important factor for the latter is, how many
people and their belongings (incl. industry) are affected. In
Western-Europe, with its population density between 200 and 300 p/km^2 (New
York: 270), the consequences of only one greater nuclear accident outweight
every catastrophy even large numbers of exploding coal plants could achieve
:-)"
But how many people die every year right now from fossil fuel combustion?
As I have said, its some multiple of millions. Every year.
"But I agree that burning fossil fuels is not very intelligent either. As
long as we don't have any technology to predict/control the large scale
effects of our actions, we are wise to reduce our influence on the ecosphere
wherever possible. On the long run, we will have to develop sustainable
technological systems on this planet, regardless of how complex and
high-tech they may be."
I say a few well guarded breeder reactor plants to provide a majority of the
worlds power. These same plants could electrolyze water to provide clean
drinking water and hydrogen as fuel for a 'hydrogen economy' or, at least,
create synthetic fuels through sabatier cells using existing hydrocarbon
infrastructures but not contributing to greenhouse gas increases (as the
sabatier cell needs CO2 from the atmosphere) At least until fusion becomes
viable. Reducing the global standard of living is not an option, as many
millions in third world countries need energy, and lots of it, to get out of
poverty.
Michael Dickey
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 14:23:16 MST