Finland To Introduce Law Next Year Phasing Out Coal (reuters.com) 176
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Finland will introduce legislation next year to phase out coal and increase carbon taxes, a top government official told Reuters, which would require the country to find alternative energy sources to keep its power system stable. Coal produces roughly 10 percent of the energy consumed by Finland, which is the Nordics' heaviest coal consumer and burned about 4.1 million tons of oil equivalent in 2016. "This strategy has a goal of getting rid of coal as an energy source by 2030 [...] We have to write a law [...] and that will be next year," Riku Huttunen, director general in Finland's energy department, said. The law will, however, leave "room for manoeuvre" to ensure security of supply, he said, meaning coal-fired power plants could still be available to avoid the risk of blackouts. Finland is increasing its nuclear capacity, which could replace coal. But that may not be sufficient, a Nordic power trader said, as Finland will receive less nuclear power from neighboring Sweden, which is phasing out two reactors. Helsinki is raising its nuclear power capacity to reduce dependency on Russian energy imports. Two new reactors, Olkiluoto 3 and Hanhikivi 1, are due to go online in 2018 and 2024, respectively.
They are going to dig it all up and burn it (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If coal is illegal, then only outlaws will have coal!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not how coal forms.
That's not even close to how coal forms.
Re: (Score:2)
By the time any coal forming today is usable as coal, human civilization (and maybe humans themselves) won't be recognizable.
Because we'll all be wearing disguises?
Re: (Score:3)
By the time any coal forming today is usable as coal, human civilization (and maybe humans themselves) won't be recognizable.
Because we'll all be wearing disguises?
Yes. The same way the dinosaurs who were around when the coal we dig up now was still plant matter are now disguised as birds
Re: (Score:2)
captcha: ignorant
great! lower prices (Score:2)
They'll have clean coal (Score:2, Informative)
That's how you actually get clean coal: Stop using that shit.
Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
At least some countries have the balls to give the finger to the ignorant CND hippies who still equate nuclear power with nuclear weapons because they have the square root of fuck all clue about the different types of reactor design.
Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
When you are the size of one of several large American cities in terms of population, EVERY problem is tiny and a lot easier to solve.
Re: (Score:3)
So, dissolve the US, make the states into nations, and every problem is tiny and a lot easier to solve?
Re: (Score:2)
That would be to easy asa solution.
Because then they later would need to reform a North American Union like the European Union, where the "central government" equalizes peoples rights over the whole Union.
That concept would be completely alien to the current citizens of the land of the free.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why don't smaller states in the US function as well? This "but we so biiig" argument is banal and only ensures to further the problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when you have massive tracts of stable, uninhabited mountain ranges in which to stash the radioactive waste. I often wonder why the quality of life surveys in places like Finland are so high - I think it correlates with the weather, if quality of life weren't high the weather would certainly drive population to zero.
Re: (Score:2)
These social democracies seem to be the least dysfunctional and have the highest quality of life for citizens.
You're right, and the US could have an even better standard of living, but no-one quite does propaganda like the US [esquire.com] so you have to spend all that tax money on never ending overseas wars and the worst health system possible instead of a decent life for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
That and they seem to be on top of proper disposal unlike here in the US and elsewhere.
Waste disposal certainly seems like the most important issue, but I would like to know more about the other end of the logistical chain: the supply side. It seems always to be tacitly assumed that this is under control. The other thing I wonder about is why we don't use the waste products for something - isn't a lot of energy released still? That is after all why radioactive waste is radioactive.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no proper way to dispose of highly radioactive nuclear waste. Only ways that are less dangerous than others, statistically speaking. What convinced you that the situation in Finland is significantly better than in, say, Germany?
Well, for one thing, they have no Germans.
For another, they have spent fuel reprocessing plants, and so they don't really have nuclear waste, to speak of; instead, they have more fuel for the reactors, and a bunch of medical grade nuclear materials.
For, you know, treating prostate and brain cancer, performing medical imaging, and so on.
The U.S. isn't reprocessing their waste, and since plutonium production is almost entirely shut dow, the U.S. tends to buy its medical radioactives from other countries.
The U
Re: (Score:2)
There is no proper way to dispose of highly radioactive nuclear waste. Only ways that are less dangerous than others, statistically speaking. What convinced you that the situation in Finland is significantly better than in, say, Germany?
Well, for one thing, they have no Germans.
Well, the Germans temporarily store the nasty stuff in abandoned salt mines while the people of finland to my knowledge are the only ones working on a long term solution: the Onkalo [wikipedia.org] nuclear waste repository. There is a very beautiful documentary about this endeavor (building time >100 Years !). It's called: Towards the end of Time [imdb.com]. Worth watching !
Re: (Score:2)
they don't really have nuclear waste
Is that why they are digging a big hole to put the nuclear not-waste in, and trying to figure out how to post warnings not to go down there that will be intelligible in 100,000 years time?
Finland actually passed laws requiring knowledge of the nuclear waste storage sites to be taught in school, so it becomes impossible to forget about them on a national level. They are taking it extremely seriously, which seems odd if as you say they don't really have any nuclear waste.
It seems like people don't understand
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear fanbois don't understand reprocessing indeed. They think that reprocessing magically makes nuclear waste to fuel again (violating the laws of thermodynamics in the process), when the only thing what reprocessing does is separating fission products from uranium. These fission products are, for most part, very dangerous nuclear waste. Reprocessing is also inherently dirty, this is why the Irish Sea is the most contaminated sea in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to build three types of reactors, total for a nearly closed nuclear cycle.
I'm a high energy physicist; who are you?
I say this on just about every energy thread (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When I lived out there it was pesticide warehouses catching fire (with multiple safety violations leading to the accidents). We left just about as quickly as we could.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the States and I'll be happy to support nuclear when you can find a way to get the 20% of my citizenry to stop believing in crap like "Government's not the solution, it's the problem".
Baby steps.
You need to get them to stop believing WiFi hubs cause cancer, first. Until they can tell the difference between non-ionizing radiation and ionizing radiation, they are a lost cause.
Re: (Score:2)
With the predominant western winds in Finnland, during a catastrophe the fallout will be blown over Russia and the Baltic states.
You might think, not bad if the Russians get it back, what they deserve.
But then again we will have something like 4million Finns and 12million from the Baltic states evacuated and being displaced over the rest of the EU.
I wonder how many states will do a BREXIT when we get 20million refugees inside of Europe.
Ah .... that was not your point, or was it? Seems I got drawn away ...
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad it requires far more coal to process the uranium than what you would save using nuclear energy. What? You thought Uranium 238 is everywhere and simple to extract?
Re: (Score:2)
Two things prove you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
First, if it took more energy to produce the uranium than what they got out of it then no one would do it. Well, people burn ethanol so perhaps that's not completely true. What they wouldn't do is use nuclear power to produce nearly 20% of the electricity in the USA. The only way to "prove" nuclear power is a net negative is to use a lot of assumptions that cannot be proven, like the future costs of decommissioning a site. This ofte
Re: (Score:2)
Oh [phys.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The article you linked to is meaningless unless nuclear is actually compared to something. It's a bit like someone arguing that we cannot possibly eat steak tonight because of this that and the other thing. Well, that might be true but people have to eat, otherwise people die. After looking at the options it may just turn out that in fact we can eat steak tonight.
Well, let's look at our options:
- Status quo and all the pros and cons that go with it
- Nuclear power
- Starvation
There is no fourth option beca
Re: (Score:2)
...ignorant CND hippies who still equate nuclear power with nuclear weapons because they have the square root of fuck all clue...
Apart from being factually wrong about what hippies are/were and what they believe, I think being abusive is only likely to hurt your credibilty. Abuse and violence is what people resort to, when they don't have the wit to produce a sober argument.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Some of those hippies sure do know more about the dangers of nuclear waste than you.
We've had the means to re-use spent fuel since the 70s. Anti-nuke hysteria has kept the industry from moving forward with new and better ideas.
Meanwhile, we just kill ourselves more slowly in our attempts to avoid nuclear power. Coal is really a great example of that.
Re: (Score:2)
We've had the means to re-use spent fuel since the 70s
No you have not.
The USA has no rectors that can use spent fuel in any meaningful way.
You simply don't know what spent fuel is and what reprocessing means and does.
Bottom line, you are just an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
This is because graduating in both physics and theology is quite a tall order.
Re: (Score:2)
We've had the means to re-use spent fuel since the 70s
No you have not.
The U.S. has a fully built-out, functional-yet-mothballed reprocessing facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
Funds were first allocated for bringing it online in 2010. It was mothballed rather than activated, during the Obama administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and how much fuel do you regain if you reprocess spent fuel? Hm? Any idea? ...
Guess not
Re: (Score:2)
How much do you gain? Quite a bit actually. It's called DUPIC, Direct Use of PWR fuel In CANDU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You may be correct in claiming that the USA does not have this capability but Canada has had the capability from the early 1980s, or perhaps late 1970s. I think that if we ask real nice that they'll send some of their nuclear engineers over here and teach us how to do it.
There's over two dozen operating CANDU reactors in the world, another dozen more derived from the design. Ar
Re: (Score:2)
CANDU reactors, don't need/use reprocessed fuel.
To stupid to do your reasearch, zealot?
Re: (Score:3)
You obviously didn't even click on the link I gave, it redirects to a Wikipedia page titled "Reprocessed uranium". It's kind of hard to miss, it's in large bold letters at the top of the page. If you read the short, three paragraph, article you will see in the last paragraph a mention of DUPIC. DUPIC is in short chopping up spent LWR fuel into little bits and recladding it in a bundle for CANDU. There is even a link to an article going into detail on how CANDU is capable of burning natural uranium, repr
Re: (Score:2)
CANDU are running on more or less natural Uranium.
So they produce no 'waste fuel' that can or need to be reprocessed.
Reprocessing fuel to put it later into a CANDU makes no sense.
You can put iti into a CANDU right away.
Sou could have safed your time with that long post if you had understood my previous post better :)
And no, I don't have the urge to read links that summarize (badly) stuff, I already know.
Re: (Score:2)
Sou could have safed your time with that long post if you had understood my previous post better :)
Considering that most of your posts consist primarily of claims without citations and ad hominem attacks there's a lot of room for misunderstanding. How about next time you post a complete thought, give some means to back up your claims, and not call people idiots?
And no, I don't have the urge to read links that summarize (badly) stuff, I already know.
Apparently you didn't know that CANDU reactors can be fueled with reprocessed fuel, otherwise you would not have embarrassed yourself with the provably false statement you made. It's not like you had to read the whole thing, just reading the tit
Re: (Score:2)
I did not do any ad hominem attacks Mr. blindseer.
Your education is your responsibility, not mine. So find your citations yourself.
Apparently you didn't know that CANDU reactors can be fueled with reprocessed fuel ;D )
Apparently I did know that. Hence I informed you: that makes no sense. You simply can put the "spent fuel" into them. No reprocessing needed.
But it seems you are to dumb to grasp that. (Is that an ad hominem? Sorry
Your whole threats about nuclear make no sense anyway.
a) Neither do the USA have
Re: (Score:2)
Most of this I already told you dozens of times.
Repeating it doesn't make it true.
I can see your comment history and you can see mine. I noticed that I get up moderated and you get down moderated. People find me interesting, informative, and funny enough to mod me up. Why is it do you think that you don't also get this treatment? You think that maybe it's because you are calling people morons and idiots? I do.
If you want people to take you seriously then write posts that have a complete thought, cite your sources, and be respectful of others. It's
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt there are sources for no brainers.
E.g. if a CANDU reactor is running on natural uranium (for that you find sources)
it obviously can run on soent fuel of a reactor that used _enriched_ uranium. (After all the spent fuel is still _enriched_ just not enough for that reactor type)
Hence as you have no clue about actual physics, you don't believe that. Hence you are a moron, plain and simple.
The fact that solar and Wind are cheaper than nuclear power is reported on /. nearly once a month.
So, why do you wa
Re: (Score:2)
Hence you are a moron, plain and simple.
Is that how they teach you how to debate in school? By calling people morons?
I think you are a stupid head and your mom dresses you funny.
I'm done here.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-nuke hysteria has kept the industry from moving forward with new and better ideas.
What is the evidence for this?
In the UK we realized that nuclear was too expensive, not least because we picked the wrong reactor type. In France they did better but in the last 20 years have got fed up with energy companies using nuclear as a welfare programme. Germany just decided that the risk wasn't worth it and there was a huge economic opportunity to become world leaders in renewable energy.
China cancelled all new nuclear plants not already under construction after Fukushima. I suppose you could argue
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what you're talking about. Nuclear is not the only alternative to coal either.
You've been watching too much "Star Gate Atlantis".
When you've created a working zero point energy module, let me know, and I'll go to Walmart and buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Shaddap faggot you aren't a nuclear engineer of any type.
The steel in your bridge came from a Korean nuclear smelter.
find alternative energy sources to keep its power (Score:2)
Might I suggest importing it from Russia?
So... (Score:2)
Their EPR nuclear reactor (Olkiluoto 3) will finally go online? Sure took them long enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe next time they'll buy a Korean reactor which only takes 4 years to start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If so, they should check the certification of parts very carefully.
"In 2012, a probe was opened regarding some fraudulently-certified parts installed in five OPR-1000 reactors over a ten-year period.
Hanbit-5 and -6, which had a greater number of fraudulent parts, were shut down until the parts could be replaced, and Hanbit-3 and -4 and Hanul-3 were allowed remain on-line pending parts replacement.
Hanbit-5 and -6 were cleared for restart in early 2013, but in April 2013, following a tip, four additional unit
Re: (Score:2)
In the old times they required larger safety margins in parts, but part certification was a lot easier to get, if there was any certification at all, and reactors were built all the time. That meant there were a lot less delays. I suppose this way might be safer, or at least things will be better documented with a proper audit trail, but expedient it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Troubling isn't it.
Partially a side effect of contractors for everything and enough shell corps to sell at the beach, I'll be bound.
They won't be able to escape the Russians... (Score:2)
Two new reactors, Olkiluoto 3 and Hanhikivi 1, are due to go online in 2018 and 2024, respectively.
These plants are most likely to be of either Russian design or have significant Russian parts.
I can't explain why the Finns decided to involve the Russians at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Olkiluoto 3 is built by French Areva, and is currently 9 years behind schedule. It should have been up an running in 2010.
Hanhikivi would be built by Russian Rosatom, which of course could have some political issues. It isn't even clear that building will start (though preparations are already being made at the site), the project status is "proposed". So I won't be holding my breath until i can power my house with that sweet and cuddly fission power...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Pl
Re: (Score:3)
I can't explain why the Finns decided to involve the Russians at all.
Because the Russians build the reactors (relatively) cheaply and they actually meet the accorded schedules and budget (yes, surprising, I know). To a large degree this is because the Russians haven't lost their construction expertise. The Russians didn't spend nearly as much time without building new reactors like a lot of Western nations. Also because of the failure at Chernobyl, for quite some time there was an impetus in Russia to repla
Re: (Score:2)
Actually both VVER and RBMK were developed at the same time, in the mid 1950ies. RBMK was based on a somewhat older reactor design from 1951, though. Still, they are basically the same age.
How city of Davos fights pollution (Score:2)
This reminds me, how the Swiss city of Davos (yes, that Davos [nytimes.com]), contributes to the Global Warming/pollution/whatever fight: by banning gas stations... I can't find any references to the ban online to link here — you'll just have to visit it to see for yourself.
Yep, the skiing is great, but to fill up your car, you'll have to drive to a neighboring town.
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me, how the Swiss city of Davos (yes, that Davos [nytimes.com]), contributes to the Global Warming/pollution/whatever fight: by banning gas stations... I can't find any references to the ban online to link here — you'll just have to visit it to see for yourself.
Everyone in Davos died when they exploded, after they decided to quit exhaling and quit farting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
The Swiss are so straight-laced and such tight arseholes about everything, especially being green, that if you dare to drive 2 MPH over the ridiculously low speed limits that are all over Switzerland, you'll be instantly surrounded by cops and attack helicopters.
I'm surprised they even still have word for farts.
Too Easy - Protectionism at work (Score:4, Interesting)
This is really a protectionism measure. Finland has no domestic coal production. What they're doing is blocking energy imports to protect their domestic energy sector, what there is of it. Not a bad idea, but that is the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably at least partially right. No matter how good it is, I doubt that any country that still gets a large amount of revenue from coal would make this move.
Compared to all other forms of burning things to get power, coal is apparently by far the worst for emissions, so I still see this is a great positive move, regardless of the actual motives.
Re: (Score:2)
This is really a protectionism measure. Finland has no domestic coal production. What they're doing is blocking energy imports to protect their domestic energy sector, what there is of it. Not a bad idea, but that is the truth.
Yup, let's do this to protect our domestic (fill in the blank)-based energy production! We really need to use our vast, domestic supplies of (fill in the blank)!!!
Any idea for the blank?!
Re: (Score:2)
Uranium and thorium are everywhere. If they are mining for anything then they have a source of uranium and thorium in the mining tails. Barring that they can extract uranium from seawater.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
I love how people say that "we" can do without coal and nuclear if only we put up enough windmills, solar panels, and connect them all with enough wires. That might work in a large nation and/or in a politically stable part of the world. What of the people that don't have a lot of sun a
Re: (Score:2)
We are "shackled" into all powergrids our neighbors have, including Russia. You can see the status of the Finnish power grid from here: http://www.fingrid.fi/fi/sahko... [fingrid.fi]
Russians have been a good power supplier. Now when we get our new nukes online the only change will be that we will probably export electricity to Russia sometimes. Also Nordic pool electricity prices will go down for us, now Sweden and Norway have had lower prices due to insufficient grid capacity towards Finland. They are also going to fix
Re: (Score:2)
It's not economic protectionism. It's to prevent Russia from cutting off their energy supply in a crisis.
Tiny, Meaningless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you are saying that the environment is better off if smaller nations go 100% coal?
(No, of course you ain't... I'm just being facetious.)
Population size doesn't mean jack shit unless you account for the total consumption: energy consumption per capita in Finland is 20 times that of DR Congo, or 13 Times Pakistan, or 12 times Ethiopia, or 8 times Nigeria, or 7 times Indonesia, or 4 times Mexico (or somewhat less than the US).
Yup, 5.5 million Finns consume energy more than 80 million Congolese. AND they wi
Re: (Score:2)
You've never even seen coal, let alone used it for fuel.
Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO (Score:5, Informative)
"upgrade to coal"
I think the last time that phrase was actually valid was some time in the 18th century when the first steam engine was built.
Apparently you don't understand the fundamental problems with coal.
A) its produces the largest amount of CO2 per BTU of any fossil fuel
B) It doesn't matter how much you wash it, it still pollutes horribly even if you ignore the CO2 mainly due to sulphur dioxide and particulates in the smoke.
Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. Even with scrubbing, coal is just simply a dirty fuel that has no business being used to produce enegery in a modern industrialized nation in the 21st century.
Re: (Score:2)
We bought a house once (well, more than once) but this particular time, the ex-mayor of the town was now a real-estate agent and she took us around town to look at a few houses - senile old bat who couldn't even drive a car without knocking over garbage cans - she was quite certain that "our power plant has the latest scrubber technology, it's completely safe," as she took us to look at a house less than a mile from the stacks...
Yeah, with assurances from a source like that, who would ever worry?
Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO (Score:5, Informative)
Plus the radioactives. Mustn't forget that. Yes, there are radioactive elements in coal. Which typically go up the smokestack in a coal plant. Because coal stack scrubbers aren't actually designed to deal with uranium and thorium, which you find in tiny amounts in coal (and tiny amounts multiplied by a metric-fuckton of coal being burned adds up to more radioactives released into the air than nuclear power has ever managed).
Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, radioactive elements released into the environment due to coal use is significantly larger than with nuclear plants (per unit of energy) but even that is NOWHERE near the main problem with coal-generated pollutants: much bigger problem is the amount of heavy metals released in the environment, including mercury!
It used to be so that salmon was an unabiguously healthy nutrient. That has changed dramatically in the last three decades, as coal-fired powerplants installations have grown geometrically.
Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, radioactive elements released into the environment due to coal use is significantly larger than with nuclear plants
Not true. This is mostly a myth. Most radiation from coal is thorium, which stays in the ash, and is not biologically active. The comparison was made in 1978, when fly ash stack emission standards for coal were way more lax than today. Even so, coal radiation was only more than nukes during "normal operations", but nearly all environmental radiation from nukes is from leaks and accidents.
There are plenty of good reasons to stop burning coal, but "radiation" isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, radioactive elements released into the environment due to coal use is significantly larger than with nuclear plants
Not true. This is mostly a myth. Most radiation from coal is thorium, which stays in the ash, and is not biologically active. The comparison was made in 1978, when fly ash stack emission standards for coal were way more lax than today. Even so, coal radiation was only more than nukes during "normal operations", but nearly all environmental radiation from nukes is from leaks and accidents.
There are plenty of good reasons to stop burning coal, but "radiation" isn't one of them.
Not a myth at all - I thought I was careful not to mention just the burning of coal, but the whole process of producing electricity, which includes the extraction of coal. Extraction of coal and its burning in coal fired plants exceeds the emissions generated by extraction and use of uranium in nuclear plants, by a factor of two, in modern times. Sorry, I should have been much more explicit.
But as I was pointing out in my original post, it doesn't even fucking matter - heavy metals released by the productio
Re: (Score:2)
Extraction of coal and its burning in coal fired plants exceeds the emissions generated by extraction and use of uranium in nuclear plants, by a factor of two, in modern times.
Citation? Even the 1978 Oakridge study didn't claim a factor of two, and it was written when coal plants were far dirtier than they are today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Coal is so low in energy density compared to nuclear that the sheer tonnage (or tonneage, as the case may be) of coal that has to be mined per megawatt magnifies the effect of every pollutant in it. And that's before we even consider the carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, thorium is completely safe, not biologically active at all - let's give you a thorium seed injection so we can track some stuff in a scanner, won't hurt a bit...
Re: (Score:2)
Plus the radioactives. Mustn't forget that. (A) Yes, there are radioactive elements in coal. (2)Which typically go up the smokestack in a coal plant.
1) Wrong. Only some coals contain radioactives (aka Thorium)
2) Wrong. It gets washed out by scrubbers.
And anyway: the amount of Thorium or rests of Uranium always were so low it was never relevant for anything.
Because coal stack scrubbers aren't actually designed to deal with uranium and thorium ...
That is nonsense. Scrubbers work actually extremely simple. I
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed that normal operational thorium+uranium+radon->polonium emissions from coal plants are insignificant. Which is quite telling since they are even greater than radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants.
Not agreed that scrubbers make everything safe. Scrubbers aren't run 100% of the time, and they aren't 100% effective, and the waste from scrubbers and fly ash is nearly as problematic as the stuff they want to stash in Yucca Mountain.
Plus: mercury.
Re: (Score:2)
Radon is a gas.
Coal does not contain Radon.
Which is quite telling since they are even greater than radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants.
Wrong and irrelevant.
The two big accidents, Chernobyl and Fukushima, releases million times more radiation as all the coal plants since 1880.
Scrubbers aren't run 100% of the time,
In my country, they do. No idea about your retarded country.
and they aren't 100% effective
99.95% ?
and the waste from scrubbers and fly ash is nearly as problematic as the stuff they wan
Re: (Score:2)
B) It doesn't matter how much you wash it, it still pollutes horribly even if you ignore the CO2 mainly due to sulphur dioxide and particulates in the smoke.
That is wrong. Since about 1977 or give or take a year or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but "Friends of Coal" are getting money from the continued exploitation of this time honored resource. Potential "Friends of Coal" I can think of:
- Medical professionals treating various diseases caused from coal particulate and heavy metal pollution of the communities downwind from coal burning facilities
- Those who benefit from acid rain
- Those who benefit from the ban on eating fish caught in freshwater streams and lakes
- Those who benefit from strip-mining operations
- Those who think they can't po
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing about these "power plants"... are they anything like the flower power-up in Super Mario Bros?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now if every household used coal just like you, we'd look just like china!
. . . except the air would be so bad, that we wouldn't even be able to see what we look like.
Re: (Score:2)
There's anthracite (glossy black coal) and there's lignite (brown coal). Anthracite is relatively clean burning yes, but brown coal, which is used in a lot of places like Germany, is really dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
There's anthracite (glossy black coal) and there's lignite (brown coal). Anthracite is relatively clean burning yes, but brown coal, which is used in a lot of places like Germany, is really dirty. ....
That is nonsense.
Every coal plant has the exact same pollution requirements.
And every coal plant has the exact same scrubbers
I really wonder how stupid the mainstream /. poster meanwhile is.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Anthracite is a hard, compact variety of coal that has a submetallic luster. It has the highest carbon content, the fewest impurities, and the highest energy density of all types of coal except for graphite.... The principal use of anthracite today is for a domestic fuel in either hand-fired stoves or automatic stoker furnaces. It delivers high energy per its weight and burns cleanly with little soot, making it ideal for this purpose. Its high value makes it prohibitively e
Re: (Score:2)
I was saying that your claim is wrong.
And your wikipedia references, written by laymen, like you, still don't make it right.
A scrubber in a plant does not know if the smoke comes from lignite or anthracite, so it scrubbs both the same way. Facepalm.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like the typical uniformed dumbass German internet user. That's why those idiots keep burning brown coal and claim they're running on green energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Anthracite can have more than 32.5 MJ/kg while low grade Lignite can have less than 14.6 MJ/kg.
Re: (Score:2)
And in what regard is that relevant?
A kg Alcohol has more energy than a kg starch ... and? What has that to with anything?
Re: Coal gets a bad rap IMHO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brown coal has not more sulfur than hard coal.
How stupid is that idea?
And anyway: WHO THE FUNK CARES? The sulfur is scrubbed away, since 40 years!!! It never reaches the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both units will easily pay for themselves in in under 10 years.
does that include the money you receive for writing these posts?