Which fuel is most harmful

Nuclear.

Guest,

Your ignorance is showing...

Nuclear power got a bad rap after three mile island and Chernobyl. But the fact of the matter is that each and every year, the coal fired power plants in the US LEGALLY emit far more radiation than was released by the TMI "accident" near Harrisburg PA back in 1979.

A fact that is not reported in the media is that the burning of coal is responsible for much of the "background radiation" in the the US as well as many other parts of the world. Approximately 150 Coal fired power plants supply approx. 50% of the electricity in the US, and on a typical day, each coal-fired plant spews out many tons of greenhouse gasses and other hazardous air pollutants, and nearly 100 pounds of radioactive waste material.

While much of this radioactive waste is captured by the scrubbers and other emission controls, this is not the case for the gaseous radioneuclides produced as the radioactive minerals decay. And don't forget that outside of the US, many countries do not require the emission controls that are required by the US Govt.

You see, coal is composed primarily of organic matter, but also contains inorganic minerals and trace elements, including uranium (U), thorium (Th), and their decay products, including radium (Ra) and radon (Rn). Coal used in the US typically has uranium content between 1 and 4 parts per million (PPM), but some coal has been found to contain as much as 20 PPM uranium.

And guess what, other fossil fuels (i.e., petroleum) ALSO contain radioactive minerals. Granted, a lot of these radioactive materials are extracted during the production & refining.

These are referred to as NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material).

Just because they're "natural" doesn't mean that they are good for ya...

British Nuclear Fuels had a 'roadshow' in a tent in Chelmsford many years ago. On display were a number of materials placed upon a slow-moving turntable, above which was a Geiger counter. It was interesting to note what happened when a lump of coal passed under it...

Yes, and if it had been an AGR I doubt that that would have been half so critical. I'd be interested in expert opinion on this one asn I aren't one, but why did we ditch AGRs after spending so much money developing them. I count PWRs and (perhaps) worse BWRs as inferior.

Headlines from Science News magazine:

Recurring exposure to soot particles from diesel exhaust fumes reduces the immune system's capacity to fend off infection, tests on rodents indicate.

Nanoparticles in diesel fumes thwart proteins that dissolve blood clots, perhaps increasing the risk of heart attacks.

Nanoparticles in diesel exhaust can activate genes that worsen cholesterol's damaging effects.

In rats, exposure to diesel exhaust perturbs pregnant moms' sex-hormone production and makes her pups more masculine in certain ways.

Except in young females, small blood vessels in rodents lost the ability to precisely regulate blood flow after exposure to an oily constituent of diesel soot.

Pollutants spewing from vehicles and power plants may be harmful to fetal brains, new evidence suggests. The study is the first to directly link delayed cognitive development in children to their mothers' exposure during pregnancy to common air pollutants called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs.

We shouldn't use petrol OR diesel...how about ethanol and bio-diesel instead.

As always thing aren't so simple, it's not an either or answer.

The exact device burning the fuel.

Additional considerations are which emissions are localy of the most concern.

Natural gas will subsistute for either w/reduced emissions.

The nuclear/coal comparision, is also not straightforward.

Coal has immediate enviromental impacts, including radiation.

Nuclear's negative impacts are much longer range. How can you deal radiation that lasts @ lethal levels for ten of thousands of years?

Glassification and deep storage. Lets not perpetuate the myth that mankind hasn't yet come up with an answer to the problem of fission waste products.

Why isn't anyone talking about solar, wind, or bio-fuels? While you are worrying about the radiation in coal and talking about the dangers of nuclear, enough sunlight is hitting the earth to eliminate most of our problems.

In 2001, the world used 13 TW of electricity (fossil fuels) – to equal this consumption with nuclear power, one 1 GW nuclear power plant would have to be built every 1.5 days for the next 45 years.

More energy from the sun hits the earth in one hour than humans consume in an entire year. Japan's solar program has reduced prices by more than 50% and increased the number of installations from 500 to >100,000 in 10 years.

Silver nano-island solar research will revolutionize solar efficieincies...but what we have right now is stupidly under-utilized. There are plenty of people driving around who never pay a dime for their bio-fuels, by the way...they stop at a local McDonald's and ask if they can take the french fry oil from the containers in the back.

The political is becoming personal...do you always want to depend on "Big Energy" to light and heat your home? If you do, you are a slave to their price demands.

I was answering the question & other issues brought up during the course of the discussion.

If you would like to have discussion about these other technologies, a good start are Masu's future energy series.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blog/browse/33/MaSu-on-Machines-Meteors-Mozzies

feel free to start a discussion.

The impediments to the wide spread accecptance of the tech you promote are monetary & political.

The industries making money from fossil fuel, won't go quietly & will try to control any innovation.

Agreed...Mobile tried to buy up the patents to Lepcon and Lumeloid, but the small company resisted the temptation. It was obvious Mobile would buy the rights to a revolutionary solar technology and then never produce it. I'll check out the Masu discussion, but the data in the articles I mentioned still stands under scientific scrutiny....diesel is very dangerous and petrol and coal produce acid rain.

I bet hydrogen powered cars will beat out the other forms of energy, because the big companies can control the supply.

you are correct about hydrogen. the big boys will promote & dominate.

All fuels are iqually harmfull to atmospher, since combustion reaction burn them all to procuce heat, CO2, CO and C particles mainly -although proportion varies a little from diesel, biodisel, Gas LP, Nat gas, or gasoline, but all of the are causing atmospher overheating and climate changes -

We must stop using fossilfuels and biofuels, period, it has non sence to discuss wich harms more or less the air. What a waist of time .