Without a doubt coal is the most polluting source of energy. All types of coal contains various impurities that vary by deposit origin location. Among these, some are radioactive. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
To be fair, I don't think Trendy said that, I did. Trendy said something about mercury emissions I believe. Coal, which is mostly carbon, contains the natural abundance of C14. Virtually all of this C-14 ends up as radioactive carbon dioxide, some of which you breathe every day of your life. The amount of C-14 carbon dioxide emitted by a large coal fired power plant is substantial, though you should not be concerned about the amount of C-14 you are exposed to by this route. You probably get more radioactive material in your body from eating bananas. A properly operating nuclear plant however emits virtually no radiation to the environment and it emits virtually no CO2 in comparison to coal fired plant which emits copious amounts of CO2, and also SO2 which is converted to SO3 in the atmosphere and rains down on you as dilute sulfuric acid. Whole forests that were down wind from coal fired plants have been killed or stunted by this acid rain. The remedy has been to add scrubbers to the stacks to scrub out the SO2 and convert it to Gypsum, but this is a costly and troublesome measure. I should add that coal deposits often contain Uranium as an insoluble uranium 4+ salt. Some of this also finds it's way back into the environment from whence it came, but in a somewhat more concentrated form. It is largely present in the cinders and fly ash, which can be used to make "cinder" blocks, the use of which may result in slightly more than natural radioactive buildings.. Radiation is everywhere, so don't worry about it, but it is absolutely true that a coal fired plant releases far more radioactivity to the environment than does a properly operating nuclear plant.
Why are you guessing about what he said? Scroll up. Here is his exact wording. "And don't forget a properly operating coal fired power plant emits more radioactivity than a properly operating nuclear plant." Outrageous statement is still outrageous. And now that you've repeated outrageous statement in question with non-sequitor 'evidence', I'll ask you for the same source to prove you didn't pull this out of that location where the sun does not shine. While we're at it, do coal power plant workers wear radiation monitors, since they would be receiving "far more radioactivity" than the same type of worker at a nuclear plant?
Serious question - why does Nat gas go up and not crude in this situation? Any insight would be appreciated. DS
A lot of Electricity is produced from Nat gas... Nat gas has been beat down... Plenty of supply but that doesn't mean you wont get speculation and rotation in (i hate both of those words, sound like a perma bull).... Oil is kind of high for the amount of "supply" we currently have,, but eventually oil will spike to 3/400 a barrel when we realize how overstated our reserves are and how much demand we currently have.. But that not till 5-15 years out... For now the supply stays overstated and production is on full tilt, but that wont stop speculation from driving the price up....
Google is your friend. "According to 1982 figures, 111 American nuclear plants consumed about 540 tons of nuclear fuel, generating almost 1.1 x 10E12 kWh of electricity. During the same year, about 801 tons of uranium alone were released from American coal-fired plants. Add 1971 tons of thorium, and the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels." http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plantâa by-product from burning coal for electricityâcarries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste