The Coal Comparison Part 2

Last time we compared capital costs of coal and nuclear power plants (in which coal was the obvious victor) and fuel costs (where uranium's insane energy density relative to coal pulls nuclear well ahead). An additional note I forgot to make on fuel last time is thermal efficiency: coal power plants are capable of superheating the steam coming out of their boilers, and as such increase their thermal efficiency (the percentage of heat generated that actually turns into electric power). While nuclear fuel is up to the task itself, the special cladding and other materials needed to make a nuclear core produce power safely cannot withstand the heat needed to superheat steam, so the maximum thermal efficiency of a plant is limited. Even so, the net result is still generally much cheaper power from nuclear power.

Safety and Health

We'll continue our comparison with a discussion of safety between our two competing power sources. Everyone knows to be (or at least thinks they should be) worried about radiation from nuclear power plants. The not-so-fun fact that most people don't know is: coal power plants actually release more radiation to the atmosphere than nuclear. [1] As we discussed with atmospheric dispersion of radionuclides, when operating normally nuclear power plants release virtually in terms of radiation to the environment around them. Coal already releases nasty amounts of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, and mixed in with these gases are radioactive versions of carbon--harmless when sitting inside a lump of coal, but much more concerning when you breath it in to your very vunlerable lungs. The net increase in radiation is still negligible compared to your background exposure, but it is higher than what you receive from a nuclear plant.

An additional area of safety you may have never considered is how the fuel is acquired. The mining of nuclear material is certainly not an inherently safe operation, and there has been some concern in regards to radon exposure to uranium miners. [2] The net risk to human life, however, is nothing compared to coal mining. The role of coal miner is historically one of the most dangerous occupations one can have, mainly because unlike uranium, coal and its mining byproducts are inherently explosive. In America alone, the demand for coal has cost the lives of over 100,000 miners in the last century [3]. Combine with this the higher rate of catastrophic (and potentially lethal) failure in a coal boiler over a nuclear core [3], and nuclear doesn't look quite as concerning. Broken down into cold statistics, the expected deaths per unit power produced are about ten times higher for coal power than for nuclear.

Well that was kinda depressing to research and write. Hopefully I find something a little more uplifting to write about next time.

[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
[2] http://www.theenergylibrary.com/node/11385
[3] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10807030802387556