Cyanide Is A Constitutent of Dangerous Coal Waste Dumped From Smokestacks.

NNadir

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-25-10 09:05 PM
Original message

Cyanide Is A Constitutent of Dangerous Coal Waste Dumped From Smokestacks.

Recently I heard an uneducated anti-nuke complain that I am in favor of "nuclear cyanide," demonstrating that anti-nukes have no knowledge whatsoever of science, since the cyanide ion - part of the gold industry run by companies like Rio Tinto, which pays the anti-nuke corporate greenwasher Amory Lovins - has practically no utility whatsoever in nuclear chemistry or nuclear operations.

It does however play a significant role in the dangerous coal industry, the industry that the anti-nukes couldn't care less about, no matter how many people it kills.

Just one of the many papers about coal and cyanide can be found here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es1001538">HCN and NH3 Formation during Coal/Char Gasification in the Presence of NO.

As usual, the anti-nuke is woefully uninformed about even the most basic facts of science and couldn't care less how many nitrogen compounds, of which cyanide is only one, spills out of coal facilities while we wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait, decade after decade after decade after decade after decade for all of our wind and solar fantasies to come true.

In the meantime, don't worry, be happy and engage in denial of what that dangerous fossil fuel waste is, where it comes from, and where it goes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jpak

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-25-10 09:52 PM
Response to Original message

1. Where does the electricity used to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants come from?

coal

lots and lots of coal

yup!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dogmudgeon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-25-10 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. Not quite

Big enrichment facilities are often nuclear powered, near nuclear facilities, like URENCO USA and USEC, since nuclear laboratories tend to be multi-purpose operations.

--d!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jpak

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-26-10 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #2

6. Yes quite - all US enrichment plants were built in Appalachia for one reason only

the availability of coal-fired electricity

lots of it

yup

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Statistical

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-26-10 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #1

3. Wouldn't more emission free sources of power reduce the emission cost?

Edited on Mon Apr-26-10 12:28 AM by Statistical

I mean that is the goal right? To improve the CO2 footprint of entire US powergrid.

Of course that assumes a reduction in CO2 emissions is the goal.
For many anti-nukkers it has nothing to do with the planet and everything about slaying the nuclear "monster" no matter the cost.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kristopher

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-26-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #3

4. Except that nuclear is slower, costlier, and far dirtier than renewable alternatives.

It is basic good judgment to reject nuclear power for renewable energy sources.

It also allows a small group of economic elites to continue to control access to energy for the people of the world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Statistical

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-26-10 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #4

5. We aren't rejecting nuclear power. Maybe you haven't been reading the news lately.

Edited on Mon Apr-26-10 12:54 AM by Statistical

So the question remains, the goal is to improve CO2 intensity of entire US powergrid and that includes the energy used to enrich uranium right?

Thus more wind, more solar, more hydro, even more natural gas vs coal means the CO2 intensity of the grid declines as and such the CO2 intensity of enrichment declines.

Then when you consider reactors are moving from 45GWd/MTU to 60GWd/MTU and possibly higher you are producing more energy per unit of fuel and that fuel required less CO2 to make so you get a geometric reduction in CO2 thus making nuclear which is already (according to IPCC) a low carbon power source an even lower carbon power source.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jpak

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-26-10 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #5

7. Sorry - the handful of taxpayer-funded new nuclear plants is not a "renaissance"

and retirements will only allow the industry to tread water (if any of them are actually completed that is)

before it finally sinks

no nucular renaissance for you

nope

:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Statistical

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Apr-26-10 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #7

8. There is more to the world than the United States.

55 reactors under construction right now. 10 more will achieve first criticality this year. 12 more reactor starts planned for this year.

China breaks ground on YET ANOTHER reactor yesterday. This is the 24 reactor under construction and the start happens just 3 months after the last reactor start.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon May 13th 2024, 11:22 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.