版主信箱  貼圖、程式等,版主可任意修改或刪除,轉貼文章請多用連結,
一天 (00:00-23:59) 請只開一個話題,請大家合作,謝謝。12/17/2017 00:48:20
 

外獨會意見交流

 

核電幫的利益共生是全球性的

發言人:挖地雷, on Dec/02/2017    07:39:19 (IP code: X.X.179.119)

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste
The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.

Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an online database of fly ash–based uranium content for sites across the U.S. In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks. In Tennessee's Chattanooga shale, for example, there is more uranium in phosphate rock.

Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, says that for the average person the by-product accounts for a miniscule amount of background radiation, probably less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure. According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.

So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."

Radiation from uranium and other elements in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains. "It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon."

Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases.

With the world now focused on addressing climate change, nuclear power is gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source.

The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again."

Record ID: 1512171559   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:挖地雷, on Dec/02/2017    07:48:44 (IP code: X.X.179.119)
> Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

靠,原來我幾十年的科學教育都被教錯了!

Record ID: 1512171559R001   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:老少, on Dec/02/2017    07:51:06 (IP code: X.X.154.174)
你想表達, 台灣霾電幫的利益共生屬是本土性的?

Record ID: 1512171559R002   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:高人, on Dec/02/2017    08:30:45 (IP code: X.X.95.218)
中国大陆太阳能发电入网价是每度0.75人民币(火电0.45),投资七万每年获利近两万,呆丸为何不大规模发展太阳能发电?

Record ID: 1512171559R003   From: 美國

回信 發言人:中間選民, on Dec/02/2017    08:36:32 (IP code: X.X.213.233)
煤灰的輻射不但高,而且是pm2.5的主要成因,這是常識。可是就有一些人不懂,還自以為是!

Record ID: 1512171559R004   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:中間選民, on Dec/02/2017    08:38:47 (IP code: X.X.213.233)
太陽能每度0.75RMB, 騙誰啊?

Record ID: 1512171559R005   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:高人, on Dec/02/2017    08:46:40 (IP code: X.X.95.218)
马迷黄妇知道个鸟,太阳能发电入网价每度0.75人民币是国家优惠价。我前天才得到的信息,一个朋友去年在自己家房顶装的,投资七万,获利近两万。准备明年扩大规模,正在找设置太阳板的地方。

Record ID: 1512171559R006   From: 美國

回信 發言人:挖地雷, on Dec/02/2017    08:59:30 (IP code: X.X.179.119)
> 煤灰的輻射不但高,而且是pm2.5的主要成因,這是常識。可是就有一些人不懂,還自以為是!

  The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an online database of fly ash–based uranium content for sites across the U.S. In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks. In Tennessee's Chattanooga shale, for example, there is more uranium in phosphate rock.

Record ID: 1512171559R007   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:挖地雷, on Dec/02/2017    09:04:08 (IP code: X.X.179.119)
> 煤灰的輻射不但高,而且是pm2.5的主要成因,這是常識。可是就有一些人不懂,還自以為是!

  我講的是那文章說煤灰的輻射會比核癈料還高,你扯 pm2.5 幹嘛?

Record ID: 1512171559R008   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:沈黑朝, on Dec/02/2017    09:04:17 (IP code: X.X.38.127)
老挖,你真認為核能界是「一團和氣」?得勢核電廠派系不會打擊其他不同核能設計理念與立場的?

這是一場大混戰而已!

總之,煤不能再挖,核能要改弦易轍!


Record ID: 1512171559R009   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:挖地雷, on Dec/02/2017    09:10:41 (IP code: X.X.179.119)
> 得勢核電廠派系不會打擊其他不同核能設計理念與立場的?

  啊不就是最能賺大錢的那一幫嗎?

Record ID: 1512171559R010   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:高人, on Dec/02/2017    09:17:41 (IP code: X.X.95.218)
煤炭是有放射性的,燃煤发电厂放射姓一般高出当地本底值数倍,这没有什么可争论的。核电站如果不发生核泄漏事故,放射性肯定比燃煤发电要低得多。问题是万一发生核泄漏怎么办?

Record ID: 1512171559R011   From: 美國

回信 發言人:沈黑朝, on Dec/02/2017    09:59:46 (IP code: X.X.38.127)
问题是万一发生核泄漏怎么办?
====================================
所以當有其他核能專家們提出不可能發生核洩漏的新設計時,你有沒有給予關注仔細聽?
還是你堅持不斷花錢投資試圖改善現在有著先天不安全特性的核電廠設計?
其實打心眼裡知道,無論怎麼改善都不可能百分之百安全,更別提忽視後續核廢燃料的處理問題。

人類有著不斷創新找出路的天性,
但是在燒煤發電與核電廠的爭議上,就不會趕緊找其他出路了,也是奇哉怪哉!

還有如果太陽能發電如果真的成本低,可以取代燒煤發電,那麼架設太陽能板根本不需要政府補貼!

我講的新核能設計不是天方夜譚,已有好幾組人馬提出設計理念與理論或實驗驗證,
但是各國政府的反應只有兩個字:冷淡

加拿大除外。

Record ID: 1512171559R012   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:HUNTER轉, on Dec/02/2017    10:07:22 (IP code: X.X.175.43)
The BN-800 reactor is a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor, built at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station, in Zarechny, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Russia. Designed to generate electrical power of 880 MW in total, the plant is the final step to the commercial plutonium cycle breeder. The plant reached its full power production in August, 2016.

俄羅斯正等待新核洩漏

Record ID: 1512171559R013   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:HUNTER, on Dec/02/2017    10:08:52 (IP code: X.X.175.43)
俄羅斯視核洩漏為常態

Record ID: 1512171559R014   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:HUNTER轉, on Dec/02/2017    10:09:50 (IP code: X.X.175.43)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Fast_breeder_reactor

Record ID: 1512171559R015   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:2, on Dec/02/2017    10:30:21 (IP code: X.X.214.151)
挖XX

還在妖言惑眾?
民進黨若因你們而毀滅
那也是叫報應不爽

Record ID: 1512171559R016   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:2, on Dec/02/2017    10:33:30 (IP code: X.X.197.197)
不懂裝懂
不用等到核電廠出事
台灣人就被世界的支支弄死光了

Record ID: 1512171559R017   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:, on Dec/02/2017    10:36:32 (IP code: X.X.29.227)
台灣要遷都台中或是高雄,空氣污染的問題才有可能解決
不是只有我這麼想,我看到很多人現在都怨嘆說中南部的人犧牲自己的肺,讓台北人有電可用

Record ID: 1512171559R018   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:2, on Dec/02/2017    10:36:44 (IP code: X.X.214.151)
支那的PM2.5微粒
加上林義雄等的PM2.5微粒

台灣人是不夠死的

Record ID: 1512171559R019   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:, on Dec/02/2017    10:38:16 (IP code: X.X.29.227)
不然高官都在台北呼吸新鮮的空氣,是不能體會中南部老百姓的痛苦
輻射是無形的感覺不到的,空氣汙染卻是每一秒鐘都讓人窒息

Record ID: 1512171559R020   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Cobra, on Dec/02/2017    10:38:38 (IP code: X.X.209.159)
pm2.5好像只是度量長度衍生單位的操作...

Record ID: 1512171559R021   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:2, on Dec/02/2017    10:40:00 (IP code: X.X.197.197)
什麼都不懂
卻愛亂搞重大政策

Record ID: 1512171559R022   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:, on Dec/02/2017    10:41:19 (IP code: X.X.29.227)
中國今年霧霾大減,就是因為關停很多煤炭場
台灣廢核,綠能又是空談,所以只能大幅增加火力發電,霧霾是必然的結果

Record ID: 1512171559R023   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:, on Dec/02/2017    10:50:31 (IP code: X.X.29.227)
台灣還沒有真正做過一次全國性公投
立法院要儘快通過公投法,核四和同性戀婚姻這兩項重大政策爭議要全民公投決定
澳洲前兩個禮拜才通過同性婚姻公投,台灣不能只由政府高層自己意志決定

Record ID: 1512171559R024   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Coelacanth, on Dec/02/2017    11:30:20 (IP code: X.X.13.143)
對啊

科學教育很多都是錯的

聖人之治

所以愚民也

Record ID: 1512171559R025   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Coelacanth, on Dec/02/2017    11:31:44 (IP code: X.X.13.143)
科學教育是要製造技工學者者類奴隸

不用教完全正確的

教他們需要的正確就行了

Record ID: 1512171559R026   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Coelacanth, on Dec/02/2017    11:33:42 (IP code: X.X.13.143)
從政者多有大智慧

所以拘泥於科學者少

Record ID: 1512171559R027   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Coelacanth, on Dec/02/2017    11:35:57 (IP code: X.X.13.143)
所以教育分文理

文組訓練製造領導人管理者

理組製造技術士科學家

Record ID: 1512171559R028   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Coelacanth, on Dec/02/2017    11:38:26 (IP code: X.X.13.143)
很奇怪的

中美日等大國 從政的領導人多是文組射會組的

理科的名人不多

Record ID: 1512171559R029   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Coelacanth, on Dec/02/2017    11:39:35 (IP code: X.X.13.143)
我們小國家就要出一個理組的柯文哲領導人了

Record ID: 1512171559R030   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Coelacanth, on Dec/02/2017    11:40:41 (IP code: X.X.13.143)
理組的很興奮

理組文組之爭

誰勝誰負呢?

Record ID: 1512171559R031   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Coelacanth, on Dec/02/2017    11:43:20 (IP code: X.X.13.143)
將來是數位化e政府時代

AI時代。理組會占上風嗎?

還是不科學ㄇ摸不透的文組人呢?

Record ID: 1512171559R032   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Coelacanth, on Dec/02/2017    11:49:30 (IP code: X.X.13.143)
你這篇文章說老半天

都在反復說煤炭的幅射量比鈾能多

是科學宣傳文

我是無法相信的


Record ID: 1512171559R033   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:統派台灣民眾, on Dec/02/2017    12:26:13 (IP code: X.X.123.168)
其實這窪地雷大大的意思就是"""""

有一種另類的核子能和平用途發展可以幫大日本帝國""""

中華民國這種戰敗國不能發展核子彈'所以只能搞核能發電"""

大日本帝國可以發展製造核能動力油輪來運送石油'核能動力散裝輪來運煤'運鐵""

至於中華民國這種戰敗國既然不能在金馬國土上建造核能發電廠的話'不如就再台灣訂至一台核能發電船去支援金馬國土"

Record ID: 1512171559R034   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:David, on Dec/02/2017    12:57:12 (IP code: X.X.99.18)
中國霧霾大減?日本就預測中國PM2.5, 12/4就會大量影響周邊國家。

Record ID: 1512171559R035   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:, on Dec/02/2017    13:01:56 (IP code: X.X.240.43)
我住台中,我完全支持拆掉台中火力發電廠,換成核電廠

這樣台北人一樣有電可用,核電廠又不在自己家旁邊,就不會再抗議了

Record ID: 1512171559R036   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:temo, on Dec/02/2017    15:56:49 (IP code: X.X.158.133)
>中美日等大國 從政的領導人多是文組射會組的

支那除外, 其他, 特別是美國, 無論文理, 人民的一般科學水準是相當高的.
你用支那或台灣標準來衡量 美國人的文, 理科差距, 實在是一種漢沙文的愚痴. 我感到震驚.

這三個絕對不是同等級!

Record ID: 1512171559R037   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:temo, on Dec/02/2017    16:01:28 (IP code: X.X.158.133)
這三個"大國"絕對不是同等級!
--------------
看來你也"還"是個沒有經過現代洗禮的華癡, 雖然偶而也會翻些科學報告, 不過
真的要請懂得人先讀過, 不然誤人子弟不好.
我認得你也不只一陣子了.

Record ID: 1512171559R038   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Coelacanth, on Dec/02/2017    16:21:21 (IP code: X.X.13.143)
美國人大多高中畢業而已

大學畢業是少數

你們敢說他們文理程度很高啊?

Record ID: 1512171559R039   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:temo, on Dec/02/2017    16:37:26 (IP code: X.X.158.133)
Very funny.

Record ID: 1512171559R040   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:Golden, on Dec/02/2017    16:47:40 (IP code: X.X.46.31)
“Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste”
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is not true. Your comment “靠,原來我幾十年的科學教育都被教錯了”, No, you were educated right, but it is/was true: “radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities”, because people knew that nuclear power plants had radioactive materials, so they built (radiation) protection for that, but people did not know that coal contained radioactive material, so they did not build protection for the coal plants.

If you live in a concrete house/building, then you need worry about radiation from fly ash (it adds some fly ash to replace some cement in the concrete these days), radioactive material is a silent killer, I have three radioactivity meters, I check the radiation reading inside my house (wooden house) frequently, the background radiation is about 20 cpm, my house is ok (no radon gas or other radioactive material).

Record ID: 1512171559R041   From: 美國

回信 發言人:temo, on Dec/02/2017    17:28:57 (IP code: X.X.158.133)
040, 這傢伙怎麼會認為這是屬高等教育範圍呢?

台灣的教育也正在轉型中.
我敢推斷, 現今台灣的中小學生的科學觀念都會比這傢伙好.

Record ID: 1512171559R042   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:中間選民, on Dec/02/2017    18:08:30 (IP code: X.X.213.233)
快滋生式也就是比爾蓋兹推廣的第四代反應爐,但是日本有一個文殊反應爐實驗了十幾年,現在停工中。比尔和中共想搞第四代,還早的呢?

Record ID: 1512171559R043   From: 台灣

回信 發言人:中間選民, on Dec/02/2017    18:15:00 (IP code: X.X.213.233)
糕人的錢已經被共產黨的銀行股坑殺了一次,現在還要被共產黨的太陽能再坑殺一次,你有多少錢,共產黨就坑你多少錢!

Record ID: 1512171559R044   From: 台灣

本篇到此告一段落———版主

WE ARE 49ER TAIWANESE