• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is actually a pretty major indictment on the US. Coal is one of the worst most inefficient fuel sources for power generation, virtually every other fuel source is an improvement including incineration of food waste.

    A good test of how efficient fuel is is to see how much of it you still have left after you’ve theoretically burnt all of it. The fact that coal smoke is black is a pretty good indication of how bad it is. You’re throwing away a good chunk of your fuel.

    • Nurgus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I love the trivia that there’s traces of uranium in coal which go up with the smoke - coal is worse than nuclear in terms of radiological pollution.

      • ExperiencedWinter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        When looking if it was feasible to convert coal power plants to nuclear, we found out that most of the coal sites have more radioactivity than is allowed for a future nuclear site

      • VoodooMischief@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        This is an often misquoted fact. The study that compared coal and nuclear was only studying air pollutants, and obviously the steam stacks from nuclear reactors don’t have as much radionuclide pollutants as coal. However, the study did not look at other sources like wastewater - which is where most radionuclide pollution from nuclear reactors comes from (along with other sources like spent fuel, casings, and moderator rods).