CH: A Chernoybl for Coal

Resolved with the things the OTL British government did to make sure it wouldn't happen again. It hasn't happened again.

As for why it did didn't discredit coal, the main reason is that this occurred after people broke the rules by dumping spoil on springs of water. This wasn't an event that could be turned into 'if we continue to mine coal, this is guaranteed to happen at some point'.

Chernoybl was a badly designed reactor that had a type of meltdown which wouldn't happen with most reactors. That didn't keep it from discrediting nuclear power.

What's actually the case and what culture imagines dangers to be are radically different things there. This thread has really taught me the value of psychology here, to put things mildly.
 
This scenario requires a lot of handwavium, especially since I don't know a lot about the science behind carbon sequestration.

Let's say you get the power companies to admit that climate change is real and coal is part of the problem- BUT: "It's okay, because we've got this fool-proof carbon sequestration method we're 100% sure will effectively solve the problem. In fact we're so sure that all our problems are solved, we're going to set up our showcase facility at the Capitol Power Plant five blocks from the US Capitol building."

Now imagine what can go wrong...
 
Something more like the Aberfan disaster in 1966 in Wales, England. It would need to be better located to achieve a higher body count and where it can be reported better.
 
It seems like there are plenty of coal disasters to pick from, its just that, for whatever reason, none of them ever reach mass public consciousness.
 
Chernoybl was a badly designed reactor that had a type of meltdown which wouldn't happen with most reactors. That didn't keep it from discrediting nuclear power.

What's actually the case and what culture imagines dangers to be are radically different things there. This thread has really taught me the value of psychology here, to put things mildly.

Perception is important, but nuclear power have one big disadvantage that is the type of damage it caused. Disaster or injuries related to coal or other fossil fuel are something most people can understand and observe in their daily lifes:lung diseases, explosions, fires, etc.

Radiation sickness, on the other hand, is up till now something pretty novel and difficult to comprehend. Also, the very high mortality rate of radiation sickness and the dreadful prognosis of contaminated victims are very distressful.
 
It seems like there are plenty of coal disasters to pick from, its just that, for whatever reason, none of them ever reach mass public consciousness.

Yes, but most of those are not so different from other large urban or industrial disasters. Hell, a serious multi-story building fire have higher potential in causing more casualties.
 
Perception is important, but nuclear power have one big disadvantage that is the type of damage it caused. Disaster or injuries related to coal or other fossil fuel are something most people can understand and observe in their daily lifes:lung diseases, explosions, fires, etc.

Radiation sickness, on the other hand, is up till now something pretty novel and difficult to comprehend. Also, the very high mortality rate of radiation sickness and the dreadful prognosis of contaminated victims are very distressful.

The psychology of it again I see. It sure has caused interesting impacts, to say the least.
 
Yes, but most of those are not so different from other large urban or industrial disasters. Hell, a serious multi-story building fire have higher potential in causing more casualties.

The key then, psychologically speaking, would be to link one of them to coal in general, in the manner Chernoybl was linked to nuclear instead of just being a faulty plant design.
 
The key then, psychologically speaking, would be to link one of them to coal in general, in the manner Chernoybl was linked to nuclear instead of just being a faulty plant design.

Don't forget people have used coal in their homes for heat and cooking purpose for a long time.

Also, if Chernoybl is a coal power station, even with a complete destruction of the plant, Pripyat would probably only needed to be partially evacuated for a short time. That's a big difference.
 
"Wales, England"

Seriously?

Not to mention it's already been discussed.

Chernoybl was a badly designed reactor that had a type of meltdown which wouldn't happen with most reactors. That didn't keep it from discrediting nuclear power.

What's actually the case and what culture imagines dangers to be are radically different things there. This thread has really taught me the value of psychology here, to put things mildly.

I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread - is it AH or an attempt to have a Chat discussion about how much you hate coal?

I say this because you don't really seem to have responded to what I actually said in my post, even though you quoted it.
 
Sorry.:eek:

Okay, well, I can see I'm intervening too much in the topic. Okay, basically, I'm making the Cherynobl comparison more as trying to figure out the psychology of things, but that turned into something else.

So... lets try this again.


Okay, it seems to get a Chernoybl event with coal will require more... buildup, if you will. Nuclear already was having issues before Chernoybl because of Three Mile Island and all that. Hence, the key would be to set that up with coal.
 
Sorry.:eek:

Okay, it seems to get a Chernoybl event with coal will require more... buildup, if you will. Nuclear already was having issues before Chernoybl because of Three Mile Island and all that. Hence, the key would be to set that up with coal.

You need much more. Chernoybl remains vivid thanks to the evacuation of its surrounding areas. Aberfan, on the other hand, is still a vibrant village today.
 

Sior

Banned
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11900206

Abstract

Soil samples were collected around a coal-fired power plant from 81 different locations. Brown coal, unusually rich in uranium, is burnt in this plant that lies inside the confines of a small industrial town and has been operational since 1943. Activity concentrations of the radionuclides 238U, 226Ra, 232Th, 137Cs and 40K were determined in the samples. Considerably elevated concentrations of 238U and 226Ra have been found in most samples collected within the inhabited area. Concentrations of 235U and 226Ra in soil decreased regularly with increasing depth at many locations, which can be explained by fly-ash fallout. Concentrations of 235U and 226Ra in the top (0-5 cm depth) layer of soil in public areas inside the town are 4.7 times higher, on average, than those in the uncontaminated deeper layers, which means there is about 108 Bq kg(-1) surplus activity concentration above the geological background. A high emanation rate of 222Rn from the contaminated soil layers and significant disequilibrium between 238U and 226Ra activities in some kinds of samples have been found.

http://www.sustainablearizona.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1175&Itemid=2

Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
  • 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
  • 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
  • 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
  • 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
  • 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
  • 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
  • 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
  • 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
  • 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
Coal-burning power plants are the nation's largest unregulated source of mercury pollution, and also emit enormous quantities of lead, arsenic and other hazardous chemicals. Some 1,300 coal-fired units at existing power plants spew at least 48 tons of mercury, alone, into the air each year.
 
Top