Coal Vs Nuclear Energy

Clean coal technology usually addresses atmospheric problems resulting from burning coal. Historically, the primary focus was on sulfur dioxide and particulates, since it is the most important gas in the causation of acid rain. More recent focus has been on carbon dioxide (due to its impact on global warming) as well as other pollutants. Concerns exist regarding the economic viability of these technologies and the timeframe of delivery, potentially high hidden economic costs in terms of social and environmental damage, and the costs and viability of disposing of removed carbon and other toxic matter. More, the byproducts of coal power production range from fly ash sludge ponds full of mercury, arsenic, and sulfur in unlined ponds that can leak into the water supply.

One significant advantage of nuclear energy through the mining of Uranium is its carbon neutral energy production property (3). However, during a meltdown or another catastrophe, Nuclear reactors have the capacity to release significant amounts of toxic radioactive isotopes, such as Strontium 90, Cadmium 113 and Caesium 137, which has the potential to cause significant harm to health (2) and biodiversity (11). Coal on the other hand is a well-documented releaser of greenhouse gasses, with one tonne of coal generating 2.6 tonnes of CO2 alone. Globally, this accounts for 6.4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, with this value progressively increasing (5). Further, the use of coal in electricity production results in the release of particulates into surrounding areas. Particularly in third world and developing nations where regulation on pollution is lax, this causes major tangible health risks to those who live near the plants- a report by the World Health Organisation estimates that deaths directly related to outdoor pollution from Coal-based electricity generation amounts to approximately 2 million deaths per year

Throughout this world, we use various equipment that need certain energy requirements in order for them to run properly. Two of the utmost imperative sources of energy in our world today come from coal and nuclear power. Still, a great deal of citizens of this world are unaware of the impacts of nuclear power whether it be positive or negative due to the fact that nuclear power has not existed as long as coal power has. However, as nuclear power becomes a major resource of energy, we as citizens must determine which is more fitting for not only us, but our environment. As this report continues on, you will come to find the history of each of these resources along with the advantages and disadvantages of each. Concluded from this research was the concept that nuclear power is worthier for America as a whole. Included below are the specific points as to why nuclear power is far superior for American citizens and our environment. However, the main notion to be taken from this report is the view that we need to become further educated on the energy resources present in this world and be able to determine how we can become more efficient and contribute less to climate change in the long run.

The article, “Coal and the Environment”, provides the readers will and understanding of how coal works and also how it is dangerous to our environment. Coal on its own is not dangerous to the environment but once the coal is burned, then pollutants are released into the air causing for less clean air. The government has taken a stand on the industries polluting the air we breathe in everyday with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. These two acts put restrictions on industries that allow for safer and cleaner air.

Emissions from coal fired power plants contribute to global warming, ozone smog, acid rain, regional haze, and perhaps most consequential of all from a public health standpoint, fine particle pollution.

Coal releases dozens of hazardous substances that can be harmful to human health. These are just four of the many things that coal releases: Mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. Every one of these act on the nervous system to cause loss of intellectual capacity. Exposure to coal dust can lead to black lung disease, or pneumoconiosis, which took the lives of 10,000 miners worldwide over the last decade. Black lung disease is similar to diseases you can get from smoking tobacco for a long period of time. This disease is most common with coal miners, because they are constantly exposed to the dangers coal causes. Coal affects not only the human respiratory system, but also the cardiovascular and nervous system. This

technology has been installed into coal plants. This is approximately 90% to 95% affective in eliminating the mercury, sulfur, and nitrogen emissions [6]. As for the deep mining issues, there is another method to retrieve coal from the Earth, removing the entire mountain-tops covering a reserve of coal beneath. Although this

Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel available to humans, there is no argument. There is an estimated 3.9 trillion short tons of coal in the USA alone, and that would be only 21% of the entire world's coal (EIA, 2017). That is a massive amount of coal, but no matter how much coal there is, the human race is using it at a rate much faster than the speed at which it can be produced in nature, therefore the resource is bound to be depleted unless current practices are changed. With the current rate at which coal is used in the world, it will only be around for another 50-56 years (Chiras, 2016). Since it will only be around for roughly 50 years, if usage rates continue as they are, it can not be a major energy source for the next 100 years. Not only will coal just simply not last for the next hundred years when used as is, it is also not an environmentally friendly way to produce energy. Coal is the leading air pollutant in the united states with the typical uncontrolled coal plant emitting 3.5 million tons of CO2, 14,100 tons of SO2 per year, 10,300 tons of NOx per year (UCSUSA, 2015). These major air pollutants can result in acid rain, destruction of the ozone layer, and a wide variety of human health problems. Coal also emits many more heavy metals and solid particulates into the air every year. These substances pollute the Earth’s atmosphere and result in many problems. Coal produces a great amount of energy, but it also produces a great amount of pollutants that get released into the atmosphere and the environment, therefore it can not be a major source of energy for the next 100 years or more problems will occur. Aside of air pollution from using coal, the extraction and production of coal has adverse effects on the environment too. Surface mining produces several environmental hazards and releases a large quantity of pollutants through erosion and runoff. When land is stripped away to reveal a coal seam, not only does it destroy habitats and quality land, it increases erosion and causes a substantial amount of the materials and sediment to be carried into nearby streams. In Kentucky for example, where contour strip mines were located, the amount of erosion grew about 372 times the original, .18 tons per

There is a restricted amount of coal being supplied in power plants. The second con is the increased rates of asthma and lung cancer from coal emissions. Breathing the coal dust is extremely dangerous and can result in major health concerns for people especially those who work inside the power plants. I have a cousin who has asthma and he has trouble breathing sometimes. He does track for Ramapo College of New Jersey so he has to use an inhaler before starting his races so he could breathe normally and perform better. I can’t imagine what his pain would feel like if he had to run an event five miles away from a power plant that produces sulfur dioxide clouds. The last con is the cost of transporting coal is expensive. According to power-eng.com, “Owners of coal-fired plants invested more than $30 billion in flue gas desulfurization systems, also known as scrubbers,” (U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants Invested More Than $30bn On Scrubbers In Four

First, the power plants takes a really long to get approved and a long time to build the plant. If a nuclear power plant has an accident then it will take a really time to isolate due to the radiation. The power plant needs a lot of water to produce nuclear energy and run the plant itself. If the nuclear waste is not properly handle then the waste will harm the environment and people due the waste being radioactive. If it gets in the wrong hands terrorism can occur. Because they can use the radioactive waste from the power plant, and they can used as a weapon instead of an energy

The Dangers of Coal : The dangers to the miners themselves are only a portion of the problem. Environmental issues abound as well. Strip mining has caused massive environmental complications.numerous accidents throughout the years. The danger of black lung disease from long-time exposure in coal mines is also well documented.They cause environmental issues. Coal mining carries numerous risks. It is harmful to the planet. It is harmful to people involved in any aspect . it. Some of the threats are immediate, while some side effects will not appear for a long time.

From an environmental standpoint nuclear power plants are extremely clean when it comes to electrical power generation. However, there are a lot of ways where nuclear power plants can go wrong. Improperly functioning a nuclear power plant can create problematic situations. Take the Chernobyl disaster for instance, because of their poorly designed nuclear power plant it released tons of radioactivity which scattered across the atmosphere. This resulted in everyone leaving the city. Another recent incident was in Fukushima (Japan), a tsunami hit the nuclear power plants which caused the tins to break and release radioactivity as well. Still to this day there is radioactive dust scattered all over the ground. Moreover, mining and purifying uranium

However, according to (Green Energy, 2015), coal is the most polluting of all fuels and one of the largest single source of global warming pollution in the world. To end global warming pollution and to minimize the risk of catastrophic global warming, we all must reduce our use of coal in the United States. Unfortunately, due to the significant income the government receives from coal exports, they are allowing and in some cases helping to fund, the construction of new coal powered plants. Because of this, the climate region is changing significantly.

CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas, which mainly comes from the use of fossil fuels. Many people feel that content of CO2 in the atmosphere is the main reason for manmade global warming. The main sources of CO2 emissions involve electricity generation, industrial processes, fumes from transportation and commercial buildings and use. Emissions of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, to the atmosphere are expected to cause even more of a significant change in global climate (Davison, 2007). The main focus to try to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to reduce the amount that is released from coal-fired power plants. Greenhouse gas emissions that involve the productions of electricity come from natural gas production and coal-fired power plant operations. Natural gas production accounts for twenty-four percent and coal-fired power plant operations accounts for seventy-five percent, while the other one percent is caused by other electricity generation operations. The main reason why coal-fired power plants have a higher percentage of emissions is because the sulfur content of coal is much higher than that of other fossil fuels (Jarmaillo et al., 2007). This proves that there is a great need to find an alternative fossil fuel to use instead of coal. Although coal is easy to mine, transport and process for the electricity generation process, it is also the

Since Uranium is a highly radioactive element, it is highly dangerous to the human body as is evidenced by the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986 (Timberlake, 2013). This makes the costs of handling it at any stage quite expensive. There has been a long-standing debate on the safety, environmental and economic effects of nuclear power plants. This paper summarizes various literatures by a number of nuclear energy critics, most notably Benjamin Sovacool, a Social Sciences professor and a renowned scholar mainly due to his critical stand on nuclear energy. An analysis and a response follow the literature review