At least I stand a good chance of surviving if the coal-driven plant blows up.
You think they will blow up? Chernobyl blew up... because both personell and equipment was horribly maintained. You think that is the case in Barsebäck? I don't. Especially as long as you keep the pressure on the operators to keep it safe, which I think both countries' people should do.
Comparing coal burnt for heating in no doubt unfiltered ovens to a modern coal-driven power-plant is in my eyes a bit steep.
In mine too, come to think about it. However, a large coal plant is hardly harmless either, even if it doesn't produce a visible (and smelly) smog.
How so? Do you really think that we want the plant closed just so we can sell electricity to Sweden? Excuse me, but that's naive..
Not ONLY, of course not, as litte as we want the danish coal plants shut down only to sell power to you. And I don't think the danish people are very interested in power selling at all. But I was talking about governments. I think both governments are guilty of playing the "our evil is less evil than their's" game, pandering to local opinion.
Nevermind that the waste needs to be kept for a million years or more to be environmentally safe. At least with coal the "only" thing to worry about is CO2..
Well, the waste problem is a problem with solutions. With burying, most of the problems are political (NIMBY you know), and some are engineering problems (safeguarding against groundwater contamination). Breeder reactors are unpopular because of what they breed - plutonium - and because people who don't like nuclear power generally think MORE reactors is not a solution.
I'm not so sure CO2 is the only problem with coal plants. Sure, with the ideal plant, fueled by the ideal fuel, it is. I'd be interested in some impartial statistics on what a modern coal plant exhausts.
I am a Lurker. If you are reading this, I surfaced momentarily.
[ Parent ]