Nuclear Danger Still Dwarfed by Coal

[txlibdem]

Nuclear Danger Still Dwarfed by Coal
Christopher Wanjek, LiveScience's Bad Medicine Columnist
Date: 26 April 2011 Time: 09:09 AM ET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
As bad as Japan's nuclear emergency could have gotten, it would never be as bad as burning coal. Coal is fantastically dangerous, responsible for far more than 1 million deaths per year, according to the World Health Organization.

...snip...

Some of China's citizens worried about a radioactive wind blowing over from Japan, but coal-burning power plants from China are causing far more health problems for both China and Japan.

Coal even releases more radioactive material than nuclear energy — 100 times more per the same amount of energy produced, according to Dana Christensen of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as reported in Scientific American in 2007.

According to WHO statistics, there are at least 4,025 deaths from coal for every single death from nuclear power. Switch to "clean" natural gas? That's still 100 times deadlier than nuclear energy. Oil is 900 times deadlier.

...from http://www.livescience.com/13876-nuclear-energy-dangers-coal.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[msongs]

1. comparing bad nuclear to even worse coal. seems pointless. nt

[izquierdista]

3. Silly comparisons

The foolishness in these comparisons is that coal, oil, and natural gas have never, not since being first discovered, created "exclusion zones". You know, those areas that are and will be off-limits to human habitation for several centuries or millenia. When you can come up with a technology that makes the possibility of creating an "exclusion zone" moot, then I'll be glad to listen to your comparisons.

[txlibdem]

10. False.

You are not very informed as to the history of fossil fuel pollution. Oil: I guess you've never heard of the gulf of Mexico... 1979, 1990, 2005 and again in 2010 turned into a huge exclusion zone. You've never heard of the Exxon Valdez, the pollution from which is still just inches beneath the surface sand and soil. (ref http://chartsbin.com/view/mgz)

Coal: 2000 and 2008, two of the largest coal sludge spills. Coal sludge contains about 70 toxic elements, including Uranium, Thorium and Cesium, not to mention over a dozen toxic metals. (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill )

Natural Gas: Markey: Radioactive Natural Gas Fracking Could Create New Era of “Love Canals”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (February 26, 2011) – Responding to an investigative article published today by The New York Times on the high incidence of radioactive materials and other contaminants in the wastes produced from natural gas extraction, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, immediately questioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its oversight of these extractive practices.

The Times article shows that the radioactively contaminated wastewater derived from the so-called “fracking” process to produce natural gas from shale rock and other formations is being sent to sewage plants that do not have the capacity to remove radioactive radium or other materials, and these hazardous waste materials are then dumped into rivers and streams where they enter our drinking water supplies. Exposure to highly radioactive radium, one of the materials discussed in the Times report, can lead to cancer and other harmful health effects.

“I do not believe that the price for energy extracted from deep beneath the earth’s surface should include a risk to the health of those who live above it,” wrote Rep. Markey to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “These discharges are also occurring with at least some knowledge of the risks on the part of federal and state regulators and despite the clear dangers to public health and safety.”

...snip...

“These disturbing revelations raise the prospect that natural gas production has turned our rivers and streams into this generation’s ‘Love Canals,’” said Rep. Markey in separate comments. “The natural gas industry has repeatedly claimed that fracking can be done safely. We now know we need a full investigation into exactly how fracking is done and what it does to our drinking water and our environment. Americans should not have to consume radioactive materials from their drinking water as a byproduct of natural gas production.”

...from http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/press-release/radioactive-natural-gas-fracking-could-create-new-era-%E2%80%9Clove-canals%E2%80%9D
------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

But please don't let me interrupt your "ignorance is bliss" lifestyle where it comes to fossil fuels.

[phantom power]

12. that is actually one reason coal is so much worse...

there is no "exclusion zone" because it goes everywhere, and kills everywhere.

[RC]

6. Not true.

Nuclear is not really that bad and is in fact much safer than fossil fueled power plants.
We need nuclear. What we need to do is to replace the 50/60 year old technology with modern, safer nuclear power plants that do not have the problems of the older power plants.
For instance if Fukushima had consisted of pebble bed nuclear power plants, there would not have been a problem in the first place, even if everything else had been the same.

[leveymg]

2. It's always the false either-or choice between the two, excluding all others. Besides, there is no

technology that even remotely rivals nuclear for its "danger" (potential loss of life and other damage to health and property), except weapons of war (nuclear, again) and perhaps, biotoxins (weapons of war, again).

F-ck nuclear.

[DCKit]

5. What ^ you said. nt

[TheWraith]

35. It's not a "false choice." It's reality.

Wind and solar power still account for much less than 1% of our energy needs, and they're not growing fast enough to make a substantial dent in fossil fuels before we do catastrophic, irreversible climate damage.

And yet, some people insist on pushing the fact free assertion that we can account for all of our energy needs via a few solar cells on the roof, without them ever having done the math as to how MUCH energy is needed, energy return on energy invested, etcetera. And they still feel free to bash the world's largest source of CO2-free energy, up to and including demanding the shutdown of nuclear plants (such as in Germany) in favor of more coal. So we can destroy the environment faster, I suppose. I find it only one step removed from the belief that we don't need to deal with pollution because God is going to save us. It's completely nonsensical.

[txlibdem]

13. I've heard that "false choice" bit so many times - it never convinces anyone

Your "technology that even remotely rivals nuclear for its danger..." line is straight from fantasy land.

The World Health Organization studies show that coal power plant pollution kills 1 million people each year.

Chernobyl, 1986, even the most rabid anti-nukers claim between 200,000 and 2 million ultimately. That is a tragedy.

But compare that to coal which, only from 1986 till today, has killed 25 million during that time alone.

When you look at the facts you can plainly see that coal doesn't just rival nuclear -- it far and away exceeds its death toll.

***Facts are your friends. Don't live your life running away from them.

[leveymg]

14. "Danger" implies possible loss of life due to an unforseen event - "collateral damage" is the term

that can be applied to the known mortality and health effects of mining and burning coal.

The danger of a worst-case catastrophic nuclear event in a heavily populated area is still greater than the danger of any industrial accident involving another technology. Without exception.

[FBaggins]

16. Thanks for singing the pro-nuke line. We'll get your check right out to you.

Nuclear power only kills people if/when things go badly wrong.

Coal kills MORE people as a normal part of doing business.

Of course... coal also kills people "due to unforseen events" too (thousands every year).

[leveymg]

17. That just makes me anti-coal, not pro-nuke. Keep the check.

It's not one or the other, it's neither, eventually, and sooner than you guys may want.

[FBaggins]

18. "Neither" is fine with me.

As long as substantially all coal goes before nuclear.

Deal?

[SpoonFed]

23. Reality check...

I guess you've spent two months acting like a shill for the nuke power industry in every discussion regarding Fukushima and Japan because you're really anti-nuke, just less anti-nuke than anti-coal.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :rofl:

[FBaggins]

24. Nope.

It's because I'm pro-renewables.

If we could get to the point where we got all we needed from them at a price we could afford, that would be just fine with me. And I'm ok with prices we can't afford in order to get the technology to the point where we can.

I don't believe that we can get there (100% renewables) before something else comes along (fussion perhaps), but I'm just fine with it if it happens.

I'm perfectly fine lining up every single power plant on the planet for replacement and knock 'em off in order.

[kristopher]

27. Which is why you spend all your time here promoting nuclear and attacking renewable with falsehoods.

[FBaggins]

37. Half right.... which ends up being all wrong.

I spend time promoting nuclear because I think it makes sense, will save lives and the environment, and makes a renewable energy future possible.

I don't attack renewables, particularly not with falsehoods. I do correct those like you who misstate the case and/or misunderstand what the possible timeline looks like.

For instance. You may remember one of our early debates hydro power from waves? I love the idea. Clean, abundant, and scalable... and without any of the indeterminacy issues of wind or solar. But you went off the rails with some BS about how it was really all off-the-shelf technology and commercially viable plants were only five years away. Correcting your errors is simply correcting your errors... it isn't opposing the technology (let alone "attacking" it).

I've repeatedly said that wind/solar/etc can be expanded up to about 20% of our electricity generation without too many problems requiring storage/overbuilding/etc. I'm entirely in favor of building out to that point (AND in favor of accelerating development of viable grid-scale storage). That means that I'm in favor of increasing the current penetration fivefold... yet somehow you spin that as "attacking renewables" because I don't think 100% in 20 years is possible or because I would knock out coal before I took ONE step toward replacing anything else.

[SpoonFed]

29. Right.

You make these platitudes after 8 weeks of downplaying, denying and outright defending the nuke industry with regards to TEPCO and Fukushima.

Whatever you think you put in the cool-aid or the water supply hasn't reached over here yet.

I guess whatever scrap of a conscience you have is starting to see the light on how bad the Daiichi nightmare is, if it's true that you're now honestly claiming you are pro-renewables, anti-coal and anti-nuclear on some level. But like most of your arugments, this one isn't very credible either.

[FBaggins]

38. Facts are facts. Sorry if they're inconvenient for you.

Your perception of reality is tainted by your opinions. I try to inform my opinions by reality.

You should try it some time.

Pointing out that something which is nowhere close to "chernobyl-esque" is not, in fact, like chernobyl... is not "downplaying" or "denying" or "defending tepco"... it's simply calling things as they are.

[wtmusic]

19. While you're working on something else that may never pan out

can we get to the business of killing 4000x less people every year buy shutting down coal and building out proven, safe nuclear? :shrug:

[kristopher]

15. It is a false choice.

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.


Above paragraph broken apart for ease of reading:

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[txlibdem]

20. Link spamming from one incorrect source to another - none of which refute the truth of coal

You are the master of cut & paste. That may be your only redeeming quality.

By proclaiming loudly that nuclear must end now, Now, NOW, you are doing the work of the coal lobby, intentionally or not. Why not use your skills to end the greatest danger to mankind, coal? But no, no, no. Never a bad word about coal from you. It robs you of all credibility.

I've posted the needed energy mix is 40/60 nuclear to renewables. Then we can begin to add renewables till we get to 30/70 and storage technology for renewables is cheap enough to provide 100%. Then we begin closing down all nuclear power plants. But step 1 in that process is replacing coal and the other fossil fuels with renewable energy -- ASAP.

The planet (and us humans) can live with another 40 years of nuclear power. The world cannot live with another 40 years of unconstrained fossil fuel pollution.

Get on the proper team, Mr. Fossil Fuels!

[kristopher]

21. "I've posted the needed energy mix is 40/60 nuclear to renewables."

You've also posted that "... we should all be 100% in favor of every nation possessing nuclear weapons".

I'd say in the realm of losing credibility, posting a solid peer-reviewed analysis of carbon reduction technologies pales next to proclaiming your belief that every country should have a nuclear arsenal.

[SpoonFed]

25. I'd also like to point out... (yet again, cause it's funny)...

s/he has also posted Japan should be floating robot-built mega-cities as a realistic solution for the evacuees from the recent disasters in Japan.

[txlibdem]

30. You bring up something from a different OP -- so what?

In a thread about puppies I say "I like puppies." In a thread about guacamole I say "I like guacamole."

You jump in and say "Which is it? Do you like puppies or do you like guacamole??? -- this proves you are a liar, you have no credibility!!!!!!!!!"

I just can't take any of your posts seriously any more.

[SpoonFed]

32. It's rather simple...

kristopher pointed out your lack of credibility due to...

your belief that every country should have a nuclear arsenal.

I point out your lack of credibility due to your belief that spending untold billions of dollars on unproven technology and years long delays to build floating cities for the Japanese evacuees is a reasonable idea.

I also point out your lack of credibility in that you've ignored (probably mostly misunderstood) how you've failed with your argument that coal emissions are more hazardous than nuclear but continue to repeat it at every opportunity.

I am simply taking every opportunity to point out your lack of credibility. Talking about puppies and guacamole, calling me a liar, claiming that I have no credibility in comparison to you, using too many exclamation points, and finally saying that you can't take seriously the valid criticism from your detractors IS NOT working in your favour to regain any credibility.

You see what I am saying?
The crickets on post #28 need some loving.

[txlibdem]

33. Please reread post #30. Read it slowly and carefully.

Thank you.

[SpoonFed]

34. Does this mean that...

you have your fingers in your ears and are making a nahnahnahnahnahnah sound?

[txlibdem]

36. You're singing the wrong song

The lyrics are
"nah nah nah na
nah nah nah na
He-ey, Good-Bye"

But if you are determined to lose every battle at every step of the way... then declare unilateral victory... be my guest.

[SpoonFed]

26. If anything you said were facts...

you might be able to form a reasonable argument with requisite citations, but I seriously doubt it.

It's quite interesting how you've dropped the argument that radiation from coal plants is much worse than nuclear plants since your poor arguments and faulty logic have been beaten down a couple of times in the past couple of days. Now you're quoting a bunch of numbers (millions per year) with no references. :dunce:

[FBaggins]

4. The World Health Organization?

Why do you keep citing pro-nuke sources???!!!

</ channeling Busby/Caldicott/moonbat>

:sarcasm:

[RC]

7. Because they deal in facts? Huh, ya think?

Why do you keep citing anti-nuke sources???!!!

[FBaggins]

8. Didn't realize the sarcasm tag was needed.

Fixed. :)

[SpoonFed]

22. Channeling reality...

"Fifty years ago, on 28 May 1959, the World Health Organisation's assembly voted into force an obscure but important agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency – the United Nations "Atoms for Peace" organisation, founded just two years before in 1957. The effect of this agreement has been to give the IAEA an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power – and so prevent the WHO from playing its proper role in investigating and warning of the dangers of nuclear radiation on human health." (from http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2009/06/01_tickell_who_iaea.php)

[WatsonT]

9. None of that crazy "science" nonsense

Nucular is scary, it's full of like atoms and stuff and we have no idea what those are. Before nuclear power there was no such thing as radyation.

[jtuck004]

11. Thanks for the post, good information.

[SpoonFed]

28. Your crappy argumentation continues...

Stop propping up the nuke industry in the wake of Fukushima with your unsubstantiated, poorly articulated defense of it with your straw man argument that it's somehow better than coal.

Your post quotes:

Coal even releases more radioactive material than nuclear energy — 100 times more per the same amount of energy produced, according to Dana Christensen of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as reported in Scientific American in 2007.

Let me do your work for you, since you're incapable. The article referenced in your post is located here http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

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."

So, basically, you're playing up the fear card "oh my! nuclear is releasing so much radiation" and trying to trump it with "oh my oh my! coal releases even more radiation than nuclear" while your primary (although actually misquoting tertiary source quoting a secondary source) says the health effects are low. That's a pretty stellar flawed argument.

Furthermore, since I RTFA, there are some caveats at the bottom.

*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "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." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

For starters, I read that as they had to correct the misconception that coal waste emits more radiation than nuclear waste. Secondly, they use qualifying statements suchs as "carries into the surrounding environment". Thirdly, and most damning to your silly argument is the very last line.

Who would have thought that coal released from a power plant could possibly deliver more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage? I mean, it's not like a child could reason that if we send waste up a stack into the air, that'll be more pollution than if we contain it in water or casks, right?

Oh, but isn't that what happens when a nuclear power plant experiences an INES Level 7, design basis accident scenario? What's that presented in a reasoned argument to you in this thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=291642&mesg_id=292136

If I recall correctly, someone shot down your massive coal deaths/year numbers in another thread and I can't be bothered to dig it up.

So, in summary, since all you do is claim that your detractors are anti-nuke zealots who love coal, I'll just state quite clearly and unequivocably that I believe coal plants are a really shitty, dirty, environment- and human-health-damaging power generation technology. I condemn nuclear power on similar terms.

NO COAL AND NO NUKES NOW.

[SpoonFed]

31. crickets n/t