Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Finland To Introduce Law Next Year Phasing Out Coal (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the planning-for-the-future dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Finland will introduce legislation next year to phase out coal and increase carbon taxes, a top government official told Reuters, which would require the country to find alternative energy sources to keep its power system stable. Coal produces roughly 10 percent of the energy consumed by Finland, which is the Nordics' heaviest coal consumer and burned about 4.1 million tons of oil equivalent in 2016. "This strategy has a goal of getting rid of coal as an energy source by 2030 [...] We have to write a law [...] and that will be next year," Riku Huttunen, director general in Finland's energy department, said. The law will, however, leave "room for manoeuvre" to ensure security of supply, he said, meaning coal-fired power plants could still be available to avoid the risk of blackouts. Finland is increasing its nuclear capacity, which could replace coal. But that may not be sufficient, a Nordic power trader said, as Finland will receive less nuclear power from neighboring Sweden, which is phasing out two reactors. Helsinki is raising its nuclear power capacity to reduce dependency on Russian energy imports. Two new reactors, Olkiluoto 3 and Hanhikivi 1, are due to go online in 2018 and 2024, respectively.

111 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. They are going to dig it all up and burn it by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1, Funny

    So no one will ever be able to use it again...

    1. Re:They are going to dig it all up and burn it by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not how coal forms.

      That's not even close to how coal forms.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    2. Re:They are going to dig it all up and burn it by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      http://www.cbv.ns.ca/coalnovas...

      Here...

      By the time any coal forming today is usable as coal, human civilization (and maybe humans themselves) won't be recognizable.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    3. Re:They are going to dig it all up and burn it by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      If coal is illegal, then only outlaws will have coal!

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    4. Re:They are going to dig it all up and burn it by tlambert · · Score: 1

      By the time any coal forming today is usable as coal, human civilization (and maybe humans themselves) won't be recognizable.

      Because we'll all be wearing disguises?

    5. Re: They are going to dig it all up and burn it by Thundercat007 · · Score: 1

      Also it'll become illegal for diesel vehicle owners to claim they're "rollin coal".

    6. Re:They are going to dig it all up and burn it by haruchai · · Score: 2

      By the time any coal forming today is usable as coal, human civilization (and maybe humans themselves) won't be recognizable.

      Because we'll all be wearing disguises?

      Yes. The same way the dinosaurs who were around when the coal we dig up now was still plant matter are now disguised as birds

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  2. great! lower prices by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    lowered demand same supply

  3. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by denzacar · · Score: 1

    You've never even seen coal, let alone used it for fuel.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  4. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "upgrade to coal"

    I think the last time that phrase was actually valid was some time in the 18th century when the first steam engine was built.

    Apparently you don't understand the fundamental problems with coal.

    A) its produces the largest amount of CO2 per BTU of any fossil fuel

    B) It doesn't matter how much you wash it, it still pollutes horribly even if you ignore the CO2 mainly due to sulphur dioxide and particulates in the smoke.

  5. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by Ayano · · Score: 2

    Now if every household used coal just like you, we'd look just like china!

    --
    I don't read AC
  6. They'll have clean coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's how you actually get clean coal: Stop using that shit.

  7. Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least some countries have the balls to give the finger to the ignorant CND hippies who still equate nuclear power with nuclear weapons because they have the square root of fuck all clue about the different types of reactor design.

    1. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by burtosis · · Score: 4, Informative

      That and they seem to be on top of proper disposal unlike here in the US and elsewhere. These social democracies seem to be the least dysfunctional and have the highest quality of life for citizens. It's a shame it can't be properly reprocessed but that's the state of affairs in the world today. Nuclear is a far better option than coal for a variety of reasons. Until battery capacity becomes extremely cheap, countries will need a near zero emission method of creating necessary base loads if they want to generate energy responsibly.

    2. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      When you are the size of one of several large American cities in terms of population, EVERY problem is tiny and a lot easier to solve.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Some of those hippies sure do know more about the dangers of nuclear waste than you.

      We've had the means to re-use spent fuel since the 70s. Anti-nuke hysteria has kept the industry from moving forward with new and better ideas.

      Meanwhile, we just kill ourselves more slowly in our attempts to avoid nuclear power. Coal is really a great example of that.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by amorsen · · Score: 2

      So, dissolve the US, make the states into nations, and every problem is tiny and a lot easier to solve?

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    5. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      With the predominant western winds in Finnland, during a catastrophe the fallout will be blown over Russia and the Baltic states.
      You might think, not bad if the Russians get it back, what they deserve.
      But then again we will have something like 4million Finns and 12million from the Baltic states evacuated and being displaced over the rest of the EU.

      I wonder how many states will do a BREXIT when we get 20million refugees inside of Europe.

      Ah .... that was not your point, or was it? Seems I got drawn away ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That would be to easy asa solution.

      Because then they later would need to reform a North American Union like the European Union, where the "central government" equalizes peoples rights over the whole Union.

      That concept would be completely alien to the current citizens of the land of the free.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      We've had the means to re-use spent fuel since the 70s
      No you have not.

      The USA has no rectors that can use spent fuel in any meaningful way.

      You simply don't know what spent fuel is and what reprocessing means and does.

      Bottom line, you are just an idiot.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Too bad it requires far more coal to process the uranium than what you would save using nuclear energy. What? You thought Uranium 238 is everywhere and simple to extract?

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    9. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      Especially when you have massive tracts of stable, uninhabited mountain ranges in which to stash the radioactive waste. I often wonder why the quality of life surveys in places like Finland are so high - I think it correlates with the weather, if quality of life weren't high the weather would certainly drive population to zero.

    10. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Shaddap faggot you aren't a nuclear engineer of any type.

      The steel in your bridge came from a Korean nuclear smelter.

    11. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      How do borders or their absence change the picture of the specialist not being present in your small area?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The USA has no rectors that can use spent fuel in any meaningful way.

      This is because graduating in both physics and theology is quite a tall order.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by tlambert · · Score: 2

      There is no proper way to dispose of highly radioactive nuclear waste. Only ways that are less dangerous than others, statistically speaking. What convinced you that the situation in Finland is significantly better than in, say, Germany?

      Well, for one thing, they have no Germans.

      For another, they have spent fuel reprocessing plants, and so they don't really have nuclear waste, to speak of; instead, they have more fuel for the reactors, and a bunch of medical grade nuclear materials.

      For, you know, treating prostate and brain cancer, performing medical imaging, and so on.

      The U.S. isn't reprocessing their waste, and since plutonium production is almost entirely shut dow, the U.S. tends to buy its medical radioactives from other countries.

      The U.S. appears to prefer to store their spent nuclear fuel in pools of water, like Japan did in Fukushima, rather than reprocessing it like a civilized country.

    14. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by tlambert · · Score: 1

      You don't know what you're talking about. Nuclear is not the only alternative to coal either.

      You've been watching too much "Star Gate Atlantis".

      When you've created a working zero point energy module, let me know, and I'll go to Walmart and buy it.

    15. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by tlambert · · Score: 1

      We've had the means to re-use spent fuel since the 70s
      No you have not.

      The U.S. has a fully built-out, functional-yet-mothballed reprocessing facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

      Funds were first allocated for bringing it online in 2010. It was mothballed rather than activated, during the Obama administration.

    16. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yes, and how much fuel do you regain if you reprocess spent fuel? Hm? Any idea?
      Guess not ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by youngone · · Score: 1

      These social democracies seem to be the least dysfunctional and have the highest quality of life for citizens.

      You're right, and the US could have an even better standard of living, but no-one quite does propaganda like the US so you have to spend all that tax money on never ending overseas wars and the worst health system possible instead of a decent life for everyone.

    18. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Then why don't smaller states in the US function as well? This "but we so biiig" argument is banal and only ensures to further the problems.

    19. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by dafdaf · · Score: 1

      There is no proper way to dispose of highly radioactive nuclear waste. Only ways that are less dangerous than others, statistically speaking. What convinced you that the situation in Finland is significantly better than in, say, Germany?

      Well, for one thing, they have no Germans.

      Well, the Germans temporarily store the nasty stuff in abandoned salt mines while the people of finland to my knowledge are the only ones working on a long term solution: the Onkalo nuclear waste repository. There is a very beautiful documentary about this endeavor (building time >100 Years !). It's called: Towards the end of Time. Worth watching !

      --
      To error is human, to forgive, beyond the scope of the OS.
    20. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      ...ignorant CND hippies who still equate nuclear power with nuclear weapons because they have the square root of fuck all clue...

      Apart from being factually wrong about what hippies are/were and what they believe, I think being abusive is only likely to hurt your credibilty. Abuse and violence is what people resort to, when they don't have the wit to produce a sober argument.

    21. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      That and they seem to be on top of proper disposal unlike here in the US and elsewhere.

      Waste disposal certainly seems like the most important issue, but I would like to know more about the other end of the logistical chain: the supply side. It seems always to be tacitly assumed that this is under control. The other thing I wonder about is why we don't use the waste products for something - isn't a lot of energy released still? That is after all why radioactive waste is radioactive.

    22. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      they don't really have nuclear waste

      Is that why they are digging a big hole to put the nuclear not-waste in, and trying to figure out how to post warnings not to go down there that will be intelligible in 100,000 years time?

      Finland actually passed laws requiring knowledge of the nuclear waste storage sites to be taught in school, so it becomes impossible to forget about them on a national level. They are taking it extremely seriously, which seems odd if as you say they don't really have any nuclear waste.

      It seems like people don't understand the problems with reprocessing. The main danger is from accidents when handling the nuclear waste, so it's safer to bury it and make new fuel than it is to try to reprocess the old fuel in many cases. Often cheaper too, even with the cost of disposal. The Chinese are trying to make it work economically, but it's not going very well and the cancellation of most of their new capacity basically screwed any chance it had of being a good option.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Anti-nuke hysteria has kept the industry from moving forward with new and better ideas.

      What is the evidence for this?

      In the UK we realized that nuclear was too expensive, not least because we picked the wrong reactor type. In France they did better but in the last 20 years have got fed up with energy companies using nuclear as a welfare programme. Germany just decided that the risk wasn't worth it and there was a huge economic opportunity to become world leaders in renewable energy.

      China cancelled all new nuclear plants not already under construction after Fukushima. I suppose you could argue that it was unfounded worries about safety, although this is China which doesn't have a particularly stellar record on such things. It seems more likely that they came to the same conclusion as Germany though - the nuclear renaissance was dead, renewables were going to become the cheapest option in the next decade, and most of the big new markets that were developing were not going to select nuclear as their technology of choice.

      Westinghouse went bust because the economics didn't work out, nearly dragging Tosihba down with it... There is a story on the front page about Duke Energy realizing that cheap gas was making nuclear a poor investment, to the point where they are willing to sink nearly a billion dollars they have already spent.

      I'm just not seeing the anti-nuke hysteria angle having much effect, it's all economics.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Nuclear fanbois don't understand reprocessing indeed. They think that reprocessing magically makes nuclear waste to fuel again (violating the laws of thermodynamics in the process), when the only thing what reprocessing does is separating fission products from uranium. These fission products are, for most part, very dangerous nuclear waste. Reprocessing is also inherently dirty, this is why the Irish Sea is the most contaminated sea in the world.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    25. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Two things prove you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

      First, if it took more energy to produce the uranium than what they got out of it then no one would do it. Well, people burn ethanol so perhaps that's not completely true. What they wouldn't do is use nuclear power to produce nearly 20% of the electricity in the USA. The only way to "prove" nuclear power is a net negative is to use a lot of assumptions that cannot be proven, like the future costs of decommissioning a site. This often also includes that a site must be returned to a "greenfield" state, which no other energy source must abide by. In other words, nuclear power is a "negative" energy source because we deemed it so.

      Second, uranium 238 exists in nature at better than 99% purity so extracting it is quite simple really. What makes it difficult is again the costs we impose on it. But that's not the part that makes you look stupid, it's that U-238 is not nuclear fuel. It can be bred into fuel, which also avoids the expensive process of extracting the U-235 which is fuel.

      There are nuclear reactor designs that use U-238 as breeder stock for fuel. When left in it's naturally "contaminated" state of about 0.7% U-235 it can be burned in heavy water reactors, a popular design is called CANDU. No reactor will (or likely even can) use U-238 for fuel without adding some plutonium, or other isotopes of uranium, to bombard it with enough neutrons to make fuel out of it.

      Oh, and uranium is about as common as tin or tungsten. No wonder we see tens of thousands of tons of these elements produced every year.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    26. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      How much do you gain? Quite a bit actually. It's called DUPIC, Direct Use of PWR fuel In CANDU.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      You may be correct in claiming that the USA does not have this capability but Canada has had the capability from the early 1980s, or perhaps late 1970s. I think that if we ask real nice that they'll send some of their nuclear engineers over here and teach us how to do it.

      There's over two dozen operating CANDU reactors in the world, another dozen more derived from the design. Around the world there are something like 50 total (CANDU and CANDU derived included) pressurized heavy water reactors operating in the world right now. They are all capable of using spent fuel from light water reactors as fuel with little, or perhaps no, reprocessing.

      They were designed to use natural uranium as fuel, so just keeping them running means no enrichment of mined uranium. If we were to use the plutonium and enriched uranium from the nuclear weapon stockpile then we could mix that with lower grade spent fuel and burn that too.

      Just keep reprocessing the fuel, adding in some natural uranium each time, and the loop on this is pretty much closed. The stuff left over that can't be put back in the reactor are useful isotopes for medicine and industry.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    27. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      CANDU reactors, don't need/use reprocessed fuel.

      To stupid to do your reasearch, zealot?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    28. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by blindseer · · Score: 2

      You obviously didn't even click on the link I gave, it redirects to a Wikipedia page titled "Reprocessed uranium". It's kind of hard to miss, it's in large bold letters at the top of the page. If you read the short, three paragraph, article you will see in the last paragraph a mention of DUPIC. DUPIC is in short chopping up spent LWR fuel into little bits and recladding it in a bundle for CANDU. There is even a link to an article going into detail on how CANDU is capable of burning natural uranium, reprocessed uranium, plutonium, and thorium.

      Since you are unlikely to go back to the Wikipedia page I'll post the link here in hopes that maybe you'll read this and learn something.
      http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/brat_...

      Then again, I'll just quote a part that I think is most relevant.

      CANDU technology offers another unique option for the back end of the LWR fuel cycle, which completely avoids the need for wet reprocessing and fissile-material recovery. The "DUPIC" fuel cycle, or "direct use of spent PWR fuel in CANDU", utilizes the non-separated, non-enhanced waste product of LWRs directly as CANDU fuel (Keil, 1992).

      The transfer from LWR to CANDU can be literally "direct", involving only the cutting of spent LWR fuel rods to CANDU length (~50 cm), resealing (or double-sheathing), and reengineering into cylindrical bundles suitable for CANDU geometry.

      Alternatively, a dry reprocessing technology has been developed which removes only the volatile fission products from the spent LWR fuel mix (Lee, 1998; Sullivan, 1998). After removal of the cladding, a thermal-mechanical process is used to reduce the spent LWR fuel pellet to a powder, which is then sintered and pressed into CANDU-sized pellets.

      The DUPIC process is much simpler than conventional wet-chemistry techniques for reprocessing, and promises to be cheaper. It presents a significant anti-proliferation benefit as well, since radioactive fission products and fissile material are not separated. In addition, since the heat load of spent DUPIC fuel is similar to that of the original spent LWR fuel, disposal requirements do not increase. However, since approximately 50% more energy can be derived from LWR fuel by burning it as DUPIC fuel in a CANDU reactor, the disposal cost is expected to be lower than either spent LWR or CANDU fuel (Baumgartner, 1998).

      Between the extremes of conventional reprocessing and the DUPIC fuel cycle, a spectrum of options exists. The CANDU reactorâ(TM)s high neutron economy offers many options for exploiting the CANDU/LWR synergism, allowing customization to meet local requirements and capabilities. Pursuing these various options requires international cooperation, such as the Canada-South Korea partnership that has pioneered the DUPIC process. South Korea has a fleet of both LWR and CANDU reactors, and can thus benefit from the synergism within its existing nuclear infrastructure (Lee, 1998).

      That's just one way to reprocess spent fuel. Using CANDU and DUPIC we can "burn the fuel twice" and get much more from the mined and refined uranium we have. Add to this some other simple reprocessing, like chemically separating the plutonium (reactor grade, useless for weapons) and mixing it with thorium to make fuel, and we have all kinds of ways to reprocess fuel instead of dumping it in a hole in the ground. This is effectively unlimited energy, using technology we developed decades ago, so no new technology or materials needed. We can do this now, while we wait for solar and wind power to catch up.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    29. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Oh

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    30. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The article you linked to is meaningless unless nuclear is actually compared to something. It's a bit like someone arguing that we cannot possibly eat steak tonight because of this that and the other thing. Well, that might be true but people have to eat, otherwise people die. After looking at the options it may just turn out that in fact we can eat steak tonight.

      Well, let's look at our options:
      - Status quo and all the pros and cons that go with it
      - Nuclear power
      - Starvation

      There is no fourth option because using expensive and unreliable energy like wind and solar means reverting to a preindustrial society. You think you can run an aluminum refinery on wind power? A cement kiln on solar power? Sure, we can wait for some new technology to come along but that just means we have to choose from those three options until then. That new technology includes solar and wind that is cheaper than nuclear or coal.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    31. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by tlambert · · Score: 1

      You have to build three types of reactors, total for a nearly closed nuclear cycle.

      I'm a high energy physicist; who are you?

    32. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      CANDU are running on more or less natural Uranium.
      So they produce no 'waste fuel' that can or need to be reprocessed.

      Reprocessing fuel to put it later into a CANDU makes no sense.
      You can put iti into a CANDU right away.

      Sou could have safed your time with that long post if you had understood my previous post better :)

      And no, I don't have the urge to read links that summarize (badly) stuff, I already know.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    33. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Sou could have safed your time with that long post if you had understood my previous post better :)

      Considering that most of your posts consist primarily of claims without citations and ad hominem attacks there's a lot of room for misunderstanding. How about next time you post a complete thought, give some means to back up your claims, and not call people idiots?

      And no, I don't have the urge to read links that summarize (badly) stuff, I already know.

      Apparently you didn't know that CANDU reactors can be fueled with reprocessed fuel, otherwise you would not have embarrassed yourself with the provably false statement you made. It's not like you had to read the whole thing, just reading the title would have taught you something. It's not like I'm claiming to be an expert but at least I'm not so lazy I can't click on a link to Wikipedia and read the title of the article or take a quick look for some keywords.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    34. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I did not do any ad hominem attacks Mr. blindseer.

      Your education is your responsibility, not mine. So find your citations yourself.

      Apparently you didn't know that CANDU reactors can be fueled with reprocessed fuel
      Apparently I did know that. Hence I informed you: that makes no sense. You simply can put the "spent fuel" into them. No reprocessing needed.
      But it seems you are to dumb to grasp that. (Is that an ad hominem? Sorry ;D )

      Your whole threats about nuclear make no sense anyway.

      a) Neither do the USA have CANDU reactors, nor do they have civilian nuclear fuel reprocessing (which makes no sense in relation with CANDU reactors, which I pointed out but you failed to google so far)
      b) nor will the USA in any time soon build new reactors or reprocessing plants (it is simply cheaper to deposit the spent fuel and refuel a reactor with fresh fuel and it is 1000 times safer)
      c) most 1st world countries are phasing out nuclear (because of b) ... they are running out of space to deposit spent fuel, or the waste after reprocessing - yes, that includes most notable France)
      d) onyl a few emerging countries like India and China are still building nuclear plants
      e) renewables, notable wind and solar, are cheaper than nuclear plants and have no "waste problem" (regardless if before or after reprocessing)

      Most of this I already told you dozens of times.

      Why are you so lazy to read about the topics but so eager to post nonsense about them on /. ? You like to make a fool about yourself?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    35. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Most of this I already told you dozens of times.

      Repeating it doesn't make it true.

      I can see your comment history and you can see mine. I noticed that I get up moderated and you get down moderated. People find me interesting, informative, and funny enough to mod me up. Why is it do you think that you don't also get this treatment? You think that maybe it's because you are calling people morons and idiots? I do.

      If you want people to take you seriously then write posts that have a complete thought, cite your sources, and be respectful of others. It's easy to dismiss people that do not substantiate their claims, call people names, and use bad grammar and spelling. Being right is not enough, you have to convince people you are right, and that's real hard to do if you are making an argument like a schoolchild on a playground.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    36. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I doubt there are sources for no brainers.
      E.g. if a CANDU reactor is running on natural uranium (for that you find sources)
      it obviously can run on soent fuel of a reactor that used _enriched_ uranium. (After all the spent fuel is still _enriched_ just not enough for that reactor type)

      Hence as you have no clue about actual physics, you don't believe that. Hence you are a moron, plain and simple.

      The fact that solar and Wind are cheaper than nuclear power is reported on /. nearly once a month.

      So, why do you want extra links from me?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Hence you are a moron, plain and simple.

      Is that how they teach you how to debate in school? By calling people morons?

      I think you are a stupid head and your mom dresses you funny.

      I'm done here.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    38. Re:Increasing its nuclear capacity? Good. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yes, people who are to dumb to read about the stuff they love to talk about, and get everything wrong are: morons.

      No idea how that is handled in school in our days.

      If you want to talk about nuclear power, or solar power, then read something about it. And no: we still don't use rare earth metals in silicon based solar panels ... And no: we don't release any poisoning materials into the environment while producing silicon based solar panels ... and now, we don't put them on concrete constructions that produce more CO2 in producing the concrete than the panels ever will safe in producing electricity ...

      Should I continue with your idiotic misconceptions?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    There's anthracite (glossy black coal) and there's lignite (brown coal). Anthracite is relatively clean burning yes, but brown coal, which is used in a lot of places like Germany, is really dirty.

  9. find alternative energy sources to keep its power by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
    system stable.

    Might I suggest importing it from Russia?

  10. So... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Their EPR nuclear reactor (Olkiluoto 3) will finally go online? Sure took them long enough.

    1. Re:So... by haruchai · · Score: 2

      Maybe next time they'll buy a Korean reactor which only takes 4 years to start.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      If so, they should check the certification of parts very carefully.

      "In 2012, a probe was opened regarding some fraudulently-certified parts installed in five OPR-1000 reactors over a ten-year period.
      Hanbit-5 and -6, which had a greater number of fraudulent parts, were shut down until the parts could be replaced, and Hanbit-3 and -4 and Hanul-3 were allowed remain on-line pending parts replacement.
      Hanbit-5 and -6 were cleared for restart in early 2013, but in April 2013, following a tip, four additional units were shut down and not allowed to restart until fraudulently-certified safety-related control cabling was replaced: Shin Kori-1 and -2 and Shin Wolsong-1 and -2; although construction on Shin Wolsong-2 was complete, it had not yet achieved operational status, and it was not allowed to start up until cabling was replaced.
      The same cabling was used at the APR-1400 units then under construction at Shin Kori (Units 3 & 4), forcing a year-long delay in their startup"

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:So... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      In the old times they required larger safety margins in parts, but part certification was a lot easier to get, if there was any certification at all, and reactors were built all the time. That meant there were a lot less delays. I suppose this way might be safer, or at least things will be better documented with a proper audit trail, but expedient it is not.

    3. Re:So... by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Troubling isn't it.

      Partially a side effect of contractors for everything and enough shell corps to sell at the beach, I'll be bound.

  11. Relatively? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anthracite is relatively clean burning yes,...

    Maybe compared to a tire fire.

  12. Re: No big deal,, more coal for US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Shill!

  13. Drop in the bucket by boudie2 · · Score: 1

    With China going through 3-4 billion tons a year and the U.S. another billion tons, why should tiny Finland even bother. Lot of carbon in coal. Almost all carbon in fact.

  14. They won't be able to escape the Russians... by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    Two new reactors, Olkiluoto 3 and Hanhikivi 1, are due to go online in 2018 and 2024, respectively.

    These plants are most likely to be of either Russian design or have significant Russian parts.

    I can't explain why the Finns decided to involve the Russians at all.

    1. Re:They won't be able to escape the Russians... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Olkiluoto 3 is built by French Areva, and is currently 9 years behind schedule. It should have been up an running in 2010.

      Hanhikivi would be built by Russian Rosatom, which of course could have some political issues. It isn't even clear that building will start (though preparations are already being made at the site), the project status is "proposed". So I won't be holding my breath until i can power my house with that sweet and cuddly fission power...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant

    2. Re:They won't be able to escape the Russians... by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      I can't explain why the Finns decided to involve the Russians at all.

      Because the Russians build the reactors (relatively) cheaply and they actually meet the accorded schedules and budget (yes, surprising, I know). To a large degree this is because the Russians haven't lost their construction expertise. The Russians didn't spend nearly as much time without building new reactors like a lot of Western nations. Also because of the failure at Chernobyl, for quite some time there was an impetus in Russia to replace ancient RMBK (graphite) reactors with more modern VVER (pressurized water) reactors and that resulted in new construction.

      Typically the control systems for the exported Russian reactors are actually built elsewhere, like in Western Europe, so the Russians would only actually build the large mechanical parts. The fuel also doesn't need to come from Russia, there are 3rd party sources, and they can train local staff. So that isn't that much of a big deal.

    3. Re:They won't be able to escape the Russians... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Actually both VVER and RBMK were developed at the same time, in the mid 1950ies. RBMK was based on a somewhat older reactor design from 1951, though. Still, they are basically the same age.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  15. I say this on just about every energy thread by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    I'm in the States and I'll be happy to support nuclear when you can find a way to get the 20% of my citizenry to stop believing in crap like "Government's not the solution, it's the problem". Until then you're basically one round of lobbying and anti-bureaucracy sentiment away from the kinds of lax safety regulations that resulted in Fukushima. Exhibit B right here while I'm at it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I say this on just about every energy thread by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      When I lived out there it was pesticide warehouses catching fire (with multiple safety violations leading to the accidents). We left just about as quickly as we could.

    2. Re:I say this on just about every energy thread by tlambert · · Score: 1

      I'm in the States and I'll be happy to support nuclear when you can find a way to get the 20% of my citizenry to stop believing in crap like "Government's not the solution, it's the problem".

      Baby steps.

      You need to get them to stop believing WiFi hubs cause cancer, first. Until they can tell the difference between non-ionizing radiation and ionizing radiation, they are a lost cause.

  16. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Absolutely. Even with scrubbing, coal is just simply a dirty fuel that has no business being used to produce enegery in a modern industrialized nation in the 21st century.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  17. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

    B) It doesn't matter how much you wash it, it still pollutes horribly even if you ignore the CO2 mainly due to sulphur dioxide and particulates in the smoke.

    Plus the radioactives. Mustn't forget that. Yes, there are radioactive elements in coal. Which typically go up the smokestack in a coal plant. Because coal stack scrubbers aren't actually designed to deal with uranium and thorium, which you find in tiny amounts in coal (and tiny amounts multiplied by a metric-fuckton of coal being burned adds up to more radioactives released into the air than nuclear power has ever managed).

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  18. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Getting a coal stove is probably a good way to get rid of all those coals that Santa keeps leaving every Christmas.

  19. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, radioactive elements released into the environment due to coal use is significantly larger than with nuclear plants (per unit of energy) but even that is NOWHERE near the main problem with coal-generated pollutants: much bigger problem is the amount of heavy metals released in the environment, including mercury!
    It used to be so that salmon was an unabiguously healthy nutrient. That has changed dramatically in the last three decades, as coal-fired powerplants installations have grown geometrically.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  20. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    Now if every household used coal just like you, we'd look just like china!

    . . . except the air would be so bad, that we wouldn't even be able to see what we look like.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  21. How city of Davos fights pollution by mi · · Score: 1

    Finland will introduce legislation next year to phase out coal and increase carbon taxes

    This reminds me, how the Swiss city of Davos (yes, that Davos), contributes to the Global Warming/pollution/whatever fight: by banning gas stations... I can't find any references to the ban online to link here — you'll just have to visit it to see for yourself.

    Yep, the skiing is great, but to fill up your car, you'll have to drive to a neighboring town.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:How city of Davos fights pollution by tlambert · · Score: 1

      This reminds me, how the Swiss city of Davos (yes, that Davos), contributes to the Global Warming/pollution/whatever fight: by banning gas stations... I can't find any references to the ban online to link here — you'll just have to visit it to see for yourself.

      Everyone in Davos died when they exploded, after they decided to quit exhaling and quit farting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    2. Re:How city of Davos fights pollution by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      The Swiss are so straight-laced and such tight arseholes about everything, especially being green, that if you dare to drive 2 MPH over the ridiculously low speed limits that are all over Switzerland, you'll be instantly surrounded by cops and attack helicopters.
      I'm surprised they even still have word for farts.

  22. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, radioactive elements released into the environment due to coal use is significantly larger than with nuclear plants

    Not true. This is mostly a myth. Most radiation from coal is thorium, which stays in the ash, and is not biologically active. The comparison was made in 1978, when fly ash stack emission standards for coal were way more lax than today. Even so, coal radiation was only more than nukes during "normal operations", but nearly all environmental radiation from nukes is from leaks and accidents.

    There are plenty of good reasons to stop burning coal, but "radiation" isn't one of them.

  23. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    B) It doesn't matter how much you wash it, it still pollutes horribly even if you ignore the CO2 mainly due to sulphur dioxide and particulates in the smoke.
    That is wrong. Since about 1977 or give or take a year or two.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  24. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Plus the radioactives. Mustn't forget that. (A) Yes, there are radioactive elements in coal. (2)Which typically go up the smokestack in a coal plant.
    1) Wrong. Only some coals contain radioactives (aka Thorium)
    2) Wrong. It gets washed out by scrubbers.

    And anyway: the amount of Thorium or rests of Uranium always were so low it was never relevant for anything.

    Because coal stack scrubbers aren't actually designed to deal with uranium and thorium ...
    That is nonsense. Scrubbers work actually extremely simple. I suggest to read it up ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  25. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    There's anthracite (glossy black coal) and there's lignite (brown coal). Anthracite is relatively clean burning yes, but brown coal, which is used in a lot of places like Germany, is really dirty.
    That is nonsense.
    Every coal plant has the exact same pollution requirements.
    And every coal plant has the exact same scrubbers ....

    I really wonder how stupid the mainstream /. poster meanwhile is.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  26. Too Easy - Protectionism at work by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is really a protectionism measure. Finland has no domestic coal production. What they're doing is blocking energy imports to protect their domestic energy sector, what there is of it. Not a bad idea, but that is the truth.

    1. Re:Too Easy - Protectionism at work by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      You're probably at least partially right. No matter how good it is, I doubt that any country that still gets a large amount of revenue from coal would make this move.

      Compared to all other forms of burning things to get power, coal is apparently by far the worst for emissions, so I still see this is a great positive move, regardless of the actual motives.

    2. Re:Too Easy - Protectionism at work by Mjlner · · Score: 1

      This is really a protectionism measure. Finland has no domestic coal production. What they're doing is blocking energy imports to protect their domestic energy sector, what there is of it. Not a bad idea, but that is the truth.

      Yup, let's do this to protect our domestic (fill in the blank)-based energy production! We really need to use our vast, domestic supplies of (fill in the blank)!!!

      Any idea for the blank?!

      --
      Lemon curry???
    3. Re:Too Easy - Protectionism at work by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Uranium and thorium are everywhere. If they are mining for anything then they have a source of uranium and thorium in the mining tails. Barring that they can extract uranium from seawater.
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

      I love how people say that "we" can do without coal and nuclear if only we put up enough windmills, solar panels, and connect them all with enough wires. That might work in a large nation and/or in a politically stable part of the world. What of the people that don't have a lot of sun and wind, and don't particularly get along with their neighbors? I believe Finland applies here. The nation is largely sub-arctic, so not a lot of sun. Sharing a border with Russia would shackling their first world economy to a second world economy by electrical wires, or the idea of a "smart grid" fails from the start. Dealing with Russia for natural gas is bad enough, at least that can be tanked up for times when they decide to turn off the tap and demand a higher price. If the plug is pulled on the electric grid like that then it means things get dark and cold real quick.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Too Easy - Protectionism at work by Suomi-Poika · · Score: 1

      We are "shackled" into all powergrids our neighbors have, including Russia. You can see the status of the Finnish power grid from here: http://www.fingrid.fi/fi/sahko...

      Russians have been a good power supplier. Now when we get our new nukes online the only change will be that we will probably export electricity to Russia sometimes. Also Nordic pool electricity prices will go down for us, now Sweden and Norway have had lower prices due to insufficient grid capacity towards Finland. They are also going to fix that soon, we get a new transit line so that Norwegians can sell their peak hydro power to us. Russians are soon completing their Leningrad 3/4 VVER 1200s, which are only 300km from Helsinki, that means Russians will sell more electricity to anyone willing to buy. Things are actually pretty good here for now, should someone be looking a stable, non-culturally enriched place to do their business.

    5. Re:Too Easy - Protectionism at work by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      It's not economic protectionism. It's to prevent Russia from cutting off their energy supply in a crisis.

  27. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    Yes, radioactive elements released into the environment due to coal use is significantly larger than with nuclear plants

    Not true. This is mostly a myth. Most radiation from coal is thorium, which stays in the ash, and is not biologically active. The comparison was made in 1978, when fly ash stack emission standards for coal were way more lax than today. Even so, coal radiation was only more than nukes during "normal operations", but nearly all environmental radiation from nukes is from leaks and accidents.

    There are plenty of good reasons to stop burning coal, but "radiation" isn't one of them.

    Not a myth at all - I thought I was careful not to mention just the burning of coal, but the whole process of producing electricity, which includes the extraction of coal. Extraction of coal and its burning in coal fired plants exceeds the emissions generated by extraction and use of uranium in nuclear plants, by a factor of two, in modern times. Sorry, I should have been much more explicit.

    But as I was pointing out in my original post, it doesn't even fucking matter - heavy metals released by the production of electricity by coal-fired plants is by far a more dangerous problem than radioactives.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  28. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by MangoCats · · Score: 1

    Yes, but "Friends of Coal" are getting money from the continued exploitation of this time honored resource. Potential "Friends of Coal" I can think of:

    - Medical professionals treating various diseases caused from coal particulate and heavy metal pollution of the communities downwind from coal burning facilities

    - Those who benefit from acid rain

    - Those who benefit from the ban on eating fish caught in freshwater streams and lakes

    - Those who benefit from strip-mining operations

    - Those who think they can't possibly retrain to work in another industry

    Really, given this wonderful company, who wouldn't want to be a "Friend of Coal"?

  29. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by MangoCats · · Score: 1

    We bought a house once (well, more than once) but this particular time, the ex-mayor of the town was now a real-estate agent and she took us around town to look at a few houses - senile old bat who couldn't even drive a car without knocking over garbage cans - she was quite certain that "our power plant has the latest scrubber technology, it's completely safe," as she took us to look at a house less than a mile from the stacks...

    Yeah, with assurances from a source like that, who would ever worry?

  30. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by MangoCats · · Score: 1

    Sure, thorium is completely safe, not biologically active at all - let's give you a thorium seed injection so we can track some stuff in a scanner, won't hurt a bit...

  31. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by MangoCats · · Score: 1

    Agreed that normal operational thorium+uranium+radon->polonium emissions from coal plants are insignificant. Which is quite telling since they are even greater than radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants.

    Not agreed that scrubbers make everything safe. Scrubbers aren't run 100% of the time, and they aren't 100% effective, and the waste from scrubbers and fly ash is nearly as problematic as the stuff they want to stash in Yucca Mountain.

    Plus: mercury.

  32. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Extraction of coal and its burning in coal fired plants exceeds the emissions generated by extraction and use of uranium in nuclear plants, by a factor of two, in modern times.

    Citation? Even the 1978 Oakridge study didn't claim a factor of two, and it was written when coal plants were far dirtier than they are today.

  33. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I keep hearing about these "power plants"... are they anything like the flower power-up in Super Mario Bros?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  34. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    Coal is so low in energy density compared to nuclear that the sheer tonnage (or tonneage, as the case may be) of coal that has to be mined per megawatt magnifies the effect of every pollutant in it. And that's before we even consider the carbon.

  35. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Radon is a gas.
    Coal does not contain Radon.

    Which is quite telling since they are even greater than radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants.
    Wrong and irrelevant.
    The two big accidents, Chernobyl and Fukushima, releases million times more radiation as all the coal plants since 1880.

    Scrubbers aren't run 100% of the time,
    In my country, they do. No idea about your retarded country.

    and they aren't 100% effective
    99.95% ?

    and the waste from scrubbers and fly ash is nearly as problematic as the stuff they want to stash in Yucca Mountain.
    Considering that the worst of them are close (but below) to the level of an open uranium pit mine: No, not at all.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  36. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    Funny that you ask for a citation, when you didn't bother to give one yourself in your original post.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  37. Tiny, Meaningless by FrankDrebin · · Score: 1

    So a country of 5.5M is going to eliminate coal as 10% of its energy supply. Golf clap. In the meantime, OPEC member Nigeria is set to have its population hit 400M and be the 3rd largest in the world, jumping past Pakistan, Brazil, Indonesia and the US, by 2050. Ethiopia with 188M and the DR Congo with 195M are going to push Mexico and Russia out of the top-10 by 2050. By 2050 the ~1300M more people in Africa, and ~900M more in Asia will get most of their energy from... wait for it... fossil fuels! By 2050 Finland will have a population of 5.8M.

    --
    Anybody want a peanut?
    1. Re:Tiny, Meaningless by Mjlner · · Score: 1

      So, you are saying that the environment is better off if smaller nations go 100% coal?

      (No, of course you ain't... I'm just being facetious.)

      Population size doesn't mean jack shit unless you account for the total consumption: energy consumption per capita in Finland is 20 times that of DR Congo, or 13 Times Pakistan, or 12 times Ethiopia, or 8 times Nigeria, or 7 times Indonesia, or 4 times Mexico (or somewhat less than the US).

      Yup, 5.5 million Finns consume energy more than 80 million Congolese. AND they will continue to do so, being a first-world nation, in a location that requires heating for 3/4 of the year and more saunas per capita than any other country in the world. Possibly more saunas period than any other country in the world.

      --
      Lemon curry???
  38. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    Anthracite is a hard, compact variety of coal that has a submetallic luster. It has the highest carbon content, the fewest impurities, and the highest energy density of all types of coal except for graphite.... The principal use of anthracite today is for a domestic fuel in either hand-fired stoves or automatic stoker furnaces. It delivers high energy per its weight and burns cleanly with little soot, making it ideal for this purpose. Its high value makes it prohibitively expensive for power plant use.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    Lignite, often referred to as brown coal... is a soft brown combustible sedimentary rock formed from naturally compressed peat. It is considered the lowest rank of coal due to its relatively low heat content. ... carbon dioxide emissions from traditional brown-coal-fired plants are generally much higher per megawatt generated than for comparable black-coal plants,

    So you were saying?

  39. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    You sound like the typical uniformed dumbass German internet user. That's why those idiots keep burning brown coal and claim they're running on green energy.

  40. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Anthracite can have more than 32.5 MJ/kg while low grade Lignite can have less than 14.6 MJ/kg.

  41. Re:Phase out white people by dave420 · · Score: 1

    captcha: ignorant

  42. Re: Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by Nocturna81 · · Score: 1

    But brown coal has a low carbon content so it doesn't burn as efficient as other types of coal. So you'll need more of it for any give amount of power, generating more pollutants. Brown coal is higher in sulfur then other types of coal so it is indeed more of a pollutant. Question is then, are the scrubbers tweaked for brown coal or some other type?

  43. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    I was saying that your claim is wrong.
    And your wikipedia references, written by laymen, like you, still don't make it right.

    A scrubber in a plant does not know if the smoke comes from lignite or anthracite, so it scrubbs both the same way. Facepalm.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  44. Re: Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Brown coal has not more sulfur than hard coal.
    How stupid is that idea?

    And anyway: WHO THE FUNK CARES? The sulfur is scrubbed away, since 40 years!!! It never reaches the environment.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  45. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    And in what regard is that relevant?

    A kg Alcohol has more energy than a kg starch ... and? What has that to with anything?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  46. Okay Finland, you can do that... by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

    ...but while you're at it, you might want to pass a law phasing out steel, plastics, water filters, carbon fibre products, and various other coal products. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.

    --
    There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
  47. lol by gDLL · · Score: 1

    yes the parliament is elected, but can't do shit.

  48. Re:Phase out white people by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    exactly how did this turn into a racial slur, i must have missed the hook there ?

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  49. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by dywolf · · Score: 1

    Both units will easily pay for themselves in in under 10 years.

    does that include the money you receive for writing these posts?

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  50. Re: No need to go all racist about this, you troll by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

    AC (#55132923) you are an offensive, bigoted racist!

    --
    PlaynBass
  51. Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

    Anthracite coal has also been mostly mined out in most countries, especially in Europe. I believe China uses mostly bituminous coal, which also produces more ash waste. Neither variety can be considered particularly "clean", even after modern "scrubbing" technology has been applied, not to mention the problems with disposing of the copious amounts of waste produced, nor the still quite prevalent incidence of black lung disease in areas where coal of all types is mined.

    --
    PlaynBass