Time for them to bring out the super coal!
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
243 points (99.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
7500 readers
405 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think that’s called uranium
Here’s a fact: Coal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants, even if you take all the accidents into account.
Coal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants, even if you take all the accidents into account.
In a way yes, but only in the sense that nuclear waste is supposed to be well contained and stored for disposal. Still, the accidents are not taken into account, at least in the studies I took a look at. If you have any that says otherwise, please share.
Ah, I misspoke. Waste. @magnetosphere@fedia.io dropped this above.
The waste part, for some reason, I thought it was kinda implied. Thanks, anyways.
The part that you say more or less that coal plants produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants even if we take into account nuclear accidents, is the one that made me wonder tbh.
Btw, perhaps, one of the most famous papers about this topic was written in 1978 [abstract, full pdf ], but it doesn't mention accidents. Actually, in the abstract they say that the study does not even assess, the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy. This one, from 2021, doesn't talk about accidents, either.
I thought you might have a relevant article or something to share about the accident part you mentionned?
Right up front, I want to sincerely thank you for insisting that I back up my claims. Not kidding, not internet sarcasm; I truly appreciate it.
Let's take a look here.
According to Wikipedia, at Chernobyl:
An early estimate for total nuclear fuel material released to the environment was 3±1.5%; this was later revised to 3.5±0.5%. This corresponds to the atmospheric emission of 6 tonnes (5.9 long tons; 6.6 short tons) of fragmented fuel.
Data on Fukushima is more difficult to find, but the World Nuclear Association estimates that:
The 770 PBq figure is about 15% of the Chernobyl release of 5200 PBq iodine-131 equivalent.
While there remains uncertainty about the amount of radioactive material released from Fukushima, it's certainly below half of what Chernobyl produced.
From the earlier posted link about coal power plants:
[E]very [coal power] station creates fly ash containing around 5-10 tonnes of uranium and thorium each year.
Now, I totally get that the kind of radioactive materials released by a nuclear accident are different from what comes out of coal plants, and that a concetrated release is more dire than a diluted one - but given that there are ~2500 coal-fired power plants in the world, that means that coal plants produce about 12,500 to 25,000 tons of radiactive material every year.
If what is certainly the worst nuclear disaster produced just 6 tons, I believe that "including accidents" is not inaccurate.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone a "nature preserve," but...
in a similar note, the DMZ is also very similar, a nature safe haven for endemic species, that was largely extirpated from the rest of both koreas.
Super Coal is the same thing as Clean Coal, which is coal soaked in kerosene.
We've already got uranium. I think super coal is unobtainium.
“Unobtainium” is such a stupid nameium.
Good. Remember, “two shots in the head. Make sure it’s dead.”
Rule #2: double tap
Sorry, still working on cardio.
That’s a really good read! Very positive despite certain groups trying to keep fossils relevant to milk profits a while longer, fuck em, hope this really is the turning point that clean energy takes the lead…
I think this might be an unpopular take, but I think we -- and I'm talking about activists and ecosocialists here -- should be advocating for a just transition away from fossil fuels in places like Russia.
Reading the article, my first thought was gleeful schadenfreude. The people responsible for Russia's coal industry are frankly monsters. They have so much blood on their hands for the human toll they have imposed on the climate, but also because they're authoritarian war-mongers. And seeing them hoisted by their own petard is a wonderful thing to see.
But then my second thought was this: the workers in this industry are suffering badly, and will suffer worse. They are in an economic crisis that is getting worse, and ruled over by oligarchs who amplify all their suffering.
And then my third thought was of revolution. As much as we hate to admit it, revolution in the real world is a value-neutral proposition. In the face of awful circumstances, it's hard to imagine the outcome of a revolution not being better. But that's just a failure of imagination. This kind of event fuels revolution, but there's no guarantee that such a revolution won't simply move to another form of exploitation and barbarism. If we want the workers of Russia to be able to live lives of dignity and comfort, and we want the whole world to decarbonize as fast as possible, then I think that Russia needs access to the technologies and ideas that provide that. My point is that we should begin advocating for tech transfer.
Tech transfer to a regime like Putin's? I don't love it. But I think it needs considered.
Excellent
Okay Coal barons! Line up for your taxpayer bailouts!
A HAHAHahahahaaaaaa! Ha! Maaaaan fuck them kids!
hopefully literally right onto some conservative idiots
Oh no, not clean beautiful coal... Anyway.
The Steampunk fandom is in shambles.
We can still have steam. And punk.
Honestly solar steampunk with big crazy arrays of glass lenses to focus sunlight onto tanks sounds like a hell of an aethstetic.
But with more brass and some elaborate power distribution network involving focusing beams of light and pupming water in place of electricity
Good.
it actually make sense, and has been known for a while, why they are invading ukraine, less reliance on russian oils and minerals have gotten vlad very concerned and flailing about his hold on the world. thats why he invaded ukraine he needs thier resources and upped his propaganda machine, and pressured his russian agents in the west. better of gettin it from places like china instead of volatile russia.
Ahw! This makes me want to cry. No, actually no.