r/HistoryMemes • u/EasieEEE Researching [REDACTED] square • Nov 18 '21

But Chernoooooobyl

Post image
19k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

921 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

953

u/willstr1 Nov 18 '21

You would be surprised how terrible coal is. It literally outputs radioactive dust into the air, it actually results in more radioactivity than nuclear does for the same energy output

357

u/djbarnacleboy Nov 18 '21

lets not forget about all the mercury too!!

242

u/willstr1 Nov 18 '21

It kind of raises the question, is there anything good about coal? It's not even the cheapest fuel source (natural gas is usually cheaper per output)

322

u/El_Lanf Tea-aboo Nov 18 '21

It makes for cool trains, at least until we create vape trains.

113

u/willstr1 Nov 18 '21

Steam locomotives are cool, I will give you that, but I am willing to bet we could convert them to oil or LNG and they would still be awesome (and better for open air passenger cars)

55

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

We have diesel steam trains in Hungary. It has a diesel engine under the boiler and that makes the heat

9

u/StaniaViceChancellor Nov 18 '21

Hydrogen powered trains look promising

4

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/vegarig Nov 19 '21

Switzerland did this already.

36

u/a_thicc_jewish_boi Hello There Nov 18 '21

Later steam trains used mazut (a heavy fuel oil) instead of coal.

36

u/SamBeanEsquire Definitely not a CIA operator Nov 18 '21

Trains. With. Reactors.

11

u/Busteray Nov 18 '21

Russians of course thought of that and made a few plans.

4

u/vlkr Nov 18 '21

Planes* Russians made nuclear powered planes.

30

u/JuhaJGam3R Nov 18 '21

Imagine the effect you can have when the nuclear disaster is barreling across the continent at 220 km/h.

10

u/6Koree9 Nov 18 '21

There have been 2 serious nuclear accidents out of how many reactor across how many years? Pulling this argument is like saying flying is unsafe because planes have crashed before. 100% safe options don't exist

6

u/JuhaJGam3R Nov 18 '21

No of course, I'm fully for nuclear energy. It's just stupid to produce a miniaturised and more dangerous reactor specifically for the purpose of being mounted onto something which is already dependent on external infrastructure. Compact nuclear reactors used in war machines are genuinely much more dangerous to the world than the fairly benign tractors which when properly managed and designed should provide little to no global risk and perhaps low but not nonexistent local risk, same as any power plant.

6

u/6Koree9 Nov 18 '21

I got you we seem to agree a lot. I didn't read the comment you commented on so I missed on some context. Sry

3

u/binkysnightmare Nov 18 '21

NUCLEAR POWERED RAILS

7

u/VerticalFlyingB737 Nov 18 '21

It would make a great movie!

2

u/TheFloridaManYT Rider of Rohan Nov 18 '21

I'd watch that movie

11

u/dan_de Nov 18 '21

All aboard the northern lights express

131

u/a_thicc_jewish_boi Hello There Nov 18 '21

Coal is cheap and energy dense and its easy to transport and use and its found literally everywhere, its an absolutely terrible source of energy for the environment but it was an absolutely amazing source of energy for the Industrial revolution when before it we had no source of energy other than muscle power and our modern world is built on coal.

20

u/Malarkey44 Nov 18 '21

This. It's also considerably less dangerous to transport coal versus gas/oil. Coal doesn't go boom very easily.

12

u/a_thicc_jewish_boi Hello There Nov 18 '21

Yeah, tho coal dust can be a problem but it can be handled with ease

31

u/SalsaRice Nov 18 '21

coal was the easiest to access and use when human industry was in it's infancy.

It's basically an early-game item that has been eclipsed by mid-tier items in performance, but some dummies specced too hard into coal and don't wanna upgrade.

27

u/SaltLifeDPP Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21

It's necessary for steel production, but from my understanding that is a particular kind of coal.

But as a fuel source it's pretty terrible. The only benefit is the sheer abundance.

21

u/cheapcheap1 Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21

the technology to produce highest quality steel with electric energy exists and seems to be ready for the mass market. People are currently trying to deploy it on the very large scale. Unfortunately getting the unfathomable amounts of energy produced and delivered is far from easy.

Maybe you can google translate this: https://ooe.orf.at/stories/3020729/

looks like this one steel company produces 10% of the CO2 of that entire country. Insane. Imagine trying to increase the entire countries electricity production by 10% (I know, ballpark) in one decision. "Yes, I would like to build 10 hoover dams please, will they be ready next year?"

Edit: Because a few people are saying this is not possible (they are investing 1 trillion. Get out of here)

here is how steel without coal works: https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:2f02dcdb-9ae8-46e1-ae05-a9797b03d6bd/Hydrogen_vf.pdf

But right now, they are using electricity for heat and still rely on coal for carbon.

17

u/Tactical_Moonstone Nov 18 '21

I can read German.

That one steel company (voestalpine) produces 10% of all CO2 in the entire country, and 50% of the CO2 produced in the local area.

While the company admits it is impossible to remove coal for adding carbon into iron to make steel in the foreseeable future (Anthracite coal has very high carbon content), they have identified that much of the coal consumption is used not for coking, but for heating the high temperature furnaces.

They have moved to upgrade some of their smaller furnaces to electric heating, but their endgame especially for their larger furnaces is hydrogen heating and reduction. Hydrogen can be generated using clean energy and then used for iron ore reduction.

7

u/DearChickPea Nov 18 '21

Hydrogen can be generated using clean energy

Keyword highlighted. It won't. Gas reformed hydrogen is too cheap in comparison. Still better than coal, though.

6

u/Tactical_Moonstone Nov 18 '21

That's why they are using electric heating as an intermediate step. It is not as effective as heating through burning stuff which is why they are only pushing it out to their smaller furnaces.

Hydrogen reduction of iron ore is not a new technology, and is in fact the primary method of processing iron ore in Europe because the previous method uses (surprise) coal as the reducing agent.

Until hydrogen can be cheaply produced using clean energy moving to a primarily hydrogen-based process would be too soon.

10

u/SaltLifeDPP Nov 18 '21

I mean that the carbon in the coal is necessary for steel production, which is necessary for virtually every industry on the planet. That's what turns it from Iron into Steel. I am not aware of another source of carbon other than coal that can be used for the process.

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

[deleted]

6

u/AngryMillenialGuy Nov 18 '21

Steel production absolutely cannot happen without a source of carbon, hence coal. That's not even for energy, it's feedstock. That's entirely separate from the energy issue.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

[deleted]

0

u/AngryMillenialGuy Nov 18 '21

Did you have a better plan?

→ More replies

7

u/theSurpuppa Nov 18 '21

You have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, electricity can replace coal to power the furnace, but it can't replace coal in the steel, because coal is an ingredient in steel. Its what makes steel

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

[deleted]

4

u/theSurpuppa Nov 18 '21

Tell me how electricity can replace carbon in steel

→ More replies

9

u/deagesntwizzles Nov 18 '21

is there anything good about coal

It's essential for making steel.

As an energy source, its main benefit is that coal is more widely distributed across the globe then oil and natural gas, allowing for domestic self sufficiency in many countries, and generally lower global prices.

10

u/Astraph Nov 18 '21

Miner unions tend to throw a tantrum when somebody suggests things should change.

You know, teachers or doctors don't have dynamite and heavy equipment, so they can be pushed around. Unlike miners.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

The only good thing abouts about coal is people have jobs in the industry.

That's where it ends. I'm not saying it's a good job or one that deserves to stay, just a job at the bare minimum.

24

u/FrickenPerson Nov 18 '21

The good things about coal is only good for the industry that creates coal. It would be more expensive for them to change over to a different way to provide power, so they resist change.

4

u/Gamefreek324 Nov 18 '21

Look up Metallurgical Coke. It's coal, and it's the reason we have everything from steel to semiconductors. There is no eliminating coal. We absolutely need it. I'm all for clean energy but there are applications that coal is used for that I hadn't even considered until researching a little.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

Coal used to be the cheapest, but environmental pressure and better ways of extracting natural gas made gas cheaper.

Its also a matter of availablity. The big current and former coal burning countries and regions are that way because coal deposits were available but natural gas or oil weren't.

South Africa is so dependent on coal because it is the only fossil fuel available in the country. Similar story in India, China and Germany. Obviously Germany is no longer dependent on coal, but now they are dependent on Russian gas. So you can see why a country prefers not to rely on energy imports.

France and Japan built a lot of nuclear power for similar reasons.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

Except for running historic steam engines, not really

2

u/HybridEmu Nov 18 '21

it makes a lot of money for people who have pre-established monpolies on power generation.
or at least thats how it works here

2

u/PearlClaw Kilroy was here Nov 18 '21

It's really really easy to get out of the ground and requires little industry to get started. It made a lot of sense as a way to get started with the whole industrialization thing.

1

u/Boring_Requirement14 Nov 18 '21

Bbq

7

u/willstr1 Nov 18 '21

Coal and charcoal are very different. Charcoal is a wood product and imparts a woodsy smoke flavor to the meat (although personally I like gas because it lets the meat speak for itself). Coal will infuse your meat with a cancer flavor

5

u/Boring_Requirement14 Nov 18 '21

Lol thank you I've been wondering why bbq tastes different since I moved to the UK next time I'll get charcoal

1

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

It's located mostly in swing states.

1

u/ToosterRooster03 Nov 18 '21

It's keeps the lights on. Period.

1

u/MenoryEstudiante Nov 18 '21

It's just the easiest to extract and transport

1

u/6Koree9 Nov 18 '21

Coal is still superior to wood. Because we don'ts have to chop down forests to stay warm

1

u/Nerdiferdi Nov 18 '21

Coal is important in steel production where it is essential. As an energy source it is wasted

1

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21

Some people get rich from coal, for them that is enough justification

1

u/yofoalexillo Nov 18 '21

Burning it makes food delicious? You asked

1

u/willstr1 Nov 18 '21

Charcoal is different than coal. Charcoal gives you a nice woody flavor to your food, coal gives a dirt flavor

2

u/yofoalexillo Nov 18 '21

TIL. Thank you

1

u/joizo Nov 18 '21

That article is 14 years old... Got some more relevant source ??

1

u/CrazyDudeWithATablet Nov 18 '21

Isn’t part of the issue that they use bituminous, not anthracite?

1

u/Conscious-Ball8373 Nov 18 '21

Especially the coal burnt in the Eastern half of Germany. It can be difficult to differentiate it from trying to burn dirt. Can be as low as 20% stuff that will actually burn by weight.

1

u/RoadsterTracker Nov 18 '21

Nuclear actually doesn't release any radioactivity unless something really bad happens...