Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Gundremmingen
(BWR)
Brokdorf
(PWR)
Grafenrheinfeld
(PWR)
Grohnde
(PWR)
Neckarwestheim
(PWR)
airborne radioactive effluents
liquid radioactive effluents
Unterweser
(PWR)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Effective dose
in µSv/GW(e)*y
Fig. 4.3
Effective dose (
μ
Sv/(GW(e)
∙
year)) from airborne and liquid radioactive effluents of
German PWRs and BWRs in 2008 [
12
]
4.7.3.2 Radioactive Exposures from Light Water Reactor Effluents
in the US
The gaseous and liquid radioactive effluents are about equal for PWR and BWR
plants in Europe and the USA. If instead of the very conservative rules described in
the previous section the radioactive effluents are distributed over the whole USA
and if the radiation exposure is averaged over the whole population as described in
[
24
] then the radiation exposures shown in Fig.
4.3
drop down by orders of
magnitude.
4.7.4 Comparison with Emissions of Radioactive Nuclides
from a Coal Fired Plant
A coal fired power plant for electricity production burns somewhat more than two
million tons of coal per GW(e) and year. This coal contains about 1 ppm of U-238
with its daughter products, about 2 ppm Th-232 with its daughter products as well
as the isotope K-40. These radioactive impurities are emitted together with the
combustion gases of the coal fired plant into the environment [
25
]. These radioac-
tive emissions (Bq/GW(e)
year) are shown in Table
4.8
.
A comparison of the radioactive exposures of these airborne radioactive emis-
sions of coal fired plants (Table
4.8
) with those of PWRs or BWRs (Table
4.7
)ona
GW(e)
∙
year basis leads to the difficulty that both power generating systems emit
different
∙
radioactive nuclides. Each of
these radioisotopes has different
