Fukushima's real threat?

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

Any ITulipers live in Sweden? Did you know that scientists believe that Chernobyl caused cancer in Sweden?

I looked at the Tondel paper last year - you should look at this post.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...890#post193890

Suffice it to say that the impact was nowhere near 600,000 people dying early or whatever ridiculous Chernobyl claim was made.

Or that radiation has reproductive/genetics effects on humans living within 22 miles of nuclear reactors, and that releases of ionizing radiation affects millions of births annually, including stillborn and impaired children?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-nra052611.php

I'll look at this paper, but unless it shows a specific mechanism by which radiation affects male zygotes vs. female, this is all just a statistical curiosity.

One glaring issue which the study must address is the fact that parents in the study area were getting older and older before having children. Between the 60s and 90s, average age of mothers at first child's birth rose 4 years in conjunction with much lower birth rates.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

The distance between Chernobyl and the centre of northern Sweden is roughly 1200 miles. This is about the distance between Minneapolis-St.Paul and Boston, or 1200 mile is roughly the distance between Chicago and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. A little east beyond Denver, all of the way westward to San Francisco is 1200 miles. So we are talking about a distance that is no "walk in the park".

Do you, Jim Bruno and the other posters here, mean to tell us that any emissions into the atmosphere at Chernobyl had any health affect upon the people of northern Sweden? This is even more ridiculous when 1200 miles of continuous wind fetch from the South-east to the North-west in these latitudes is rare... A continuous wind fetch of 1200 miles from SE to NW direction is much more common in the sub-tropics and not in the middle to low-upper latitudes. It is also ridiculous to think that there is no significant dispersion within any emission from Chernobyl over a distance of 1200 miles to northern Sweden.... It is also ridiculous to think that cancers and gender effects can emerge and be observed 1200 miles away when few if any such effects were observed at Chernobyl.

Yet you guys claim and publish in your so-called, "scientific journals" that 600,000 people were/are dying early around Chernobyl and in the wind-fetch trail all the way to northern Sweden and to north-west Europe, and you guys claim that 440,000 people are going to die early from Fukushima....As usual, I am baffled and lost.

Life and the environment is back to normal around Chernobyl, and the mess from the earthquake and tsunami around Fukushima is in the process of being cleaned-up now.... Why not publish that observation in your ecology journals?

[oddlots]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

We have 1000 foot tall buildings which are supposed to be built to withstand earthquakes.

Are you trying to tell me that it is not possible to build a 2nd story pool which can do the same?

No of course that's not what I'm saying, but what's "possible" is not what's relevant here: what's relevant is what's extant now at Fukushima, how has it failed and what does the failure tell you about the current state of the nuclear industry in terms of safety.

I take your points about the calculus governments use to determine energy policy but, again, I think you've simply stated the problem as if it's a solution. Of course "the reality is that government planners are looking at a completely different scenario: how to provide electricity and other forms of energy at an affordable cost so that their respective nations and people can grow their economies and increase their living standards." But if they don't take into account the possible costs of a catastrophic accident and the accident happens, does it not make sense to say that they've made a bad calculation? Given this, I don't know what your point is?

Thus if you desire to remove SNF fuel danger, you can easily introduce new ones. For example, CANDU reactors also produce more nuclear waste than 'regular' ones - is this a feature you would desire?

I'm aware that the CANDU fuel cycle produces a greater volume of less concentrated waste and, yes, I suspect that that is not a bad trade-off for the benefit of making spent pool fuel fires an impossibility, though of course I don't have the expertise to assess that thoroughly.

Your point that there are trade-offs in all energy choices is true of course, but also kind of obvious (and frankly a little condescending.) Apparently you'd need to read between the lines to conclude that what I'm saying here is that I don't think these trade-offs make sense if nuclear is run in a way that allows the apparent "close shave" with such a devastating accident to occur. There might be many reasons why one might disagree with this:

a) the worry about the fuel pools is exaggerated (quite possible, though I've been looking for a credible refutation from the industry and I can't seem to find one)
b) even given this, the benefits still outweigh etc...

What I'm not getting is this: if you disagree with my worry, why?

[Starving Steve]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

A 9.0 earthquake and its 45-foot tsunami will destroy anything nearby, and anything especially at sea-level. So, if we were to plan for such an event along the California coast, then nothing would ever be built. All development would cease, and all human activity would slow-down and eventually stop.

A 9.0 earthquake and its 45-foot tsunami on the California coast would destroy: the entire San Francisco Int'l Airport, the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge, Treasure Island, the entire city of Alameda, the entire downtown of Oakland, West Berkeley, Napa, Vallejo, the entire Foster City on the SF Peninsula, the entire downtown of San Francisco, including its Mission District, the SF Giants Stadium, the Hunters' Point Shipyard, the Fishermen's Wharf in San Francisco, the Marina District of SF, the entire Golden Gate Park would be flooded, the Golden Gate Bridge would be destroyed, most of South SF would be flooded, Burlingame gone, Brisbane gone, most of San Bruno gone, most of San Mateo gone, the Dunbarten Bridge would be destroyed, likely the Carquinez Bridge would be destroyed, San Leandro flooded, Hayward flooded, much of Milpitas gone, East Palo Alto gone, Moffett Field and Sunnyvale flooded, Mountain View flooded, Santa Clara flooded, San Jose including the San Jose Int'l Airport flooded, much of Silicon Valley flooded or washed-away, Alviso gone, the Oakland Airport would be gone, El Cerrito would be flooded, Albany flooded, Pittsburg would be flooded, San Pablo damaged, San Rafael and San Quentin Prison flooded, Sausalito flooded, Lake Merced over in San Francisco would be flooded, Lake Meritt in Oakland would be flooded, the Alameda Naval Air Station would be gone, Stockton flooded, the Delta region flooded; the skyscrapers in San Francisco would be rubble, the cable car lines destroyed, the upper deck of the Embarcadero Freeway in SF would collapse; natural-gas fires would be everywhere, San Bruno would burn one again, water pipes everywhere would be broken, Stanford University and its linear accelerator would be destroyed; the University of Cal. in Berkeley would be destroyed, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge would collapse, and the oil refineries at Richmond and San Pablo would be on-fire.

This would be the damage in the SF Bay Area including Silicon Valley from a 9.0 quake and 45' tsunami which would follow. And with the exception of the oil refinery fires at Richmond and San Pablo, also San Bruno burning-down once again, I haven't even begun to mention all of the fires that would rage everywhere, because all of the gas-lines would be ruptured. All of the water-lines would be ruptured, so there would be no water to put the extinguish the fires.

So, dear environmentalists: Do you mean to tell us that the development of the SF Bay Area and the development of the Silicon Valley should not have occurred? Do you mean to tell us that planning within these areas should now be for a 9.0 earthquake and its accompanying 45' tsunami?

What are you environmentalists trying to do to Western Civilization? Certain disasters can not be planned for because they are once in a thousand-year events. No government has endless trillions of dollars to spend in order to be prepared for any eventuality.

Shall I begin to discuss the hundreds of trillions of dollars that need to be spent in the L.A. Basin and in San Diego in order to make Southern California ready for an eventual 9.0 quake and accompanying tsunami? Imagine what would happen when the L.A. Aqueduct is ruptured and no-one in southern California has drinking water? Imagine the oil refinery fires in Signal Hill and Long Beach after such an earthquake? Imagine the homes slipping off of the Hollywood Hills. Imagine Disneyland after such an earthquake.... The scale of the nightmare is unimaginable. What would happen to LAX and to Lindbergh Field in San Diego? What might happen to the famous L.A. freeway system? Would the water pipeline from the Colorado River be ruptured, too?

As the gas-lines and water-lines are ruptured and the L.A. Basin and San Diego are ablaze, what would happen if the usually parched-dry brush and scrub adjacent to the L.A. Basin and adjacent to San Diego catch fire, as well?

But at some point, the line has to be drawn against spending. At some point, the environmentalists have to be told to go-away, because no more money can be spent.

Similarly and in the context of the 9.0 earthquake and the 45' tsunami at Fukushima, the environmentalists there have to be told to go-away, because the Fukushima power plant is needed now. No more money can be spent on windmill and solar panel experiments...... The line has to be drawn. The people of Japan can not be left without power and to freeze in the dark. And the people of Japan do not have un-limited funds to spend.

[oddlots]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

Interesting thought experiment SS. I can't say what the environmentalists would say about this as I'm not a member, but you might want to check that the back-up diesel systems at the nuclear plants are on high ground at least, cuz nothing wrecks a good, cleansing natural disaster quite like out of control radiological fires. Hey, I think that might even be a cheap precaution. A twofer!

FWIW I thought this was a good review of things:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/scien...ear_03-23.html

Just a suggestion, as James Mahaffey states towards the beginning of this piece, "There's nothing particularly safe about releasing a billion watts of energy within a moderately sized concrete building.... Every complication in a nuclear plant is there so it won't kill you." In other words, a frank recognition of the danger of nuclear and of the absolutely crucial role of engineering in the endeavor to make it safe is actually kind of reassuring and tends to lend some credibility....

I also thought the info that there are currently 31 plants operating in the states that are substantially the same design as in Fukushima and that they actually typically have even more fuel stored in their upper-floor spent fuel pools than at the Fukushima was enlightening.

At the very least we need a nuclear renaissance just to turn over the fleet much less make any headway.

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

I take your points about the calculus governments use to determine energy policy but, again, I think you've simply stated the problem as if it's a solution.

No, I've stated the government planner's goal: achieving cheap energy for economic growth.

Anything which can be used to accomplish this goal, will be.

Much as the historic Yangtze river basin was flooded for hydroelectric purposes, why then do you think the risk of a nuclear meltdown is going to matter, unless said risk is extremely high?

We've had 2 really big nuclear accidents since nuclear power plants were first used for commercial electricity generation purposes - roughly a 40 year period. One accident was catastrophic human error coupled with a crappy design. The other was a 9.0 sub-surface ocean earthquake which both hit the nuclear power plant with seismic effects and a 15 meter tsunami. In between we've had all sorts of silly crap like a worker creating his own fission reactor in a plastic bucket.

Another fine example can be seen in the 'Peak Peat' post I put up in the energy section:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...l-Or-Peak-Peat

Now if people are perfectly willing to literally dig up and burn their land, resulting in flooded unusable acreage centuries later, why exactly do you think it will be different this time?

I'm aware that the CANDU fuel cycle produces a greater volume of less concentrated waste and, yes, I suspect that that is not a bad trade-off for the benefit of making spent pool fuel fires an impossibility, though of course I don't have the expertise to assess that thoroughly.

Where is it written that spent fuel from CANDU reactors makes SNF fires an impossibility? CANDU reactors are supposed to have better theoretical resistance to damage because they don't rely on graphite moderators (thus cannot go 'out of control' due to graphite moderator control failure), but the fuel is still hot.

Apparently you'd need to read between the lines to conclude that what I'm saying here is that I don't think these trade-offs make sense if nuclear is run in a way that allows the apparent "close shave" with such a devastating accident to occur. There might be many reasons why one might disagree with this:

a) the worry about the fuel pools is exaggerated (quite possible, though I've been looking for a credible refutation from the industry and I can't seem to find one)
b) even given this, the benefits still outweigh etc...

What I'm not getting is this: if you disagree with my worry, why?

I believe the point where we disagree is this:

Yes, there is a non-zero chance of any nuclear reactor causing an environmental disaster. The exact amount is highly debatable and controversial. And equally environmental disasters can occur with any form of energy generation, albeit at different time scales.

However, the chance that an economy will fail to develop without cheap energy is 100%.

Steve waxes frothingly on this, but it is true that nothing allows a nation to increase its economic potential so much as electricity. Electricity plus home appliances yields more workers. Electricity plus light bulbs yields more time to produce. Electricity is also key towards creating a wide assortment of modern benefits ranging from medicines, to computers/communications, to infrastructure development.

In the US and rest of the 1st world, we have the wealth and luxury to be able to pay for more expensive power, not least because we've already spent the money to build up our infrastructure. Whether we want to, it is far less clear.

For the 2nd and 3rd world nations that desire to attain the wealth and luxury of the 1st world, there is no choice.

[oddlots]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

No, I've stated the government planner's goal: achieving cheap energy for economic growth.

Anything which can be used to accomplish this goal, will be.

Much as the historic Yangtze river basin was flooded for hydroelectric purposes, why then do you think the risk of a nuclear meltdown is going to matter, unless said risk is extremely high?

Well part of the question is how high is the risk? As I've said above, it appears high enough to alarm me, at least with regard to the spent fuel pools if nothing else. I'd go further and say that you need to break that risk down into the degree of consequence and the probability of it occurring: what alarmed me is a high consequence event (uncontrollable radiological fire) with an apparent high possibility (based on the premises: 1) a damaged building b) supporting a large load c) that cannot fail without, apparently, a likely radiological fire that is un-contained in any way d) in an area with a 75% chance of large seismic events on a short time horizon of 1-2 years (the projected timeframe required to come up with a system to get the fuel out of harm's way.) If you are not alarmed by this I'd (again) love to know why? And I don't men this in a snarky way: I've looked and I can't find a good refutation of the concern from anyone within the Nuclear community (apart from ad hominem attacks on the "alarmists," which is never a good sign.)

But somehow we are now in the business of discussing what we predict will happen. And not with regard to a further worsening of the problems at Fukushima but rather whether we think that the drive for economic growth will trump all cards laid down (with the, I think, slightly disingenuous caveat of "unless said risk is extremely high.")

Let's back up. I'm saying I think there's a reasonable argument to say that risk is intolerable. Are you really asking for my opinion on whether this will make a difference politically? Are we suddenly just bystanders at this event? How did you go from someone saying that opposing nuclear was implicitly tantamount to pining for some imaginary agrarian nirvana to saying "Well, regardless... the world will move forward laying waste or shitting out sunshine, who are we to comment or complain?" That's some hard tacking surely.

We've had 2 really big nuclear accidents since nuclear power plants were first used for commercial electricity generation purposes - roughly a 40 year period. One accident was catastrophic human error coupled with a crappy design. The other was a 9.0 sub-surface ocean earthquake which both hit the nuclear power plant with seismic effects and a 15 meter tsunami. In between we've had all sorts of silly crap like a worker creating his own fission reactor in a plastic bucket.

It might not seem like it but I'm a big fan of squinting hard and looking at the big picture, but there are instances where it's all about the plumbing (the specifics.) You are blind to high consequence / low frequency events if you take this "there have only been two" such events attitude. It strikes me as funny that we are all too aware of the "black swan" phenomenon on this site when it comes to finance but are ready to appeal to - sorry, to my eye - facile arguments like this when it comes to some of the most complex engineering problems I can imagine. That strikes me as weird.

Where is it written that spent fuel from CANDU reactors makes SNF fires an impossibility? CANDU reactors are supposed to have better theoretical resistance to damage because they don't rely on graphite moderators (thus cannot go 'out of control' due to graphite moderator control failure), but the fuel is still hot.

Mea culpa. I swear I read that recently but I actually think I've confused the propensity for a radiological fire (zirconium reactions etc.) with the possibility of re-criticality. Point: the low enrichment means that, even if the fuel were to end up in one big concentrated blob - after say, a fire - it would never become critical. Big difference.

I believe the point where we disagree is this:

Yes, there is a non-zero chance of any nuclear reactor causing an environmental disaster. The exact amount is highly debatable and controversial. And equally environmental disasters can occur with any form of energy generation, albeit at different time scales.

However, the chance that an economy will fail to develop without cheap energy is 100%.

Steve waxes frothingly on this, but it is true that nothing allows a nation to increase its economic potential so much as electricity. Electricity plus home appliances yields more workers. Electricity plus light bulbs yields more time to produce. Electricity is also key towards creating a wide assortment of modern benefits ranging from medicines, to computers/communications, to infrastructure development.

In the US and rest of the 1st world, we have the wealth and luxury to be able to pay for more expensive power, not least because we've already spent the money to build up our infrastructure. Whether we want to, it is far less clear.

For the 2nd and 3rd world nations that desire to attain the wealth and luxury of the 1st world, there is no choice.

I disagree about where we disagree (anyone else following this?) What I distrust is the easy slide from the non-chalant "non-zero chance" to the "exact amount is highly debatable and controversial." This strikes me as maddeningly dis-engaged from both a) anything I've said above regarding the specifics that concern me about the situation at Fukushima and b) remarkably contentless in terms of arguing for a sanguine attitude towards nuclear power going forward.

(Though I like the radical chic argument at the end. Che!)

[photon555]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

The main problem as I see it is that too few people have a scientific, reality based background with respect to their schooling. They were not required to take and pass basic math and physics courses in high school or college. So having no foundation in how the physical world really works they are ready to believe any damn thing they are told by an "authority". The second main problem is the strong tendency for every issue to be polarized with an either/or mentality by those with an axe to grind, or another government grant to get approved.

Fukushima should be a wakeup call that the nuclear power fleet should be closely examined with alternative nuclear technologies implemented. I remember President Carter deciding not to have our "spent" nuclear fuel reworked but instead to store it indefinitely. The fuel still contains about 90% available uranium if it is reworked. Of course, some "terrible" isotopes that might be used for weapons will also be produced as a by-product, so we can't do that. It really is time for the political, academic, and activist elites to grow up or get out of the way so the adults can do what needs to be done.

The generation before and after WWII largely built the infrastructure that we currently enjoy, and put a man on the moon! They also defeated several existential threats to democracy and freedom. As a member of the baby boomers I believe I am entitled to ask my creche mates, "What the h___ is the matter with you guys?"

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

Let's back up. I'm saying I think there's a reasonable argument to say that risk is intolerable. Are you really asking for my opinion on whether this will make a difference politically? Are we suddenly just bystanders at this event? How did you go from someone saying that opposing nuclear was implicitly tantamount to pining for some imaginary agrarian nirvana to saying "Well, regardless... the world will move forward laying waste or shitting out sunshine, who are we to comment or complain?" That's some hard tacking surely.

I'm saying that the need for cheap, reliable electricity is very real.

I'm also saying that despite a 9.0 earthquake, 15 meter tsunami, 40+ year old 1st generation nuclear reactor, second story SNF, and whatever other 'intolerable design risks' are posited, that no SNF fire or China syndrome occurred.

Just how much more extreme must events be in order to show that there is a modicum of durability in nuclear power?

Should new nuclear power plants be better? Clearly they have improved; none of the other nuclear power plants in Japan had such severe issues though they weren't hit by tsunami/earthquake combo. Even in Fukushima DaiIchi, 2 of the reactors were fine; it was only the 3 which got tsunami'd most severely, very possibly due to a design flaw in the breakwater, which had a problem.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as destroying by over-regulating. Rightly or wrongly, the safety requirements for nuclear power plants is literally hundreds of times higher than for anything else including food.

Let me give you an example: do you like eating formaldehyde?

The de facto US limit for formaldehyde in cosmetics is 80 parts per million (see below). Formadehyde is used to preserve corpses and as a preservative; it is also a naturally occurring substance. If you've consumed barbecue, vinegar, or anything smoke/wood/mesquite/hickory extract flavored, you've taken in formaldehyde. If you harden your nails as many girls do, you're exposing yourself to formaldehyde. Cigarettes, fossil fuel car exhaust, fires in fireplaces, etc etc all produce formadehyde.

Now, formadehyde is clearly not good for the human body at some point. But where is that point?

Should there be limits of 0 parts per million, as Japan and Sweden have for cosmetics?

Should there be limits of 80 parts per million as the FDA doesn't even mandate tests which detect lower concentrations?

I'm in the process of shipping back a pallet of USDA certified organic cosmetics from Japan because an organic extract used as a preservative contained enough formaldehyde to register 11 parts per million. Not allowed in Japan.

The reason this preservative was used is because the largest supplier of aloe gel in the US had sneaked potassium sorbate into the first batch - which in water becomes sorbic acid. Sorbic acid itself isn't necessarily not allowable, but it certainly is when it isn't noted in the ingredient list, and the Japanese customer found it in their entry testing. The large company that did this had been doing so for some unspecified period of time and the shock waves from this are still reverbrating through the entire organic industry.

It might not seem like it but I'm a big fan of squinting hard and looking at the big picture, but there are instances where it's all about the plumbing (the specifics.) You are blind to high consequence / low frequency events if you take this "there have only been two" such events attitude. It strikes me as funny that we are all too aware of the "black swan" phenomenon on this site when it comes to finance but are ready to appeal to - sorry, to my eye - facile arguments like this when it comes to some of the most complex engineering problems I can imagine. That strikes me as weird.

As I noted above, just how much more black swan is a 9.0 earthquake and 15 meter tsunami?

Yes, I fully agree that hostile human action exists, and there are measures in place in the US and elsewhere against that, as well as a lengthy, well documented history of provisions against human error.

If the events at Fukushima failed to set off an SNF fire, what more is necessary?

Mea culpa. I swear I read that recently but I actually think I've confused the propensity for a radiological fire (zirconium reactions etc.) with the possibility of re-criticality. Point: the low enrichment means that, even if the fuel were to end up in one big concentrated blob - after say, a fire - it would never become critical. Big difference.

I would point out that the ability to go critical is not any different in CANDU fuel vs. other fuel. After all, the CANDU fuel was at some critical point already otherwise there would be no useful work being obtained.

I'd also note that CANDU reactors are pressurized, and that while heavy water is relatively immune to picking up neutrons, tritium does get formed (deuterium + neutron, where deuterium comes from the heavy water = deuterium oxide). Heavy water is also extremely expensive and requires a lot of energy to gather.

I disagree about where we disagree (anyone else following this?) What I distrust is the easy slide from the non-chalant "non-zero chance" to the "exact amount is highly debatable and controversial." This strikes me as maddeningly dis-engaged from both a) anything I've said above regarding the specifics that concern me about the situation at Fukushima and b) remarkably contentless in terms of arguing for a sanguine attitude towards nuclear power going forward.

I've been quite open in what I consider to be empirical examples.

Most of the nuclear incidents that have occurred were both small and due to human error.

The 2 biggest ones:

Chernobyl which was literally an operator doing exactly the opposite of what he should have done, and should have known to do. It was also a 1st generation reactor that was 30+ years old, and was furthermore extremely poorly maintained and staffed.

Fukushima which also was a 1st generation reactor. Probably some operator error occurred, but nothing dramatically bad as far as I can see. However, a combination of 9.0 earthquake a mere 200 miles away plus a 15 meter tsunami. Very possibly some design error in the breakwater.

What should be inferred from the above?

You seem to be inferring that Fukushimas and Chernobyls are going to be happening all the time. The 1st generation nuclear reactors, which Fukushima DaiIchi and Chernobyl both were, are all at their end of lives.

The later generations are significantly more safe due to lessons learned as well as improved technology.

Are these newer reactors 100%, 1000 year, 6 sigma tolerant? Certainly not.

But then again the chance of a dinosaur killing asteroid hitting the earth in the next 100 years is a 5 sigma event (0.00001).

What then is the approximate safety factor you desire?

[shiny!]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

The main problem as I see it is that too few people have a scientific, reality based background with respect to their schooling. They were not required to take and pass basic math and physics courses in high school or college. So having no foundation in how the physical world really works they are ready to believe any damn thing they are told by an "authority". The second main problem is the strong tendency for every issue to be polarized with an either/or mentality by those with an axe to grind, or another government grant to get approved.

Fukushima should be a wakeup call that the nuclear power fleet should be closely examined with alternative nuclear technologies implemented. I remember President Carter deciding not to have our "spent" nuclear fuel reworked but instead to store it indefinitely. The fuel still contains about 90% available uranium if it is reworked. Of course, some "terrible" isotopes that might be used for weapons will also be produced as a by-product, so we can't do that. It really is time for the political, academic, and activist elites to grow up or get out of the way so the adults can do what needs to be done.

The generation before and after WWII largely built the infrastructure that we currently enjoy, and put a man on the moon! They also defeated several existential threats to democracy and freedom. As a member of the baby boomers I believe I am entitled to ask my creche mates, "What the h___ is the matter with you guys?"

This is one of the best posts I've read here.

[oddlots]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

You seem to be inferring that Fukushimas and Chernobyls are going to be happening all the time.

Where have I stated anything close to this bald a statement? I've given a detailed account of what specifically concerns me about the situation at Fukushima as it has unfolded. I'm not generalizing about nuclear power per se and without specifics. I have spoken favorably of nuclear here over many years. I express some doubts based on some specific issues at Fukushima. Rather than address these specific issues i am lectured in generalaties about trade offs - as if this must be a new concept - and branded a Luddite environmentalist.

I find this laughable and frankly depressing.

[aaron]

Old Soviet Warheads Fuel America's Nuclear Power Industry By Clay Dillow Posted 11.10.2009 at 4:33 pm 0 Comments From Megadeaths to Megawatts Soviet

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2009-11/soviet-nukes-fuel-americas-nuclear-power-industry

Old Soviet Warheads Fuel America's Nuclear Power Industry

By Clay Dillow Posted 11.10.2009



From Megadeaths to Megawatts Soviet Topol-M missiles are capable of reaching Washington, but thanks to non-proliferation efforts the one seen here may make it to U.S. shores as civilian reactor fuel. Thanks, comrades.

Could the Cold War be heating and lighting your home? If you are one of many Americans whose life is powered by a nuclear power plant, there's a good chance it is; while not widely publicized, decommissioned nuclear warheads provide much of the fuel powering America's 104 nuclear reactors. But here's the real kicker: nearly half of that low-enriched uranium comes from recycled Soviet nukes.

Over the past 20 years, nuclear disarmament has become a huge part of the electricity industry, making President Obama's talks with Russia on a new arms treaty as poignant to utilities as carbon caps, smart grids and climate change bills. But if those talks don't extend the current program for dismantling Soviet nuke cores beyond its 2013 expiration date, there could be a supply gap for nuclear fuel just as the industry is pushing nuclear power as a workable, eco-friendly transition fuel until better biofuels become economical.

Warheads are no small part of America's nuclear power industry. Currently, 10 percent of American electricity is nuclear (compare that to 6 percent for hydro, or 3 percent for solar, biomass, wind and geothermal combined). A full 45 percent of that fuel comes from decommissioned Russian nukes whose cores have been converted into civilian reactor fuel -- at times Russian nukes have accounted for more than half. Comparatively, five percent of civilian fuel comes from decommissioned American bombs. What's more, both America and Russia are sitting on a wealth of nuclear fuel. Current nuke numbers are still staggering, considering the vast damage that just a handful of thermonuclear warheads can do: The U.S. maintains a stockpile of 2,200 nuclear warheads, the Russians 2,800. Talks between Presidents Obama and Medvedev this summer limited deployed warheads to 1,500, which opens up quite a few nukes for decommissioning if the two parties so choose. However, it's unclear that they will. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires Dec. 5 and a new agreement to cut arms further could be reached, but even that doesn't guarantee that bomb cores will be dismantled and converted to peaceful use, as the talks deal strictly with delivery vehicles and deployed active nukes.

If the supply of cheap Russian nuke fuel is interrupted American nuclear power concerns won't shut down, but electricity from those plants will become more expensive as utilities turn to commercial sources. Enriching uranium is quite a bit more expensive than de-militarizing previously-enriched, weapons-grade nuclear fuel.

Watching electricity prices spike while politicians spar over how many thousands of doomsday devices to keep pointed at one another, especially when those devices could be providing cheap, clean energy for civilian use, will be frustrating for consumers (and voters). If global warming can't force mature economies to give up fossil fuels, perhaps it will at least pressure Moscow and Washington to take more reasonable stances on their nuclear arsenals.

What if all those nuclear weapons were just a cover to cheaply store vast amounts of uranium? Who gained from this the Cold War relic? It makes you wonder if some industrialists wanted the government to buy vast amounts of uranium from their mines. Now, the same industrialists buy the uranium at a greatly reduced price; in effect getting paid again for the same uranium.

Or, going back to the cheap oil days... How might the industrialists have profited from an abundance of cheap energy and "saved" their wealth for the future? I can think of a few ways. You can use cheap oil to build for the long term. You mine and store gold, silver, platinum, and other high-value, refined minerals. You can maintain laws in your favor that allow you to maintain mine ownership. You sell concentrated energy in the form of 90% enriched uranium to the government at a profit, knowing your family will reap the benefits in the future as a nuclear fuel expert. The next generation buys the uranium back for "processing". More profit.
Finally, that uranium is sold to power stations at an even greater profit.
Then the power stations sell you electricity. Oh, and these same industrialists also own the power station.

How do iTulipers "store" or "save" today's cheapest energy? I suppose you could buy fertilizer since it is derived from natural gas. But, that get's you put on lists.

What about helium?

I remember reading about a "shortage" a couple years ago, but this is a good overview of the same topic.

Photos


Hundreds of balloons are released at the University of Memphis on Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012 in Memphis, Tenn. (AP Photo, The Commercial Appeal, Mike Maplel)

Angela Mulholland, CTVNews.ca
Date: Sat. Mar. 24 2012 9:14 PM ET
At the rate that our world is burning through helium, we could run out of the gas within 30 years. While that might bring some sad faces to balloon lovers, it could spell disaster for the medical community and other industries.

Indeed, some medical facilities here in Canada are already feeling the pinch of helium shortages.

When most of us think of helium, we think of party balloons. But the gas – particularly in its liquid form – plays an important role in medical imaging, electronics manufacturing, space exploration and nuclear energy. And without it, those industries have few other options.

Helium is the second most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen, but there's a finite amount of it here on planet Earth. As Deryck Webb from the University of Alberta notes, it's a non-renewable resource that can't be made artificially.

"As soon as helium is liberated into the air, it's gone. It leaves the Earth's atmosphere and it goes out into space. So there's no way of getting it back. It's a finite resource, just like oil and gas," Webb explained to CTV News Channel on Friday from Edmonton.

All of the planet's helium is found deep underground, where it was created over millions of years through the decay of rocks and other materials. It's harvested as a byproduct of natural gas extraction, and its largest reserves are found in the giant oilfields of Texas and the American southwest.

What makes helium unique is that it has very low melting and boiling points. That means that once it's cooled into a liquid form, it remains liquid even at frigid temperatures.

It's thus an excellent material for cooling down giant magnets, like those used in MRI machines, so they can become "superconducters" of electricity and create the strong magnetic fields needed for creating crisp medical images.

Webb is a nuclear magnetic resonance technologist who makes sure that that the NMR spectrometers at the University of Alberta have the helium they need to work. He says the biggest users of helium, by far, are MRI machines and NMR.

Webb says supplies of helium are tight in Canada, with only two main wholesale suppliers, and he's already heard of shortages at medical facilities.

He got a call recently from a health institution in St John's that had an emergency need for helium. The facility was running out of liquid helium to keep its MRI cool and the magnet inside was at risk of "quenching" -- meaning it would warm up out of its superconducting state.

"The emergency was that they could have lost their superconducting coil. It would have quenched and it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to bring it back up," Webb said.

Luckily, the university was able to help. But he says if the MRI had gone offline, it would have meant the cancellation of dozens of MRI tests and exams, resulting in potentially life-endangering delays.
Though helium was only discovered around the turn of the 20th century, humanity has since found dozens of uses for it, using it up so quickly that it could all be gone by 2050.

After MRI and NMR machines, NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense are the second biggest users of helium, using it to condense hydrogen and oxygen to make rocket fuel and to clean out fuel from rocket engines.
Helium also plays a part in manufacturing electronics, fibre optics and semiconductors. And it plays an important role in cooling the superconducting magnets in CERN's Large Hadron Collider near Geneva.

Though many industries now depend on helium, the world has taken few precautions to conserve or recycle the precious resource.

According to physicist Robert Coleman Richardson, from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, that's because helium is entirely too cheap. And he blames the U.S. Congress for that.

In 1996, Congress decided to sell off the U.S.'s large helium stockpile. It legislated a set price for helium and vowed to sell off all its reserve helium by 2015. That's meant that the price of helium has been kept artificially low even as the demand for the gas has soared in the last two decades.

Richardson recently told The New Scientist that U.S. needs to abandon that legislation and allow the price of helium to rise in efforts are ever going to be made to conserve. He says the price of helium should rise as much as 50-fold, to reflect its true value.

That way, he says, excess wasting of helium would end. And it would ensure that everyone, from medical technologists to balloon-loving children, would have enough of the precious gas for decades to come.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/201...ge-mri-120324/

So, who are the companies that are now profiting on helium? Who will in a few years when the fracking companies all go broke and when wells dry up "faster than anybody could have known"? (helium is pulled out of natural gas).

Which companies are selling 'rare' helium to the government at a large profit?

Do those same companies have their own storage facilities? Can they pay cheap prices right now and store it for when it is more expensive?

So, the racket here is --> sell the He to the government for a profit. Then buy it back from the government cheaply after nudging legislators to sell the government's stockpile. Then, when it is least expensive buy/drill as much as you can. Then, convince the government to buy it back at high prices because of the "danger" of running out. Then you convince the people that there is profit in Acme Helium Inc. with this contract and you go public. You sell helium back to the government slowly to maintain prices and high profit margins.

[c1ue]

Re: Old Soviet Warheads Fuel America's Nuclear Power Industry By Clay Dillow Posted 11.10.2009 at 4:33 pm 0 Comments From Megadeaths to Megawatts Sov

Where have I stated anything close to this bald a statement? I've given a detailed account of what specifically concerns me about the situation at Fukushima as it has unfolded. I'm not generalizing about nuclear power per se and without specifics. I have spoken favorably of nuclear here over many years. I express some doubts based on some specific issues at Fukushima.

I've specifically refrained from making any comments on your person, instead have asked a series of questions to understand what precisely you'd like to see in order to have your concerns addressed.

You've stated concerns over contamination and SNF fires and what not.

What then would be sufficient to address your concerns given what has happened as well as what did not happen? This is a very fair question.

I've also pointed out that ultimately there are more considerations than risk, and have asked: what you consider a fair tradeoff of economic cost vs. risk?

Lastly while new technology can be better, and usually will be better eventually, new technology does not in and of itself guarantee better results. Pebble bed reactors sound good, but until they've been in the field for a while and been tested via real world events, it is impossible to say that they will be superior.

An excellent example of how the real world behaves differently than even the smartest people can predict:

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2012/...ost-discovery/

Now that Discovery is safely delivered to the Smithsonian, I think I can tell the story of how we nearly lost her in July of 2005, and how well intentioned, highly motivated, hard working, smart people can miss the most obvious.

It’s tough to know people who have died. Many of us knew the astronauts on Challenger and Columbia well. We had met with them daily, we had visited in their homes, we knew their families, their children. It is not an easy thing to lose a colleague; especially one who entrusted their safety to you. So don’t question whether we were motivated to prevent another loss.

Discovery was the shuttle return to flight vehicle after the Challenger was lost; two and a half years were spent from January 28, 1986 until Discovery flew in September 1988. Many improvements were made which resulted in a safe space flight.
Discover was the shuttle return to flight vehicle after Columbia was lost; two and half years were spent from February 1, 2003 until Discovery flew in July 2005. Many improvements were made but safety was not assured.

It was not until Discovery again flew in July of 2006 before she flew safely. That counts as the third “return to flight” mission for Discovery.

You see, we dodged a bullet in 2005. One we should have seen coming but didn’t.

After the loss of Columbia, it became very clear that that the loss of insulating foam off of the external tank caused damage to the heat shield which lead to the loss of the good ship and crew. It was a devastating time. Tens of thousands of experiments, tests, and analyses were performed to discover why foam was lost from the external tank and how to prevent it. One of the most powerful series of test performed used a partial panel, about 2 feet square, of the aluminum skin of the tank covered with foam. This test article was chilled on one side to the cold temperature of the cryogenic hydrogen fuel, and heated on the other side with flames simulating the heat generated by supersonic flight through the lower atmosphere. Adding high velocity airflow to mimic the high speed flight conditions, virtually all the time the foam stayed on the tank. Only when small defects were embedded in the foam would some of that foam pop out under those strenuous conditions.

All the tests and analyses lead to the inexorable conclusion that defects in the application of the foam insulation could cause foam debris to be generated during the early supersonic phase of shuttle flight. We informed the foam technicians at our plant in Michoud Louisiana that they were the cause of the loss of Columbia and then worked them overtime in training with new and exhaustive techniques on how to apply foam with no defects.

Many other safety measures were incorporated during those two and a half years; a new inspection boom with camera was built so that complete inspection could be made before shuttle re-entry; heatshield repair materials were tested and proven to work in the vacuum of space if repairs were needed, plans for safe haven at the International Space Station were formulated so the crew would be safe even if extreme, unrepairable damage were detected. Anybody who followed the shuttle program in those days knows all this.

What you probably don’t know is that a side note in a final briefing before Discovery’s flight pointed out that the large chunk of foam that brought down Columbia could not have been liberated from an internal installation defect. Hmm. After 26 months of work, nobody knew how to address that little statement. Of course we had fixed everything. What else could there be? What else could we do? We were exhausted with study, test, redesign. We decided to fly.

The launch seemed very normal, we had new cameras everywhere including one on the external tank itself. We all breathed a sigh of relieve when Discovery reached orbit seemingly without incident. The members of the Mission Management Team received an early briefing from the video review of no incidents; we boarded our planes from KSC to head back home, that mean Houston for me.

The next morning there was an early MMT briefing from the launch video review team, again nothing major to report; the crew had a busy day on orbit, my assignment was to go to the MMT press briefing where we gave a positive report. It was on the drive home looking forward to dinner and sleep when I got the call.

I think that must have been the worst call of my life. Once earlier I had gotten a call that my child had been in an auto accident and was being taken to the hospital in an ambulance. That was a bad call. This was worse. Think of the worst phone call you have ever gotten. I think this one was worse.

John Muratore, my good friend, fellow flight director, and current head of the shuttle program Systems Engineering and Integration office informed me in very flat terms that he was in the JSC video lab with head photo interpreter Cindy Conrad who had uncovered evidence of a large foam liberation during the critical mach number regime which appeared to have impacted the left wing of Discovery. Just like Columbia.

I made a highly illegal U-turn in the middle of NASA Road 1 and probably exceeded the posted speed limit heading back to JSC and the photo lab. Here is one still frame from the video they showed me: A very large piece of foam coming off the tank heading for the wing.


I thought I would not be able to breath again.

I thought of Eileen and her crew and how we had probably just killed them.

I thought of all the work and time and how wasted it had been.

I had no idea how I could possibly tell the team, the world, what had transpired.

But unlike Columbia, this time the crew had the means to inspect their heat shield. That inspection revealed no damage. The pictures and engineering data showed no damage. Positive and unambiguous evidence showed the heat shield intact and safe.
Then and only then could I start breathing again.

The next day we told the crew, sent them the video, told the entire NASA senior management, and at the press conference showed the video and made the characterization that this was “unsatisfactory”. A pretty bland word for the way I really felt

So what happened? The video wasn’t really clear so either the foam missed the underside of the orbiter completely or struck such a glancing blow that the impact resulted in no damage.

But that is not the real question to be answered. What really happened to the foam? We wouldn’t find out until December.
God gave us a great gift during the previous year. We had ECO sensor problems. At the time that did not look like a gift. We filled the external tank with cryogenic fuel as a test in May and the Engine Cutoff Sensors – little wet/dry indicators at the bottom of the tank – malfunctioned; indicated dry when they were wet. We scrubbed that tank from the first flight and sent it back to the factory to analyze sensors.

Now an external tank is a fragile and valuable thing. On a good day the cost estimate for a completed, flight ready tank was $30 million. On a bad day, more than twice that. We never, ever, had shipped a tank back to the factory. We tested them at the launch site, made occasional repairs, took lots of measurements, but never had shipped one back before that tank.

When we shipped it back – did I forget to mention that Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans the month after we launched Discovery? Did I forget to mention that the steering mechanism on the trailer the tank was on failed so we sent another tank back to Michoud before the critical one? Months passed and right before Christmas, we got these X-rays from Michoud.

They showed cracks in the foam. Foam where no defects existed. It turns out that the thermal cycles associated with filling the tank could crack the foam, especially in areas where there were two or more layers of foam.

Finally, this explained the Columbia foam loss. And the Discovery foam loss. And it had nothing to do with the improper installation of the foam.

I flew to New Orleans the next day, and called an all hands meeting where I publicly apologized to the foam technicians. They had not caused the loss of Columbia through poor workmanship. Those guys were reeling from the hurricane’s devastation to their homes and community, and has lived with nearly 3 years of blame. Thin comfort for me to apologize, so late, so little.

We worked feverishly to remove foam on foam wherever we could, minimize it where it could not be eliminated, and the following July we were ready to try again.

Discovery flew on July 4, 2006; no significant foam loss occurred.

I consider that to be the real return to flight for the space shuttle.

So were we stupid? Yes. Can you learn from our mistake? I hope so.

So when you go to the Smithsonian and see Discovery there, think how lucky you are to see her whole, intact, and with her crews safely on the ground.

You see, this is how I found out that we were never really as smart as we thought we were.
Maybe that is a lesson that applies to you, too.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

Perhaps it is time to accept that the answer that large scale nuclear is a failure but small scale nuclear might be the solution. Fukishima is a disaster and no amount of smart ass quips will take that fact away. The concept of a large nuclear plant is built on ideas of power distribution and technologies at least seventy years old. Yes, we may very well need nuclear to survive with something like our current lifestyle but we can;t ignore facts.

The human skill set has never been greater. We can solve our problems but not if we are using both hands to cover our ass.

[c1ue]

Re: Fukushima's real threat?

Perhaps it is time to accept that the answer that large scale nuclear is a failure but small scale nuclear might be the solution. Fukishima is a disaster and no amount of smart ass quips will take that fact away. The concept of a large nuclear plant is built on ideas of power distribution and technologies at least seventy years old.

EJ's comments on the dangers of large concentrations of power - nuclear in particular but this can be extended to anything - are eminently reasonable.

However, highly distributed power networks also have their problems.

Do 100 pebble bed reactors vs. 1 large central reactor result in the same overall staffing and skill set profiles?

Do 100 pebble bed reactors vs. 1 large central reactor have identical siting, distribution, and similar requirements and availability?

Certainly 100 pebble bed reactors vs. 1 large central reactor share the same waste output in terms of net radioactivity - as far as I know.

Is having 10 smaller accidents in different locations better than having 1 larger one?

Is the risk of accident with 100 smaller reactors identical as the risk of accident with 1 reactor?

I agree, human ingenuity should be deployed to fix the problems with nuclear. But I think it is a disservice to those who work there to say they're not trying to already.

Equally the lawyerly efforts to stymie nuclear development, or any other form of disliked energy production, via ever more difficult regulations is also a barrier.

I certainly believe there needs to be a very strong regulatory regime supervising nuclear electricity generation, but at the same time it is quite unclear to me that the present mindset is geared toward improving nuclear safety as opposed to imposing punitive construction and operating costs.