Posts tagged nuclear.

U.S. approves first new nuclear plant in a generation ›

*This post is for anon, who earlier this evening asked me to update a previous post on new plants in the US. No update is needed. There have been no new nuclear power plants allowed to be built in the US since 1978. Anon may have been referring to applications for new plants or perhaps rehabs of old power plants.

  05/11/13 at 11:06pm

Anonymous asked: Hello! What are your thoughts on nuclear energy? Do you believe it's a viable alternative to oil/coal? I've read some of your older posts on nuclear energy, but I couldn't quite sense your position on it. Thanks!

Hey anon!

Thanks for your nice question. I don’t have a problem with nuclear energy in general. The reality is that really no one is seriously building new nuclear power plants, so there’s that.

Generally, nuclear energy is tough to comprehend for a lot of folks. It’s scary, the media sucks at covering it, and it’s hard to comprehend how it really works.

Take human harm for one example - I’ve posted this chart on my tumblr a few times. It shows that coal and oil are far, far more dangerous to people (let alone the environment) than nuclear, yet no one is protesting their local coal power plant (there’s probably one right near your house). Yet despite the facts, my inbox fills with standard anti-nuke rah rah from my fellow enviros (also, I hate blogging about energy, I prefer what to discuss the topic of my blog - environmental risks from climate).

image

Anywayyyy, it’s the “viable alternative” part of your question that’s an issue.

What does “viable” really mean? If it means “capable” - as in, is nuclear energy is capable of replacing coal/oil? - then yes of course it’s capable. There’s simply no way to argue that it’s not capable - after all, it’s a math question not a socio-economic one.

But, if we discuss “viable” in terms of reality, like in terms of actually making the switch from fossil to nuke? Then no way, it’s just not viable. There’s not enough support from the public, politicians, or energy companies - even environmentalists hate it (despite the facts it’s less harmful, and despite the impending CO2 doom).

I wrote earlier today that the last time a nuclear power plant was built in the US was way back in 1978. One new plant was permitted in 2012, but it will not come online for at least 20 years. Considering that the US has thousands of operational fossil fuel power plants, with hundreds more being built or proposed, nuclear is just not “viable” in a realistic way. It’s the same for the EU, China, and India.

There is simply no shift towards nuclear energy anywhere in the world. And literally thousands of coal and natural gas power plants are being built or will be built in the coming decades. 

So, yes, it’s mathematically brilliant, but in reality it’s not viable because societies aren’t interested in figuring it out.

Please no more energy questions!

Cheers!

m

  05/11/13 at 09:07pm

Anonymous asked: Hi, after reading your response to the previous post about thorium reactors, and your link to the UK rejection, I think you will find it says that "world-wide there remains interest in thorium fuel cycles and this is not likely to diminish in the near future." Surely this suggests not currently. As a physicist I find it hard to understand how an educated person, such as yourself, can dismiss nuclear so easily, yet it is the most viable and efficient future energy source...

There are 194 countries in the world. Other than the occasional, novel research project, zero countries are building thorium reactors as part of their energy mix.

Educated indeed.

You’re also wrong about the UK. The Brits have dismissed thorium as an option.

It is incumbent upon you to convince policy makers of the so-called benefits of thorium rather than, as I wrote earlier, harass bloggers and hang out in the comment sections of news sites…

  05/11/13 at 06:24pm

Nuclear power is the only energy industry which takes full responsibility for all its wastes, and costs this into the product.

Pesky facts.

Via World Nuclear Association.

  02/01/13 at 01:57pm

Death rate per watts, Nuclear, Oil, Coal. Classic chart exposes cognitive dissonance, and persistent self-denial…

Do you have an opinion about nuclear power? About the relative safety of one form of power over another? How did you come to this opinion?

Here are the stats. For every person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die due to coal, adjusted for the same amount of power produced.

Vivid is not the same as true. It’s far easier to amplify sudden and horrible outcomes than it is to talk about the slow, grinding reality of day to day strife. That’s just human nature. Not included in this chart are deaths due to global political instability involving oil fields, deaths from coastal flooding and deaths due to environmental impacts yet unmeasured, all of which skew it even more if you think about it.

This chart unsettles a lot of people, because there must be something wrong with it. Further proof of how easy it is to fear the unknown and accept what we’ve got.

Via Seth Godin

Update: Nuclear waste is not an issue.

Update II: The reblog comments are incredible. Not one acknowledged or seems to have read the post. Nor, it seems, has a single reader clicked through to read the original post. Only one commenter, that I could tell, attempted to discuss the underlying facts. Instead, there were mostly “But” type replies that repeat the very myths this chart aims to debunk. What an incredible experience from my point of view, and a major lesson learned…

  02/01/13 at 10:00am

Health and mortality rates: Nuclear power vs biomass, oil, gas, and coal.

Via WaPo

  01/31/13 at 12:51pm

“Controversial” environmentalist Michael Shellenberger was on Colbert the other day. Shellenberger argues that environmentalists need to embrace new technologies, such as nuclear power, rather than reject them routinely.

He discusses his new (surprisingly cheap) ebook, Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. It gets to the heart of why new technologies can work to increase environmental protection. And that environmentalists are hurting their various causes by not working with polluters.

I like his thinking. He challenges environmentalists to reexamine their beliefs and positions without uprooting core philosophies. He makes this challenge in a way that is non-threatening and accessible. Reexamining environmentalism is, as many of my dear readers will note, a topic I’ve written about many times.

Shellenberger also runs The Breakthrough Institute.

  01/30/13 at 04:19pm

Leaked Report Suggests Long-Known Flood Threat To Nuke Plants ›

Reblogging to show a common problem with enviro-reporting.

environmentalillnessnetwork:

An un-redacted version of a recently released Nuclear Regulatory Commission report highlights the threat that flooding poses to nuclear power plants located near large dams — and suggests that the NRC has misled the public for years about the severity of the threat, according to engineers and nuclear safety advocates…

The NRC report identifies flood threats from upstream dams at nearly three dozen other nuclear facilities in the United States, including the Fort Calhoun Station in Nebraska, the Prairie Island facility in Minnesota and the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee, among others. More at HuffPo

Important discovery, but the reporting seems over the top. Comparing the threat, for example, of a fresh-water river flood to a salt-water tsunami from the ocean is plainly disingenuous and frankly journalistically lazy.

I get that nuclear power plants are vulnerable to environmental change and climate impacts. Indeed, I have written about the threats several times, but this story smells of fear-mongering.

It’s an interesting article, no doubt. It shows that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published two different reports, one of which was published publicly.

But discovering that there are two (or more) versions of a report is certainly not proof of a “cover-up.” Writing different versions of the same report is standard operating procedure to my mind.

The NRC has historically been blunt about environmental threats to nuclear power plants - indeed, that’s a primary objective of the commission. One would need crystal clear evidence to successfully accuse such a high-level, highly-scrutinized organization.

Besides, the very flood vulnerabilities discussed in both versions of the report are in fact being mitigated. So, what exactly is the problem here?

Finally, as is common with environmental reporting, the piece does not provide a plan of action to resolve the issue. It doesn’t say that the commission should be disbanded and replaced, nor show that the work being done to mitigate floods are flawed. The article subsumes the public will act, which is plainly disproportionate to the accusation at hand.

Thoughts?

U.S. Regulator Halts Nuclear-Plant Licensing ›

Interesting. But, how many companies are affected? I can’t imagine very many.

thenuclearblog:

Court Rules That NRC Can No Longer Accept Assurances a Permanent Waste Repository Is Coming

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it would stop issuing licenses for nuclear plants until it addresses problems with its nuclear-waste policy that were raised by a recent federal appeals court decision.

click here to continue reading…

  08/09/12 at 03:46pm via The Wall Street Journal

Whoa! Number 8 is making my mind doooo thinnnngs.

contemplatingmadness:

10 Science Experiments That Looked Like the End of the World

It’s official: The Large Hadron Collider helped to find a new particle, and it didn’t turn the world inside out. Everybody relax! But history is full of strange experiments that people predicted might bring about the end of the human race… and in some cases, they might actually have had a point.

Here are 10 scientific experiments that people believed — rightly or wrongly — had the potential to wipe out humanity.

10. Digging the Kola Superdeep Borehole
Initiated in 1970, this Soviet science experiment sought to drill as deep as possibleinto the Earth’s crust. The borehole on theKola Peninsula dug to a depth of 12 kilometers into the planet’s crust by 1994.

While the Soviets did not encounter the Mole Man during digging, drilling a deep hole into the Earth’s crust (which varies from 30 to 50 kilometers in thickness) could have unleashed seismic forces that nobody could control, much like in the Doctor Who story “Inferno,” which aired that same year.

9. New Zealand’s Tsunami Bomb
Known more for a connection to the Shire than innovation in weapons creation, New Zealand experimented with the use of bombs to create artificial tsunamis, between 1944 and 1945.

By strategically placing bombs, the military scientists behind New Zealand’s Project Seal believed they could divert explosive energy through water, causing tsunamis and tidal waves. After thousands of test explosions, New Zealand ceased experimentation, because military scientists kept having trouble with funneling the explosive energy in a horizontal direction. If New Zealand’s tsunami bomb experiments had been successful, tsunami creation could have gone mainstream — allowing anyone with a conventional explosive device to create widespread chaos and death with ease.

8. Operation Cirrus
In the late 1940s, the United States attempted to divert the path of hurricanes by seeding the storms with dry ice. After scientists poured 180 pounds of dry ice into a hurricane moving east into the Atlantic Ocean, the hurricane made an extremely unpredictable move — and changed directions. The hurricane collided with the town of Savannah, Georgia — no stranger to unusual government intrusions , killing at least one person and causing over $200 million in damage.

This early weather-changing experiment eventually led to the UN’s Environmental Modification Convention, banning weather changing experiments conducted as a means of war.

7. Project Mercury and Volcano
From 1987 to 1992, the Russian military detonated nuclear weapons underground, with the goal of disturbing tectonic plates and electromagnetic fields as a weapon, in Project Mercury and Project Volcano.

These experiments sound like the basis for a bad James Bond movie, but four experimental attempts actually happened — until the 1978 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques banning experiments of this nature. Extended disruption of tectonic plates could cause a series of severe earthquakes and destabilize electromagnetic fields, leading to a number of theoretical and unforeseen issues.

6. Genetically engineered oil-eating superbugs
In the mid-1970s, General Electric R&D scientist Ananda Chakrabarty introduced a plasmidthat allowed the bacteria Pseudomonas putida to digest petroleum. Chakrabarty designed the bacteria with the hope that it would be used to clean up oil spills. But many people were terrified that these engineered bacteria could run amuck, consume everything in their path, and “out-compete” other bacteria and organisms for survival on Earth. The bacterial dominance theory is a “green” precursor to the grey goo theory — and it might be a more likely possibly.

5. Accidentally creating a black hole
Before the opening of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider in New York, public fears amassed over the idea of the RHIC creating an uncontrollable black hole during the course course of its operation. This lead to aplethora of sensational articles in 1999, topped off by a story from the The Sunday Times of London running with the headline “Big Bang machine could destroy Earth.”

The researchers at RHIC study aspects of black holes, but they lack the energy available to create a real gravitational black hole. Whether or not the researchers crossed their fingers when they began experiments at RHIC in 2000 is another story, but as far as I know, we still exist and are not suffering the extreme relativistic effects of a journey through a black hole.

4. U.S. experiments increasing the efficiency of Magnaporthe grisea
Wheat blast and rice blast cause huge damage to world crops, but they’re rare in First World countries. The fungusMagnaporthe grisea leaves lesions on individual plants, that can release thousands of spores and contaminate an enormous area in a single night. The fungus exists in over 80 countries, and it entered the United States in 1996.

During the Cold War, the United States experimented with a weaponized form ofMagnaporthe grisea, which could spread via a spray — or via bombs. Nobody knows whether the U.S. intentionally used the weaponized form, but if these “contagious” crop diseases started spreading uncontrollably, two of the world’s most vital crops would be devastated, causing a worldwide famine.

3. Starfish Prime
Detonating a nuclear weapon outside of the planet’s magnetic field just sounds like a bad idea, but the United States decided to go ahead and detonate six nuclear weapons at high altitude, during 1962’s Starfish Prime(and Operation Fishbowl).

How did this nuclear explosion affect the Earth’s magnetic field? Luckily, the magnetic field “snapped back” into place — causing a strong electromagnetic pulse as a side effect. But if our geomagnetic field had been permanently altered, we could experience a loss protection from cosmic rays and solar winds, along with massive earthquakes, as the continents moved around.

2. Weaponizing the plague
The Plague was responsible for killing up to 60% of the population of Europe in the 14th Century — and then, the Soviet All-Union Institute of Ultra-Pure Biological Preparations succeeded in weaponizing it in the late 1980s. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, program director Vladimir Pasechnik went public with this research, which included military preparations to load warheads with a time-released version of the Black Death. In order to handle the plague, the Soviet program encased a powdered form of bacterial agent, Yersinia pestis, in a polymer capsule.

1. The Trinity nuclear test
In the days preceding the detonation of the first nuclear bomb, scientists within the Manhattan Project debated what would happen in the aftermath of detonation, with a few scientists believing the bomb would not explode at all.

Enrico Fermi, however, suggested the detonation of the bomb could create a chain reaction that would set the Earth’s atmosphere ablaze and kill almost all life on the planet. It is disturbing to realize that scientists would go forward, in light of the ruminations of a Nobel Prize winner — but thank goodness, Fermi hypothesized incorrectly.

(via scinerds)

  07/07/12 at 02:15pm via io9.com

(via scinerds)

Every tuna caught has radiation. More fish expected to have higher levels this summer. FDA silent. 

Fukushima : Radioactive Cesium found in Tuna off San Pedro California Coast (May 29, 2012)

  05/31/12 at 05:40pm

May 25th, 2012: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant near Boston deemed safe, gets new 20-year license to operate.

Pilgrim’s site vice president, said, “NRC approval of Pilgrim’s license renewal application was the culmination of extensive and rigorous review by the NRC and a tremendous amount of hard work by Entergy. The NRC spent more than 20,000 hours conducting inspections and reviews. At the end of the process, we effectively demonstrated that our systems, structures and components will continue to safely perform their intended function during the 20-year renewal period.”

May 27, 2012: Plant shuts down days later due to safety issues.

thenuclearblog:

Pilgrim nuclear plant shut down after condenser problem

05/22/2012

Power production at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth was halted this afternoon when a condenser at the station lost vacuum pressure during a cleaning, forcing operators to shut down the entire plant, officials said.

Operators shut down the plant, which was operating at about 30 percent power at the time, according to Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Plant operators initiated a manual “scram,” which “involves the control room operators inserting all of the control rods into the reactor core to halt the fissioning process,” according to Sheehan.

The condenser uses water from the bay to cool and convert into water the steam that was produced in the reactor and then used to spin the turbine to generate electricity, Sheehan said. The condenser operates in a vacuum to maximize efficiency, he said.

NRC inspectors at the plant “did not identify any safety concerns or performance issues,” Sheehan said. “They will follow the company’s efforts to troubleshoot the cause of the loss of condenser vacuum and any corrective actions.”

click here to continue reading…

  05/27/12 at 04:12pm via Boston.com

Since last year’s disaster in Fukushima, Japan has shut down all 54 of its nuclear power plants. But how long can Japan remain nuke-free? ›

“Perhaps not for long. Already, a slew of reports are warning that Japan could face grim economic consequences if it keeps its reactors offline. Before a tsunami and earthquake caused a meltdown at Fukushima’s Daiichi reactor last year, atomic power provided 27 percent of the Japan’s electricity. Since the shutdowns, the country has been importing more oil and natural gas to keep the lights on. And that’s costly. A recent report (pdf) from Japan’s Institute for Energy Economics found that, as a result, the country’s GDP would grow just 0.1 percent in 2012, and Japan could find struggling with electricity shortages during the sweaty summer months.

By contrast, the IEEJ report found, if Japan began switching its nuclear reactors back on this summer, the economy would grow 1.9 percent this year — largely because lower electricity prices would allow factories to ramp up production. What’s more, by curtailing its fossil-fuel imports, Japan would be able to run a trade surplus this year, instead of a projected $57 billion trade deficit. (Currently, Japan imports about 90 percent of its oil from the Middle East, and the country’s newfound appetite for crude has helped drive global prices upward.)

What Japan does with its reactors could have significant climate-change consequences, too”

Via the excellent Brad Plumer of WaPo

  05/01/12 at 12:30pm

U.S. Department of State: Photo of the Week: President Obama Attends 2012 Nuclear Security Summit ›

statedept:

President Obama talks with Sung Kim, U.S. Ambassador to Republic of Korea, aboard Marine One during an early morning flight from Osan Air Base to the landing zone at U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan in Seoul, Republic of Korea, March 25, 2012. [White House photo/ Public Domain]

About the Author: Hannah Johnson serves as DipNote’s Assistant Editor.

Our “Photo of the Week” comes to us from President Barack Obama’s recent trip to Seoul, South Korea for the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit. The Summit, attended by more than 50 world leaders, addressed securing the world’s nuclear weapons and preventing nuclear terrorism. This photograph, taken by White House photographer Pete Souza, shows President Obama talking with U.S. Ambassador to Republic of Korea Sung Kim aboard Marine One during an early morning flight from Osan Air Base to the landing zone at U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan in Seoul, Republic of Korea, March 25,… more »

#huh  #af1  #obama  #nuclear  #state dept  
  03/31/12 at 10:00am via blogs.state.gov