Nuclear News

From The Energy Collective & Rod Adams:http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/58598?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+(all+posts)

A message about maintaining perspective that is quite relevant and correct.

The most recent example of ineffective response to criticism that is disproportionate to the potential harm is the hullabaloo and attention being paid to "tritium leaks" where measured groundwater levels have reached a maximum of 75,000 picocuries per liter. That scary sounding number, however, is in reference to a unit of measure that is 1 x 10^-12 curies. 

A picocurie is to a curie as a penny is to 10 BILLION DOLLARS, and a curie is not even a very large unit of measure. A curie of tritium weighs just 0.1 milligrams. That means that anti-nuclear activists are seriously advocating shutting down a power plant with a proven history of providing a reliable, affordable, emission free source of 620 Megawatts of electricity into a New England power grid that needs the power just because some samples of water from a well that is not used for drinking water contains 0.0000000000075 grams of tritium in 1000 grams of water. The saddest part is that there are politicians who seem willing to go along and bend to the pressure. 

Good points Dana!

That is the problem with arguments made by the extremes in very many cases with the result that people (like me) get confused as to what really counts.

Sure would be convenient for the great majority if the 'honest brokers' would talk a little louder so as to be noticeable amongst the screamers. 
  
İf Adams' had mentioned your points it would not have hurt his argument for anything but drinking water while making it stronger for other uses. Dumb writing in my opinion!

From the EPA  http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/index.html 

Most drinking water sources have very low levels of radioactive contaminants ("radionuclides"), most of which are naturally occurring, although contamination of drinking water sources from human-made nuclear materials can also occur.  Most radioactive contaminants are at levels that are low enough to not be considered a public health concern. At higher levels, long-term exposure to radionuclides in drinking water may cause cancer. In addition, exposure to uranium in drinking water may cause toxic effects to the kidney.

To protect public health, EPA has established drinking water standards for several types of radioactive contaminants combined radium 226/228 (5 pCi/L); beta emitters (4 mrems); gross alpha standard (15 pCi/L); and uranium (30 µg/L).

edited to add the following:

Since EPA developed the 1976 drinking water standard, scientists have improved the calculation methods to equate concentrations of tritium in drinking water (pCi/L) to radiation doses in people (mrem). In 1991, EPA calculated a tritium concentration to yield a 4 mrem per year dose as 60,900 pCi/L — a threefold increase from the maximum contaminant level of 20,000 pCi/L established in 1976. However, EPA kept the 1976 value of 20,000 pCi/L for tritium in its latest regulations. For more information on the basis and history of the Radionuclide Rule, visithttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuc.html 

The calculation of the PHG (public health goal) level applies the risk coefficient for tritium to a lifetime of exposure to 2 L/day of water and incorporates a de minimis excess individual cancer risk level of 10-6 (one in one million) from exposure to tritium to estimate the health-protective value of 400 pCi/L.
The federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) for tritium in drinking water is 20,000 pCi/L, based on a radiation exposure level judged to be acceptable of one mrem/yr for this specific contaminant. The California MCL is also 20,000 pCi/L.  http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/PHGtritium030306.pdf

İ am continuing to look for information that İ can understand - so far my success is limited - İ can find a lot but understanding it is a different story! 

Edited by Russ - 2/11/10 at 11:42pm

 

Vermont Health Department Reports One Leak Source Found at Vermont Yankee; All Samples For Isotopes Other Than Tritium are Natural Background

 From http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/james-hansen-keen-on-next-generation-nuclear-power/story-e6frgcjx-1225838858482

James Hansen keen on next-generation nuclear power

While renewable energies such as solar and wind were gaining in economic competition with coal-fired plants, Professor Hansen said they wouldn't be able to provide baseload power for years to come.

Even in Germany, which pushed renewables heavily, they generated only 7 per cent of the nation's power.

"It's just too expensive," said Professor Hansen, an expert in climate modelling, planetary atmospheres and the Earth's climate.

Professor Hansen admitted he was a late convert to advanced nuclear power. "But fourth generation solves two of the problems that made me sceptical," he said. "One is nuclear waste. It uses over 99 per cent of the fuels.'

For the rest of the story please see the link above.

 İ just finished a post on the energy collective where the author had made a major decision - not to refer to global warming or even climate change but to call it 'climate disruption'.

Don't know if they will just delete my comments but they were not all that complimentary.

Another article was about nuclear power - in the comments people were whinging about the cost 1) construction cost and 2) cost per kWh. After all the posts on the net by people with an agenda of trying to stop nuclear there is a fantastic amount of disinformation out there. There should be no problem executing the construction of a nuclear plant in 5 years. Bigger projects are completed every year on shorter schedules. İ have worked on such projects in management - İ am positive. The biggest problem are the lawsuits that opponents use to drag things out while telling themselves how wonderful they are.

Today İ read a post by Richard Brubaker about the greening of China - İ had previously read a post of his about China written by a guest describing a visit to an organic farm in China. Her post told about the farms with a broad brush description (she said she knew nothing about farms or organic farms) so she just wrote down what they told her. According to the farm manager they are doing wonderful. Of course - ask an organic farm manager in the US and he would tell you the same thing. Ask any standard farm manager and he will tell you how wonderful he is doing as well!

Todays post about the greening reported second hand information about what some parties are doing - an example - 'Fujian Golden Vision LCD Science & Technology Co. Ltd has designated one of its engineers to be responsible specifically for developing ways to reduce power, water and raw material consumption during production.' İmpressive? Hardly, the company İ worked for in İndia had many people working on the same task although with the bottom line in mind only.

İndia has some very strict environmental laws - many patterned after the US. Only problem is that most of the time the inspector is for sale. A couple of dollars equivalent in his pocket and you passed with flying colors. The higher the level of the government man the more he cost naturally.

İ have never been to China let alone worked there but in Asia, a lie is only important if you get caught and can't think of a way to get out of it. 

 

Neither solar PV or wind have any baseload capability - the storage isn't there. A couple of projects coming up have 6 hours of storage but that is all İ know of. Baseload means 90% plus capacity factor for 24/365 (at least 85% - lowest İ have read of). İt doesn't go down because of a week long of a winter storm. 

Geothermal is sitting still.

The compressed air storage has yet to be brought on line - may be the best hope.

Wave energy is dead for now and probably will be until someone comes up with a new twist. 

Hydro already uses storage by regulating river flows and reservoir heights. Quite an art with those guys.

İ believe it will either be nuclear or sitting in the dark part of the time - İ choose nuclear.

Wind & solar PV are definitely quicker to build but 5 years isn't bad.

Hi Dana - The only reason nuclear takes a decade to build are the lawsuits greens throw up at them trying to be obstructionist.

Solar thermal - the best proposed to date has 4 to 6 hours of storage - not baseline power - only intermittent power.

Going by my weather station and the solar meter on it 16 hours is hardly baseline - unless you plan on routine brown outs and power cuts in the middle of a winter storm.

The 16 hour storage may come true and İ hope it does but so far it is only talk - not done. The 6 hour storage is yet to be proven. 

Poor engineering and quality control will kill the time schedule of any project! You could just as easily have listed projects that were completed on schedule. 

Done deal for the 1% of the population who really believes what you say. Even Obama will allow new nuclear plants. He is not stupid - he can understand what needs to come.

1.  There's no need for nuclear when solar is cheaper. (fed funded nuc insurance, nuc cleanup, waste storage, plant decommissioning, etc)
reply - This is not fed funded insurance - it is pay as you go for the nuclear utility - İ pointed this out before. You keep coming up with this solar is cheaper so how did that miracle happen? İt is far from cheaper - very far from cheaper!

2. Better grid - on the way and will take many years. Storage - zero (one small operating CAES system) at this time. İt has to come before wind or solar can can claim to provide baseline power. The present 6 hours solar CSP storage being being constructed is just a baby step along the path - unless you don't mind 1) no power after midnight 2) continual brown outs or black outs any time a storm comes to town.

3. Using PHEV batteries to time shift power is kind of a sad joke you read about on green sites. Battery life is measured in cycles so when you are charging/discharging for the benefit of the grid you are consuming the life of your expensive battery. This would also require a very high kWh charge to make people interested and stay off charging when they should or a smart grid that controls what happens when. 20 years from now we will still be waiting for both.

4. Since solar is cheaper, why is there still a discussion (pro or con) about nuclear? It's a done deal. Now it's up to us to educate the public on these realities. reply - İ have no idea where you come up with this. Must be sitting in a coffee shop discussing the subject with others. İt can't be while looking at numbers because you are wrong.

İf people want to allow their living standard to go lower and lower then maybe, just maybe, solar can carry the ball. This wonn't be acceptable to the public. Maybe to the 1% who really believe the stuff you are saying but the rest of the public - no way.

The power mix for years to come will consist of coal, hydro and nuclear for baseline power. Gas turbines for peaking power with some assistance from solar and wind. Solar in Europe is slowing down drastically as the overly generous incentives are being removed/cut back.

İn solar there are both PV and CSP in play - CSP is great but with the storage problem to overcome. For solar PV there is no storage solution sight.

İ don't agree on the nuclear power costs. Without going through all the CPUC has considered it is impossible to know what they have considered and İ don't care about it that much. Nuclear will be a substantial part of new power whether people like it or not. The small percent of the population really against nuclear are vocal but will they carry the day - İ doubt it. 

Do people have any idea how many solar plants it would take to replace one coal fired or one gas fired or one nuclear powered generation plant? When solar companies talk about 1 mW they mean installed - not produced - three or four times the investment required to cover the hours when the sun doesn't shine ? That is factored into the costs you are promoting?

The German solar industry (PV) which is proclaimed to be the most advanced already supplies a whopping 1% of the power to their grid! Wow!

Solar thermal still has a major storage problem - 6 hours is convenient for a small time shift but that is all. Storage for longer periods will come but not for some time. İ have read of nothing close to being ready.
 
Google's investments in RE are like Khosla's - a lot made and so far nothing functioning - the mirrors should work out though as it is organizing existing tech rather than developing new. 

In short, solar thermal is already cheaper, and the cost difference is growing.  That's simply the reality. When you want to turn on lights, charge your car or have heat at 0300 hours please remember how much solar is helping - that is the reality! İt will be rather dark with CSP only for some time to come.