Group items tagged

Germany will be redirecting its economy towards renewable energy, because of the political decision to decommission its nuclear plants, triggered by the Fukushima event in Japan and subsequent public opposition to nuclear energy. Germany's decision would make achieving its 2020 CO2 emission reduction targets more difficult.   To achieve the CO2 emissions reduction targets and replace nuclear energy, renewable energy would need to scale up from 17% in 2010 to 57% of total electricity generation of 603 TWh in 2020, according to a study by The Breakthrough Institute. As electricity generation was 603 TWh in 2010, increased energy efficiency measures will be required to flat-line electricity production during the next 9 years.   Germany has 23 nuclear reactors (21.4 GW), 8 are permanently shut down (8.2 GW) and 15 (13.2 GW) will be shut down by 2022. Germany will be adding a net of 5 GW of coal plants, 5 GW of new CCGT plants and 1.4 GW of new biomass plants in future years. The CCGT plants will reduce the shortage of quick-ramping generation capacity for accommodating variable wind and solar energy to the grid.

Germany is planning a $14 billion build-out of transmission systems for onshore and future offshore wind energy in northern Germany and for augmented transmission with France for CO2-free hydro and nuclear energy imports to avoid any shortages.    Germany had fallen behind on transmission system construction in the north because of public opposition and is using the nuclear plant shutdown as leverage to reduce public opposition. Not only do people have to look at a multitude of 450-ft tall wind turbines, but also at thousands of 80 to 135 ft high steel structures and wires of the transmission facilities.   The $14 billion is just a minor down payment on the major grid reorganization required due to the decommissioning of the nuclear plants and the widely-dispersed build-outs of renewables. The exisitng grid is mostly large-central-plant based. 

This article includes the estimated capital costs of shutting down Germany's nuclear plants, reorganizing the grids of Germany and its neighbors, and building out renewables to replace the nuclear energy.    Germany’s Renewable Energy Act (EEG) in 2000, guarantees investors above-market fees for solar power for 20 years from the point of installation. In 2010, German investments in  renewables was about $41.2 billion, of which about $36.1 billion in 7,400 MW of solar systems ($4,878/kW). In 2010, German incentives for all renewables was about $17.9 billion, of which about half was for solar systems.   The average subsidy in 2010 was about ($9 billion x 1 euro/1.4 $)/12 TWh = 53.6 eurocents/kWh; no wonder solar energy is so popular in Germany. These subsidies are rolled into electric rates as fees or taxes, and will ultimately make Germany less competitive in world markets.   http://thebreakthrough.org/blog//2011/06/analysis_germanys_plan_to_phas-print.html http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-31/merkel-faces-achilles-heel-in-grids-to-unplug-german-nuclear.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/829664/revealed_how_your_country_compares_on_renewable_investment.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany  

Of all the lies that came out of the Gulf disaster, the most preposterous has been the 3 leaks on the riser story. Figure 165-0a to 165-0c were the first few schematic illustrations of BP’s blowout incident. They were so embarrassingly stupid and logic defying, most experts believed the schematics were deliberately drawn by cartoonists to confuse the average Joe Public. The patchwork of realities resembled a makeshift car hastily assembled from parts of different size vehicles. Obviously a mini car body does not match the oversize truck tires. It is obvious the 5½ inch drill pipe at leak(3) cannot be the same 21inch diameter riser (actually a well casing) at leak(2). Yet the world's technical experts willfully overlooked this fundamental discrepancy and allowed the criminals to get away with murders. And America, the world's greatest nation shouting human rights abuses all over the world, allowed this hideous crime of mass destruction in its own backyard to go unpunished? In China, the corporate criminals responsible for this environmental carnage would have been executed instead of having their lives back. Can the 11 dead crewmen, their young families and thousands of Gulf victims who suffered numerous medical problems from the toxic contaminated Gulf waters and corexit sprayed on them, ever have their lives back?

Surely the world's most technologically advanced country could not have been so easily fooled by this “3 wells & 3 leaks on a single riser” fairy tale (concocted Beyond Phantasm). Besides the many controversial circumstances surrounding the sinking of the burning rig (DWH) and the sudden breaking of the super-strong riser in calm water, how could a third open-ended leak (3) be even possible beyond the completely severed riser at the second leak (2)? See fig165-0c. Leak(2) has to be the blown crater of well no.#3 as illustrated in many of our previous articles and irrefutably shown in Figure 165-5 with the right coordinates in the few undoctored videos.

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” S Homes.

The impacts on the ocean of releases of radionuclides from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants remain unclear. However, information has been made public regarding the concentrations of radioactive isotopes of iodine and cesium in ocean water near the discharge point. These data allow us to draw some basic conclusions about the relative levels of radionuclides released which can be compared to prior ocean studies and be used to address dose consequences as discussed by Garnier-Laplace et al. in this journal.(1) The data show peak ocean discharges in early April, one month after the earthquake and a factor of 1000 decrease in the month following. Interestingly, the concentrations through the end of July remain higher than expected implying continued releases from the reactors or other contaminated sources, such as groundwater or coastal sediments. By July, levels of 137Cs are still more than 10 000 times higher than levels measured in 2010 in the coastal waters off Japan. Although some radionuclides are significantly elevated, dose calculations suggest minimal impact on marine biota or humans due to direct exposure in surrounding ocean waters, though considerations for biological uptake and consumption of seafood are discussed and further study is warranted.

there was no large explosive release of core reactor material, so most of the isotopes reported to have spread thus far via atmospheric fallout are primarily the radioactive gases plus fission products such as cesium, which are volatilized at the high temperatures in the reactor core, or during explosions and fires. However, some nonvolatile activation products and fuel rod materials may have been released when the corrosive brines and acidic waters used to cool the reactors interacted with the ruptured fuel rods, carrying radioactive materials into the ground and ocean. The full magnitude of the release has not been well documented, nor is there data on many of the possible isotopes released, but we do have significant information on the concentration of several isotopes of Cs and I in the ocean near the release point which have been publically available since shortly after the accident started.

We present a comparison of selected data made publicly available from a Japanese company and agencies and compare these to prior published radionuclide concentrations in the oceans. The primary sources included TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company), which reported data in regular press releases(3) and are compiled here (Supporting Information Table S1). These TEPCO data were obtained by initially sampling 500 mL surface ocean water from shore and direct counting on high-purity germanium gamma detectors for 15 min at laboratories at the Fukushima Dai-ni NPPs. They reported initially results for 131I (t1/2 = 8.02 days), 134Cs (t1/2 = 2.065 years) and 137Cs (t1/2 = 30.07 years). Data from MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology—Japan) were also released on a public Web site(4) and are based on similar direct counting methods. In general MEXT data were obtained by sampling 2000 mL seawater and direct counting on high-purity germanium gamma detectors for 1 h in a 2 L Marinelli beaker at laboratories in the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. The detection limit of 137Cs measurements are about 20 000 Bq m–3 for TEPCO data and 10 000 Bq m–3 for MEXT data, respectively. These measurements were conducted based on a guideline described by MEXT.(5) Both sources are considered reliable given the common activity ratios and prior studies and expertise evident by several Japanese groups involved in making these measurements. The purpose of these early monitoring activities was out of concern for immediate health effects, and thus were often reported relative to statutory limits adopted by Japanese authorities, and thus not in concentration units (reported as scaling factors above “normal”). Here we convert values from both sources to radionuclide activity units common to prior ocean studies of fallout in the ocean (Bq m–3) for ease of comparison to previously published data.

Fukushima Reactors Status of Reactors Reactor No. 1 Reactor No. 2 Reactor No. 3 Spent Fuel Pools Spent Fuel Pool No. 1 Spent Fuel Pool No. 2 Spent Fuel Pool No. 3 Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 Common Spent Fuel Pool Radiation Releases Plutonium Uranium Chernobyl Comparisons Criticality Japan Tokyo Area Outside Tokyo U.S. & Canada West Coast California Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area Hawaii Seattle Canada Midwest East Coast Florida US Nuclear Facilities Pacific Radiation Facts Internal Emitters Health Children Testing Food Water Air Rain Soil Milk Longterm Strange Coverups? Video Home Terms About Contact     Cooling system for reactors and spent fuel pools stopped working three times over 16-day period at Alabama nuke plant » NHK: TEPCO doesn’t know where melted fuel is at in reactors or actual level of radioactive particles still being released — About to start checking July 29th, 2011 at 06:43 AM POSITION: relative; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 336px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline-table; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; HEIGHT: 280px; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER

The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says it will extract air from troubled reactors at the plant to measure the amount of radioactive substances. [...] The operation is intended to obtain accurate data on what kind of radioactive substances are being released and in what quantity. The air extraction is expected to begin later on Friday for the No.1 reactor and in early August for the No.2 unit. No plans have been decided for the No.3 reactor due to high radiation levels in part of its building.

that TEPCO doesn’t know where the melted fuel is or the actual level of radioactive particles still being released: TEPCO hopes the findings may also help the company grasp the extent of leakage of nuclear fuels into the containment vessels. Up to around one billion becquerels of radioactive substances arebelieved to be released every hour from reactors No.1, 2 and 3. It isnot known how accurate this figure is because it was worked out bytaking readings of the air on the plant’s premises.

NIRS, Public Citizen, South Carolina Sierra Club, and former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford have warned in a press release that the same forces -- skyrocketing new reactor construction costs, decreased demand for electricity, competition from renewables and efficiency, low natural gas prices, etc. -- which just undermined the Calvert Cliffs 3 new reactor proposal in Maryland are also battering away at the new reactor proposals in Texas (South Texas Project Units 3 and 4) and South Carolina (V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3). Calvert Cliffs, South Texas Project, and Summer were the top three federal nuclear loan guarantee finalists after Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia, which the Obama administration awarded a conditional $8.3 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantee last February. The audio recording of the full press conference is also posted online.

The total amount of electricity generated by nuclear powers plants around the world increased in 2010 following three consecutive years of decline. However, a sharp drop in output is foreseen for 2011 as a result of the Fukushima accident.    Global nuclear electricity generation in 2010 totalled 2630 TWh, according to figures from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), representing a 2.8% increase from the 2558 TWh generated in 2009 and taking it close to a peak value in 2006. The energy availability factor of the plants operating in 2010 was 81%, up from 79.4% in 2009.

New reactors amounting to 3722 MWe net boosted the 2010 figure, including Russia's Rostov 2, India's Rajasthan 6, China's Ling Ao 3 and Qinshan II-3, and South Korea's Shin Kori 1.   Just one small reactor - France's 130 MWe Phenix prototype fast reactor - was officially shut down in 2010, although the unit actually ceased power generation in 2009.

Construction of 16 new reactors, with a combined capacity of 15,846 MWe net, started in 2010, according to the IAEA. Ten of these are in China (Ningde units 3 and 4, Taishan 2, Changjiang 1 and 2, Haiyang 2, Fangchenggang 1 and 2, Yangjiang 3 and Fuqing 3). In Russia, the construction of two new units also began (Leningrad II unit 2 and Rostov 4), while two more started construction in India (Kakrapar 3 and 4). In Brazil, work also started on building the Angra 3 unit. Meanwhile, the stalled construction of Japan's 1383 MWe Ohma unit also got back underway in 2010 after re-engineering work for enhanced earthquake protection.

Fukushima & Japan Tokyo Area Outside Tokyo Fukushima Reactors Status of Reactors Reactor No. 1 Reactor No. 2 Reactor No. 3 Spent Fuel Pools Spent Fuel Pool No. 1 Spent Fuel Pool No. 2 Spent Fuel Pool No. 3 Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 Common Spent Fuel Pool Radiation Releases Plutonium Uranium Longterm Chernobyl Comparisons Criticality US & Canada West Coast California Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area Hawaii Seattle Canada Midwest East Coast Florida US Nuclear Facilities North Anna (VA) Calvert Cliffs (MD) World Europe France UK Germany Chernobyl Rest of Europe South America Russia Asia China South Korea Taiwan Rest of Asia Pacific Maps & Forecasts Radiation Maps Radiation Forecasts Rad. Facts Internal Emitters Health Testing Food Water Air Rain Soil Milk Strange Coverups? Children Video Home page_

The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in March released far more radiation than the Japanese government has claimed. So concludes a study1 that combines radioactivity data from across the globe to estimate the scale and fate of emissions from the shattered plant. The study also suggests that, contrary to government claims, pools used to store spent nuclear fuel played a significant part in the release of the long-lived environmental contaminant caesium-137, which could have been prevented by prompt action. The analysis has been posted online for open peer review by the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Andreas Stohl, an atmospheric scientist with the Norwegian Institute for Air Research in Kjeller, who led the research, believes that the analysis is the most comprehensive effort yet to understand how much radiation was released from Fukushima Daiichi. "It's a very valuable contribution," says Lars-Erik De Geer, an atmospheric modeller with the Swedish Defense Research Agency in Stockholm, who was not involved with the study. The reconstruction relies on data from dozens of radiation monitoring stations in Japan and around the world. Many are part of a global network to watch for tests of nuclear weapons that is run by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization in Vienna. The scientists added data from independent stations in Canada, Japan and Europe, and then combined those with large European and American caches of global meteorological data.

Stohl cautions that the resulting model is far from perfect. Measurements were scarce in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima accident, and some monitoring posts were too contaminated by radioactivity to provide reliable data. More importantly, exactly what happened inside the reactors — a crucial part of understanding what they emitted — remains a mystery that may never be solved. "If you look at the estimates for Chernobyl, you still have a large uncertainty 25 years later," says Stohl. Nevertheless, the study provides a sweeping view of the accident. "They really took a global view and used all the data available," says De Geer.

After 34 years, the United States is expected to resume construction of nuclear reactors by the end of the year, and Toshiba will export turbine equipment for the reactors to the U.S. early next month, it was learned Saturday. According to sources, construction will begin by year-end on the Nos. 3 and 4 reactors of the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia Georgia Country Georgia /ˈdʒɔrdʒə/ (Georgian: საქართველო, sak’art’velo IPA: [sɑkʰɑrtʰvɛlɔ] ( listen)) is a sovereign state in the Caucasus region of Eurasia. Located at the crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern E... View full Dossier Latest news and the Nos. 2 and 3 reactors of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina South Carolina U.S. state South Carolina /ˌsaʊθ kærəˈlaɪnə/ is a state in the Deep South of the United States that borders Georgia to the south, North Carolina to the north, and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Originally pa... View full Dossier Latest news .

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Government Agency (United States of America) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is an independent agency of the United States government that was established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 from the United States Atomic Energy C... View full Dossier Latest news is expected to shortly approve the construction and operation of the reactors, which have been designed by Westinghouse, a subsidiary of Toshiba. The decision to resume construction of reactors is expected to pave the way for Japan Japan Country Japan /dʒəˈpæn/ (Japanese: 日本 Nihon or Nippon; formally 日本国  Nippon-koku or Nihon-koku, literally, the State of Japan) is an island nation in East Asia. Located in the Pacific Ocean, it lies to the... View full Dossier Latest news to export related equipment to the United States, observers said.

The reactors to be constructed are of the AP1000 type

Translation of the Dec. 15, 2011 Nature Magazine article by former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and legislator Tomoyuki Taira — both members of  by EX-SKF (Certain expressions may be off, as article was translated English to Japanese and then back to English) [Emphasis Added]: [Subheading:] Possibility of Nuclear Explosion We need to answer the question of what caused the series of explosions at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. Initially, they were reported as hydrogen explosions [...] [T]his is not conclusive. Other possibilities exist, and they are nuclear explosions and gas explosions other than hydrogen gas. [...]

From two observed facts, we believe a nuclear explosion is more likely. First, several transuranic elements have been detected several tens of kilometers away from the plant. Second, the steel trusses in the upper part of the reactor building of Reactor 3 are twisted as if they had been melted.

According to the reports by the Ministry of Education and Science, curium-242 (242Cm) has been detected at a location 3 kilometers from the plant, and plutonium-238 (238Pu) has been detected at a location 45 kilometers from the plant. [...] 242Cm’s half life is short (about 163 days), and the deposition of 238Pu around the plant is far greater than normal, leading the Ministry of Education and Science to conclude these were emitted from Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant. If that’s the case, pieces of broken spent nuclear fuel rods may have been scattered around the plant, and it is extremely dangerous.

Title: UCB Milk Sampling Results Source: University of California Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering Date: 1/14/2012 (9:40am)

By integrating all of the milk data we have collected since March 11, we can estimate the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) one could have received from exposure to fission product isotopes in milk to date. For someone drinking milk at the relatively high rate of one gallon per week, the TEDE could be nearly 1 microsievert, or the total effective dose equivalent for only 12 minutes on an airplane flight or 3.7 hours of the average person’s background exposure from natural sources of radiation.

Pasteurized, Homogenized Milk from the San Francisco Bay Area with Best By Date of 12/29/2011 Cs-134: 0.068 Becquerels/liter (Bq/l) ±0.011 [MDA=0.044] Cs-137: 0.075 Bq/l ±0.015 [MDA=0.052] Total cesium is .143 Bq/l, or 3.87 picocuries/l (pCi/l) (1 Bq = 27.1 pCi). The EPA Maximum Contaminant Level for radioactive cesium in milk is 3 pCi/l:

L-3 MAPPS announced today that the Ling Ao Phase II nuclear power plant full scope simulator (FSS), the first-ever simulator for a CPR1000 plant, has attained another significant milestone. In a ceremony held in Paris on 28 June 2011 marking the issuance of the provisional acceptance certificate (PAC), L-3 MAPPS joined AREVA, Siemens, Daya Bay Nuclear Power Operations and Management Company (DNMC) and China Nuclear Power Engineering Company (CNPEC) to formally hand over the simulator to DNMC on behalf of the Ling Dong Nuclear Power Company

In cooperation with AREVA and Siemens, L-3 MAPPS successfully delivered and installed the FSS in August 2009. The first plant license operator examinations were successfully carried out on the FSS and witnessed in January 2010 by China's nuclear regulatory authority, the National Nuclear Safety Administration. Unit 1 of the Ling Ao Phase II complex entered commercial operation in September 2010 and Unit 2 is planned for August 2011

To achieve PAC, the simulator was updated to account for all plant changes since the August 2009 simulator delivery, including commercial operation results. A simulator availability test was performed, which demonstrated a simulator availability of 99.42 percent. With this milestone achieved, the simulator’s warranty period is now underway.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. is considering changing the method of injecting water into the No. 3 reactor at its hobbled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant as the current system isn't cutting it. The No. 3 reactor is consuming nearly three times the coolant water that the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors are taking to cool down their fuel rods, as a considerable amount is missing the target. TEPCO said that the pressure vessels in the No. 1 through No. 3 reactors, where fuel meltdowns have occurred, currently have temperatures at the bottom between about 90 and 120 degrees. In the meantime, the amount of water pumped in daily to maintain the temperatures at these levels is about 216 tons for the No. 3 reactor, as opposed to 84 tons for the No. 2 reactor, which is about the same size and contains roughly the same number of fuel rods, and 91 tons for the No. 1 reactor, which is smaller.

The question is, why is this discrepancy occurring? TEPCO said that in all three reactors, coolant water is being injected from outside the shroud, a major component covering the core. Analysis conducted so far has hinted at the possibility that, unlike in the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors, part of the melted fuel in the No. 3 reactor did not fall through to the bottom of the pressure vessel but has stayed on the grid-like core support plate. The current injection method cannot pump water into there, resulting in inefficient cooling and increasing the amount of radioactive water. The new water injection method under consideration is based on the use of an emergency cooling system called a "core spray." It can pour water down like a shower above the fuel rods, resulting in more efficient cooling and the use of less coolant water, TEPCO said. Much has been learned about the state of the cooling pipe systems since workers regained access to the reactor buildings. On Aug. 3, TEPCO conducted tests on the operability of valves along the piping.

We plan to make decisions in two or three weeks," a TEPCO official said.

On May 4th 2011 the Potrblog team described the Fukushima 3 explosion and spent fuel rod ejections as the result of spent fuel cooling water becoming supersaturated with hydrogen

"It is also likely that the water in the fuel cooling pond was supersaturated with hydrogen. When the explosion occurred, the hydrogen in solution in the cooling pond water would have frothed up, burned, and deflagrated, sending the fuel rods out of the top of the holding pond. Visualize a bottle of Coke dropping; the resultant the carbon dioxide coming out of solution and shooting out of the end; now instead of carbon dioxide picture it as burning hydrogen shooting out"

Empirical lab research by the University of Tokyo and the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency now confirms the generation of hydrogen in such fuel pools. They attribute the explosion in Fukushima 4 to hydrogen generated in fuel pools. The POTRBLOG team suspects that unlike Fukushima 3, the Fukushima 4 explosion did not manifest a large BLACK mushroom cloud because the Fukushima 4 explosion triggered before the fuel pools could become supersaturated with Hydrogen and Oxygen.This early triggering, as compared to Fukushima 3, would have limited damage to the roof line of the Fukushima 4 building. For POTRBLOG's full analysis on the Unit 3 explosion see:Was the Fukushima Daiichi #3 EXPLOSION a detonation or deflagration?

6 TEPCO employees and 4 TEPCO affiliate company employees went to the reactor building of the Reactor 3 on July 8 afternoon. 2 TEPCO employees entered the building, measured the radiation at the location where the nitrogen injection hose would be installed (55 millisieverts/hour), and put a temporary coupler on the metal pipe that would be used for nitrogen injection.For that 9-minute job, they received 5.34 millisieverts radiation.Here's TEPCO's handout for the press on July 9. The English explanation reads like a Google translation (maybe it is) but you get the idea. (I looked at the Japanese handout.)

TEPCO seems to be in a great hurry to start the nitrogen injection into the Containment Vessel of the Reactor 3. At first I thought it was just a window-dressing effort for the national government who had decided, on some inexplicable reason or unreason, it would be safe enough for people to come back to their homes in the planned evacuation zone as long as the nitrogen gas was pumped into the Reactor 3 Containment Vessel, just so that the government could tell the citizens "See what we've done for you? It's now so much safer you can go back!"Or, the Reactor 3 is actually in danger of blowing up in a hydrogen explosion.They have hardly done any work on other reactors. The Reactor 1's basement water, last seen as gushing out 4 sieverts/hour steam through to the 1st floor, hasn't been touched. That water doesn't even go to the water treatment system. I haven't heard any news of TEPCO sampling the water for analysis. There's hardly any news on the Reactor 2, after they opened the double door and supposedly drove out the radioactive materials and moisture inside. They still don't know the water level (if any) inside the Reactor 2's Pressure Vessel, because the pressure gauge and water gauge don't work. As for the Reactor 4, they've been injecting water into the Reactor well and the equipment pool from the bottom of the Reactor Pressure Vessel, which seems peculiar. Other than that, and the photo of a hot-spring-like Spent Fuel Pool on the 5th floor, there's not much information coming out.

What do you do with the waste? – Kirk Sorensen’s answers by Rod Adams on October 13, 2011 in Fuel Recycling , Nuclear Batteries , Nuclear Waste , Plutonium , Thorium Share3   Gordon McDowell, the film maker who produced Thorium Remix , has released some additional mixes of material gathered for that production effort. One in particular is aimed at those people whose main concern about using nuclear energy is the often repeated question “What do you do with the waste.” Many people who ask that question think that it is a trump card that should end all conversation and let them win the hand. I used to play bridge and enjoyed it when I could “no trump” a smug contestant who thought he had a winner. Kirk’s discussion below is one example of how that can be done in the nuclear energy field . My friends who like the Integral Fast Reactor have another answer . I am pretty certain there are dozens of other good answers to the question – the primary obstacle to implementing them comes from the nefarious forces that LIKE raising (artificial) barriers to the use of nuclear energy. On another note, I want to point to a story published in the evening of October 12, 2011 on the Wall Street Journal web site titled WSJ: Fluor Buys Stake In Reactor Maker NuScale Energy . I am happy to see that NuScale has found a suitable, deep pockets investor with a lot of nuclear plant engineering and construction experience. One more short note. Jay Hancock, a writer for the Baltimore Sun, has taken note of some of the work published on Atomic Insights regarding Exelon’s decision to destroy the Zion Nuclear power station rather than allowing it to compete against existing power plants to increase the supply and decrease the price of electricity. On October 8, 2011, Hancock published a column titled State should pull plug on Constellation-Exelon deal that explored whether or not it would be beneficial for Marylanders to allow a company like Exelon to own a dominant number of electrical power generation facilities in the state. One of the pieces of evidence that has convinced Hancock to oppose the proposed merger is the way that Exelon has acted with regard to the Zion nuclear station. He recognizes that the company has adequately demonstrated a history of using market power to drive up prices and profits at the expense of customer interests. Additional reading related to Exelon bear hug attempt: EDF Asks Maryland Regulators To Block Exelon-Constellation Merger

What do you do with the waste? – Kirk Sorensen’s answers by Rod Adams on October 13, 2011 in Fuel Recycling, Nuclear Batteries, Nuclear Waste, Plutonium, Thorium Share3  Gordon McDowell, the film maker who produced Thorium Remix , has released some additional mixes of material gathered for that production effort. One in particular is aimed at those people whose main concern about using nuclear energy is the often repeated question “What do you do with the waste.” Many people who ask that question think that it is a trump card that should end all conversation and let them win the hand. I used to play bridge and enjoyed it when I could “no trump” a smug contestant who thought he had a winner. Kirk’s discussion below is one example of how that can be done in the nuclear energy field . My friends who like the Integral Fast Reactor have another answer. I am pretty certain there are dozens of other good answers to the question – the primary obstacle to implementing them comes from the nefarious forces that LIKE raising (artificial) barriers to the use of nuclear energy. On another note, I want to point to a story published in the evening of October 12, 2011 on the Wall Street Journal web site titled WSJ: Fluor Buys Stake In Reactor Maker NuScale Energy. I am happy to see that NuScale has found a suitable, deep pockets investor with a lot of nuclear plant engineering and construction experience. One more short note. Jay Hancock, a writer for the Baltimore Sun, has taken note of some of the work published on Atomic Insights regarding Exelon’s decision to destroy the Zion Nuclear power station rather than allowing it to compete against existing power plants to increase the supply and decrease the price of electricity. On October 8, 2011, Hancock published a column titled State should pull plug on Constellation-Exelon deal that explored whether or not it would be beneficial for Marylanders to allow a company like Exelon to own a dominant number of electrical power generation facilities in the state.

Gordon McDowell, the film maker who produced Thorium Remix, has released some additional mixes of material gathered for that production effort. One in particular is aimed at those people whose main concern about using nuclear energy is the often repeated question “What do you do with the waste.” Many people who ask that question think that it is a trump card that should end all conversation and let them win the hand. I used to play bridge and enjoyed it when I could “no trump” a smug contestant who thought he had a winner. Kirk’s discussion below is one example of how that can be done in the nuclear energy field

Workers can't work in Buildings 1, 2 and 3 because the radiation is too intense. Steel is corroding from saltwater, threatening pipes and pumps which cool the remains of three destroyed reactors. Radiation is crumbling concrete onto dust. Zirconium cladding is so corroded from seawater that it is doubtful that SFP 1, 2, 3 and 4 can ever be emptied. Corium under Building 4 has cracked the foundation and the building is sinking unevenly. Ground water contacting corium in the mudrock below Buildings1, 2 and 3 becomes highly contaminated, and flows directly into the Pacific Ocean, killing the Pacific Seafood Industry. Hawaii milk is so comtaminated that farmers are feeding boron to their cows. Two US cities on RadiationNetwork.com right now measure over 60cpm of radiation in the air. TEPCO seems to have lost track of the corium from 3 nuclear plants. And then there are the two earthquakes of 6.2 and 7.3 which hit just offshore since midnight...

Abstract Source: J Environ Radioact. 2011 Dec 27. Epub 2011 Dec 27. PMID: 22206700

Article Affiliation: Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Savanoriu 231, 02300 Vilnius, Lithuania.

Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs ranged from 12 μBq/m(3) and 1.4 μBq/m(3) to 3700 μBq/m(3) and 1040 μBq/m(3), respectively. The activity concentration of (239,240)Pu in one aerosol sample collected from 23 March to 15 April, 2011 was found to be 44.5 nBq/m(3). The two maxima found in radionuclide concentrations were related to complicated long-range air mass transport from Japan across the Pacific, the North America and the Atlantic Ocean to Central Europe as indicated by modelling. HYSPLIT backward trajectories and meteorological data were applied for interpretation of activity variations of measured radionuclides observed at the site of investigation. (7)Be and (212)Pb activity concentrations and their ratios were used as tracers of vertical transport of air masses. Fukushima data were compared with the data obtained during the Chernobyl accident and in the post Chernobyl period. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs were found to be by 4 orders of magnitude lower as compared to the Chernobyl accident. The activity ratio of (134)Cs/(137)Cs was around 1 with small variations only. The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.

AbstractAnalyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs ranged from 12 μBq/m(3) and 1.4 μBq/m(3) to 3700 μBq/m(3) and 1040 μBq/m(3), respectively. The activity concentration of (239,240)Pu in one aerosol sample collected from 23 March to 15 April, 2011 was found to be 44.5 nBq/m(3). The two maxima found in radionuclide concentrations were related to complicated long-range air mass transport from Japan across the Pacific, the North America and the Atlantic Ocean to Central Europe as indicated by modelling. HYSPLIT backward trajectories and meteorological data were applied for interpretation of activity variations of measured radionuclides observed at the site of investigation. (7)Be and (212)Pb activity concentrations and their ratios were used as tracers of vertical transport of air masses. Fukushima data were compared with the data obtained during the Chernobyl accident and in the post Chernobyl period. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs were found to be by 4 orders of magnitude lower as compared to the Chernobyl accident. The activity ratio of (134)Cs/(137)Cs was around 1 with small variations only. The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.