Group items tagged

Without much going on recently that hasn’t been covered by other blog posts, I’d like to explore a topic not specifically tied to nuclear power or to activities currently going on in Washington, D.C. It involves an idea I have about a possible alternative means of having the electricity market account for the public health and environmental costs of various energy sources, and encouraging the development and use of cleaner sources (including nuclear) without requiring legislation. Given the failure of Congress to take action on global warming, as well as environmental issues in general, non-legislative approaches to accomplishing environmental goals may be necessary. The Problem

One may say that the best response would be to significantly tighten pollution regulations, perhaps to the point where no sources have significant external costs. There are problems with this approach, however, above and beyond the fact that the energy industry has (and will?) successfully blocked the legislation that would be required. Significant tightening of regulations raises issues such as how expensive compliance will be, and whether or not viable alternative (cleaner) sources would be available. The beauty of simply placing a cost (or tax) on pollution that reflects its costs to public health and the environment is that those issues need not be addressed. The market just decides between sources based on the true, overall cost of each, resulting in the minimum overall (economic + environmental) cost-generation portfolio

The above reasoning is what led to policies like cap-and-trade or a CO2 emissions tax being proposed as a solution for the global warming problem. This has not flown politically, however. Policies that attempt to have external costs included in the market cost of energy have been labeled a “tax increase.” This is particularly true given that the associated pollution taxes (or emissions credit costs) would have largely gone to the government.

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.

The latest issue of the Monthly Energy Review published by the US Energy Information Administration, electric power generation from renewable sources has surpassed production from nuclear sources, and is now "closing in on oil," says Ken Bossong Executive Director of the Sun Day Campaign.

In the first quarter of 2011 renewable energy sources accounted for 11.73 percent of US domestic energy production. Renewable sources include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass/biofuel. As of the first quarter of 2011, energy production from these sources was 5.65 percent more than production from nuclear.

As Bossing further explains from the report, renewable sources are closing the gap with generation from oil-fired sources, with renewable source equal to 77.15 percent of total oil based generation.

Not all co-ops (grocery stores operated as cooperatives) are equal, but some are decidedly more customer-friendly (as opposed to producer-friendly) and take care in sourcing the food that are not contaminated with radioactive materials AND disclosing the detailed information of their testing.

One of the readers of this blog, William Marcus, has sent me his observations on sourcing the safe food in Japan. William currently lives in Osaka with his family with the toddler son. He says co-ops in Japan are not centralized (which I didn't know), and that more east and north you go co-ops tend not to disclose the details of the testing they do (if they do the testing) on the foodstuff they sell.

The particular COOP that he recommends is "Shizenha" co-op headquartered in Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture and has operations in Tokushima Prefecture in Shikoku region. The co-op, he says, has just started to accept membership from Kanto and Tohoku regions.

A plan to connect six reactors at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, which could have reduced the damage from the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, never left the drawing board, according to sources. Tokyo Electric Power Co. sources said while consideration had been given in 2006 to connecting all sources of electricity at all six reactors, no decision was made because of technical problems. However, nuclear engineering experts said the work could have been implemented and added that overconfidence about the low possibility of all reactors losing all their electrical sources was likely behind the failure to proceed with the reconstruction work.

"TEPCO officials likely concluded that there was no need to spend time and money because of an overconfidence that a loss of electricity sources would never occur," said Tadahiro Katsuta, associate professor of nuclear engineering at Meiji University. "If the work had been carried out, there was the possibility that damage could have been reduced." After the March 11 tsunami hit the Fukushima No. 1 plant, the No. 1 to No. 4 reactors lost their electrical sources. The inability to properly cool the reactors led to a core meltdown and hydrogen explosions that severely damaged the reactors and spewed large amounts of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. The No. 5 and No. 6 reactors were connected in terms of electricity sources and the emergency diesel generator at the No. 6 reactor, which was the only one that continued to work, enabled cooling to continue at those two reactors.

As an emergency measure, TEPCO officials laid electrical cables between all six reactors by April 25. Because TEPCO proceeded with such work after the quake and tsunami, experts said if reconstruction work had been conducted in 2006, there was the possibility that a major accident could have even been prevented. According to former TEPCO executives, a plan was considered in 2006 to strengthen the electricity facilities at the Fukushima No. 1 plant to avoid a critical accident that might occur should all electrical sources be lost due to a natural disaster. The No. 1 to No. 4 reactors on the south side of the plant were connected by electrical cables and those four reactors could share electricity if the need arose.

Scared by the nuclear disaster at the Japanese Fukushima-1 Nuclear power plant, Germany, Italy and Switzerland have decided to abandon nuclear energy towards alternative sources of energy. How safe are these alternatives?  Today ecologists and scientists are trying to answer this question.Nature protection activists call alternative sources of energy “green” sources. However after a more detailed study these sources can hardly be regarded as “environmentally friendly”. Silicon solar arrays Europeans want to see on the roofs of their houses turn to be unsafe right at the stage of their production. The production of one ton of photo elements leads to the emission up to 4 tons of silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance, which combinations may cause different diseases. Besides poisonous gallium, lead and arsenic the photo elements also contain cadmium. If cadmium enters a human body it can cause tumors and affect the nervous system.

As for wind turbines, their noise is dangerous for health and it is impossible to recycle the worn blades. Though green energy sources are not completely safe it is the question of choosing the lesser of two evils, Igor Shkradyuk, the coordinator of the program on the greening of industrial activities at the Center of Wild Life Protection, says."Absolutely environmentally clean energy does not exist.  All its types have stronger of weaker impact on the environment. A solar battery requires a huge amount of unhealthy silicon. Engineers hope that silicon-free materials for solar batteries will be produced in 10-20 years. The solar battery, if you don’t break it, of course, poses no danger. As for wind turbines, the first one was put into operation in mid 1970-s in Germany. But the residents complained about its strong vibration and noise and a local court ruled to stop it. Since then many things have changed and modern powerful wind turbines are unheard already at a distance of 200 meters. But they are the main source of danger for migrating birds which are almost asleep as they fly to their wintering grounds and back."

Vladimir Chuprov, the head of the energy department of Russia’s Greenpeace agrees that all sources of energy cause environmental damage.  But the alternative sources have advantages anyway, he says."Of course, we are negative towards any pollution and here the problem of choice comes up. For example, silicon production requires chlorine which is hazardous. But now the gradual transition to chorine-free methods of silicon production has already begun.  Besides that we see the gradual transition to thin-film photoconverters in particular arsenic based converters. And after all, nobody says that solar batteries will be thrown to a dump site. It is necessary to ensure their proper utilization." 

out

Nuclear power was gaining a lot of momentum prior to the terrible disaster at Japan's Fukushima powerplant in March.

But since then, atomic energy has come under increased scrutiny and once again drawn the ire of environmentalists who were just warming up to its carbon-free emissions.

[MAXIMUM ALERT] Neptunium 239 Potentially Detected In Saint Louis 9/14/11 Radioactive Rainfall.  Updates and video will follow shortly. The source has a calculated average 2.4 day half life. The half life matches Neptunium 239. Np239 decays into Plutonium 239. The source would probably be Americium 243 created in the MOX fuel reactor at Fukushima Unit 3

Updated to add: IF WE ARE LUCKY, the source will not be Americium 243 but rather Uranium 239 (in Fukushima); given the 2.4 day half life of Np 239, it is possible that source came directly across the jet-stream as Np-239. The result would be higher levels of Np-239 and Plutonium 239 the further west one went from Saint Louis. 

UPDATE 9/17/11: The video below records raw data being taken from the 1.33 mR/hr radioactive rainfall which fell in Saint Louis, Mo on 9/14/11. This data was taken after shorter half life contamination had mostly burned off. The data shown is from one hour total count readings taken of the radioactive source, and local background. The raw data from the later part of the video has yet to be fully analyzed.

In recent weeks I have been excited to witness several genuine grassroots efforts in support of nuclear energy emerging on the scene. Several have already been covered on this forum, like the Rally for Vermont Yankee and the Webinar collaboration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the American Nuclear Society. Both of these efforts proved to be very successful in bringing together nuclear supporters and gaining attention from the mainstream media.

I’d like to share some information about another opportunity to actively show your support for nuclear. The White House recently launched a petition program called “We the People.” Here is the description of how it works: This tool provides you with a new way to petition the Obama administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response. One of the first and most popular petitions on the website is a call to end subsidies and loan guarantees for nuclear energy by 2013. As I write this, it is only about a thousand signatures away from reaching the White House. In response to this petition, Ray Wallman, a young nuclear supporter and filmmaker, wrote a counter petition called “Educate the Public Regarding Nuclear Power.” It needs 4,500 more signatures before October 23 in order to get a formal response, and reads as follows:

Due to the manufactured controversy that is the nuclear reactor meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, perpetuated by a scientifically illiterate news media, the public is unnecessarily hostile to nuclear power as an energy source. To date nobody has died from the accident and Fukushima, and nuclear power has the lowest per Terra-watt hour death toll of any energy source known to man: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html The Obama administration should take better strides to educate the public regarding this important energy source.

South Korea, which currently has 20 operational nuclear reactors, will build 14 new facilities to make atomic power the biggest source of energy by 2024, said Ministry of Knowledge Economy in a statement Tuesday. As a result, nuclear energy will provide 48.5% of the nation's energy consumption by the target year from the current 32%, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy said in a long-term national energy development plan

Coal is currently the biggest source of energy in South Korea that meets 42% of the nation's energy needs

Renewable energy sources like solar and wind power will also provide 8.9% of the nation's energy needs by 2024 compared with the current 1.3%, it said.

According to a new report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the consumption of energy from renewable sources recently topped both the current and the historical consumption levels for nuclear energy. The shift was immediately caused by nuclear outages that coincided with the high-water season for hydropower generation. But there’s a long-term upward trend in renewables which can be seen here, too, thanks to the increased consumption of biofuels and wind capacity additions.

In the short-term, the switch from nuclear to renewables was influenced by U.S. weather trends. The Western U.S. saw record-breaking snowfall this year, which led to hydroelectric plants running at maximum capacity and for longer than usual. This occurred while many nuclear facilities were shut down for regular maintenance and refueling, as is typical for this time of year. (Nuclear plants shut down twice per year, once in the spring, once in the winter).

However, the charts provided by the EIA show a long-term shift towards renewables is underway as well, indicating that this was not a fluke occurrence caused by coincidental timing of weather and plant shutdowns. To compare the various sources, the energy consumed is measured in BTUs (British thermal units). In January, renewable energy consumption was at 724 trillion BTUs, while nuclear consumption was at 761 trillion BTUs. By March, renewables had reached 795 trillion BTUs compared with 687 trillion BTUs for nuclear. And by April, it was 798 trillion BTUs for renewables vs. 571 trillion BTUs for nuclear.

Nuclear power proponents claim: It has low carbon emissions. It is the peaceful face of the atom and proliferation problems are manageable. It is compact -- so little uranium, so much energy. Unlike solar and wind, it is 24/7 electricity. It reduces dependence on oil. Let's examine each argument.

1. Climate. Nuclear energy has low carbon emissions. But the United States doesn't lack low-carbon energy sources: The potential of wind energy alone is about nine times total US electricity generation. Solar energy is even more plentiful. Time and money to address climate change are in short supply, not low carbon dioxide sources. Instead of the two large reactors the United States would require every three months to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, all the breathless pronouncements from nuclear advocates are only yielding two reactors every five years -- if that. Even federal loan guarantees have not given this renaissance momentum. Wall Street won't fund them. (Can nuclear power even be called a commercial technology if it can't raise money on Wall Street?) Today, wind energy is far cheaper and faster than nuclear. Simply put: Nuclear fares poorly on two crucial criteria -- time and money.

2. Proliferation. President Eisenhower spoke of "Atoms for Peace" at the United Nations in 1953; he thought it would be too depressing only to mention the horrors of thermonuclear weapons. It was just a fig leaf to mask the bomb: Much of the interest in nuclear power is mainly a cover for acquiring bomb-making know-how. To make a real dent in carbon dioxide emissions, about 3,000 large reactors would have to be built worldwide in the next 40 years -- creating enough plutonium annually to create 90,000 bombs, if separated. Two or three commercial uranium enrichment plants would also be needed yearly -- and it has only taken one, Iran's, to give the world a nuclear security headache.

France's CEREA has the simulation map of ground deposition of cesium-137 from the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident on its "Fukushima" page. It not only shows Japan but also the entire northern Pacific Rim, from Russian Siberia to Alaska to the West Coast of the US to the entire US. According to the map, the US, particularly the West Coast and particularly California, may be more contaminated with radioactive cesium than the western half of Japan or Hokkaido. It looks more contaminated than South Korea or China. Canada doesn't look too well either, particularly along the border with US on the western half.

From CEREA's Fukushima page: Atmospheric dispersion of radionuclides from the Fukushima-Daichii nuclear power plant CEREA, joint laboratory École des Ponts ParisTech and EdF R&D Victor Winiarek, Marc Bocquet, Yelva Roustan, Camille Birman, Pierre Tran Map of ground deposition of caesium-137 for the Fukushima-Daichii accident. The simulation was performed with a specific version of the numerical atmospheric chemistry and transport model Polyphemus/Polair3D. The parametrisations used for the transport and physical removal of the radionuclides are described in [1,2,3,4]. The magnitude of the deposition field is uncertain and the simulated values of deposited radionuclides could be significantly different from the actual deposition. In particular, the source term remains uncertain. Therefore, these results should be seen as preliminary and they are likely to be revised as new information become available to better constrain the source term and when radionuclides data can be used to evaluate the model simulation results.

The page also has the animated simulation of cesium-137 dispersion from March 11 to April 6, 2011. If the Japanese think they are the only ones who have the radiation and radioactive fallout from the accident, they are very much mistaken, if the simulation is accurate. (Meteorological institutes and bureaus in Austria, Germany, and Norway all had similar simulation maps.) Radioactive materials spewed out of Fukushima I Nuke Plant went up and away on the jet stream, reaching the other side of the Pacific. When the fallout from explosions (March 14, 15) reached the US West Coast, it came with an unusually heavy rainfall in California.

(check out this ebook from Foreign Policy on Japan's post-Fukushima future). Anti-nuclear sentiment has grown ever since -- making it a major political issue.

There are legitimate questions, nevertheless, about whether Japan could actually shift away from nuclear power. Japan is incredibly dependent on nuclear energy -- the country's 54 nuclear reactors account for 30 percent of its electricity; pre-earthquake estimates noted that the share to grow to 40 percent by 2017 and 50 percent by 2030. The prime minister today offered few details on how he'll transition away from nuclear reliance.   Japan joins a list of nuclear countries that have grown increasingly skittish about the controversial energy source since the disaster in March.

The country plans to make up the difference by cutting energy usage by 10 percent, it said, with more energy efficient appliances and buildings and to increase the use of wind energy.

One week after the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Diachi plant in March, the Safecast project was born to respond to the information needs of Japanese citizens regarding radiation levels in their environment. Safecast, then known as RDTN.org, started a campaign on Kickstarter “to provide an aggregate feed of nuclear radiation data from governmental, non-governmental and citizen-scientist sources.” All radiation data collected via the project would be dedicated to the public domain using CC0, “available to everyone, including scientists and nuclear experts who can provide context for lay people.” Since then, more than 1.25 million data points have been collected and shared; Safecast has been featured on PBS Newshour; and the project aims to expand its scope to mapping the rest of the world.

“Safecast supports the idea that more data – freely available data – is better. Our goal is not to single out any individual source of data as untrustworthy, but rather to contribute to the existing measurement data and make it more robust. Multiple sources of data are always better and more accurate when aggregated. While Japan and radiation is the primary focus of the moment, this work has made us aware of a need for more environmental data on a global level and the longterm work that Safecast engages in will address these needs. Safecast is based in the US but is currently focused on outreach efforts in Japan. Our team includes contributors from around the world.”

To learn more, visit http://safecast.org.

Fearful of scaring public, existence of document was denied for months

The government buried a worst-case scenario for the Fukushima nuclear crisis that was drafted last March and kept it under wraps until the end of last year, sources in the administration said Saturday. [...] “The content was so shocking that we decided to treat it as if it didn’t exist,” a senior government official said. [...] The document forecast that in a worst-case scenario the plant’s crippled reactors would intermittently release massive quantities of radioactive materials for about a year. The projection was based on a scenario in which a hydrogen explosion would tear through the No. 1 reactor’s containment vessel, forcing all workers at the plant to evacuate because of the ensuing lethal radiation levels. [...]

The Cover-up

Very low levels of the radioactive isotope iodine-131 in northern part of Norway, Sweden and Finland. Norwegian Radiation authorities is unsure about the source, but says it might come from, or via Russian territory.

Norwegian Radiation Protection Authorities (NRPA) says in a short press-note Tuesday evening that the levels they measured pose no health risk. The measurements of radioactive iodine in northern part of the Barents Region were made several days ago, but results of the analyses were first made public Tuesday evening by coordinated press-notes from radiation authorities in Finland, Sweden and Norway. NRPA says that two of the six online measuring stations in Finnmark in the high north of Norway have indicated increased levels of radioactive iodine.

Swedish radiation protection authority says in thier brief that very low levels of radioactive iodine-131 are meassured at their station in Kiruna in northern Sweden.

"Clean." "Green." What do those words mean? When President Obama talks about "clean energy," some people think of "clean coal" and low-carbon nuclear power, while others envision shiny solar panels and wind turbines. And when politicians tout "green jobs," they might just as easily be talking about employment at General Motors as at Greenpeace. "Clean" and "green" are wide open to interpretation and misappropriation; that's why they're so often mentioned in quotation marks. Not so for renewable energy, however.

people across the entire enviro-political spectrum seem to have reached a tacit, near-unanimous agreement about what renewable means: It's an energy category that includes solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal power.

Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there's one big problem: Unless you're planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed -- not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources: