Group items tagged

Plutonium belongs to the class of elements called transuranic elements whose atomic number is higher than 92, the atomic number of uranium. Essentially all transuranic materials in existence are manmade. The atomic number of plutonium is 94. Plutonium has 15 isotopes with mass numbers ranging from 232 to 246. Isotopes of the same element have the same number of protons in their nuclei but differ by the number of neutrons. Since the chemical characteristics of an element are governed by the number of protons in the nucleus, which equals the number of electrons when the atom is electrically neutral (the usual elemental form at room temperature), all isotopes have nearly the same chemical characteristics. This means that in most cases it is very difficult to separate isotopes from each other by chemical techniques.

Plutonium-239 and plutonium-241 are fissile materials. This means that they can be split by both slow (ideally zero-energy) and fast neutrons into two new nuclei (with the concomitant release of energy) and more neutrons. Each fission of plutonium-239 resulting from a slow neutron absorption results in the production of a little more than two neutrons on the average. If at least one of these neutrons, on average, splits another plutonium nucleus, a sustained chain reaction is achieved.

The even isotopes, plutonium-238, -240, and -242 are not fissile but yet are fissionable–that is, they can only be split by high energy neutrons. Generally, fissionable but non-fissile isotopes cannot sustain chain reactions; plutonium-240 is an exception to that rule. The minimum amount of material necessary to sustain a chain reaction is called the critical mass. A supercritical mass is bigger than a critical mass, and is capable of achieving a growing chain reaction where the amount of energy released increases with time.

The amount of material necessary to achieve a critical mass depends on the geometry and the density of the material, among other factors. The critical mass of a bare sphere of plutonium-239 metal is about 10 kilograms. It can be considerably lowered in various ways. The amount of plutonium used in fission weapons is in the 3 to 5 kilograms range. According to a recent Natural Resources Defense Council report (1), nuclear weapons with a destructive power of 1 kiloton can be built with as little as 1 kilogram of weapon grade plutonium(2). The smallest theoretical critical mass of plutonium-239 is only a few hundred grams.

In contrast to nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors are designed to release energy in a sustained fashion over a long period of time. This means that the chain reaction must be controlled–that is, the number of neutrons produced needs to equal the number of neutrons absorbed. This balance is achieved by ensuring that each fission produces exactly one other fission. All isotopes of plutonium are radioactive, but they have widely varying half-lives. The half-life is the time it takes for half the atoms of an element to decay. For instance, plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24, 110 years while plutonium-241 has a half-life of 14.4 years. The various isotopes also have different principal decay modes. The isotopes present in commercial or military plutonium-239 are plutonium-240, -241, and -242. Table 2 shows a summary of the radiological properties of five plutonium isotopes. The isotopes of plutonium that are relevant to the nuclear and commercial industries decay by the emission of alpha particles, beta particles, or spontaneous fission. Gamma radiation, which is penetrating electromagnetic radiation, is often associated with alpha and beta decays.

Table 3 describes the chemical properties of plutonium in air. These properties are important because they affect the safety of storage and of operation during processing of plutonium. The oxidation of plutonium represents a health hazard since the resulting stable compound, plutonium dioxide is in particulate form that can be easily inhaled. It tends to stay in the lungs for long periods, and is also transported to other parts of the body. Ingestion of plutonium is considerably less dangerous since very little is absorbed while the rest passes through the digestive system.

Plutonium-239 is formed in both civilian and military reactors from uranium-238. The subsequent absorption of a neutron by plutonium-239 results in the formation of plutonium-240. Absorption of another neutron by plutonium-240 yields plutonium-241. The higher isotopes are formed in the same way. Since plutonium-239 is the first in a string of plutonium isotopes created from uranium-238 in a reactor, the longer a sample of uranium-238 is irradiated, the greater the percentage of heavier isotopes. Plutonium must be chemically separated from the fission products and remaining uranium in the irradiated reactor fuel. This chemical separation is called reprocessing. Fuel in power reactors is irradiated for longer periods at higher power levels, called high “burn-up”, because it is fuel irradiation that generates the heat required for power production. If the goal is production of plutonium for military purposes then the “burn-up” is kept low so that the plutonium-239 produced is as pure as possible, that is, the formationo of the higher isotopes, particularly plutonium-240, is kept to a minimum. Plutonium has been classified into grades by the US DOE (Department of Energy) as shown in Table 5.

It is important to remember that this classification of plutonium according to grades is somewhat arbitrary. For example, although “fuel grade” and “reactor grade” are less suitable as weapons material than “weapon grade” plutonium, they can also be made into a nuclear weapon, although the yields are less predictable because of unwanted neutrons from spontaneous fission. The ability of countries to build nuclear arsenals from reactor grade plutonium is not just a theoretical construct. It is a proven fact. During a June 27, 1994 press conference, Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary revealed that in 1962 the United States conducted a successful test with “reactor grade” plutonium. All grades of plutonium can be used as weapons of radiological warfare which involve weapons that disperse radioactivity without a nuclear explosion.

Benedict, Manson, Thomas Pigford, and Hans Wolfgang Levi, Nuclear Chemical Engineering, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1981). Wick, OJ, Editor, Plutonium Handbook: A Guide to the Technology, vol I and II, (La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society, 1980). Cochran, Thomas B., William M. Arkin, and Milton M. Honig, Nuclear Weapons Databook, Vol I, Natural Resources Defense Council. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1984) Plutonium(IV) oxide is the chemical compound with the formula PuO2. This high melting point solid is a principal compound of plutonium. It can vary in color from yellow to olive green, depending on the particle size, temperature and method of production.[1]

The Forum was created by the European Commission in 2007. It represents a unique platform for a broad discussion within European Union on all nuclear energy issues. It gathers all relevant stakeholders in the nuclear field: Governments, European Institutions (Commission, European Parliament, European Economic and Social Committee), academics, nuclear industry- electricity consumers and vendors- and representatives of the civil society

Its main objective is to establish a road map for the responsible use of nuclear energy within European Union.

Three working groups are dedicated to respectively: opportunities, risks transparency issues. The first one is chaired by Jean-Pol Poncelet, AREVA, Senior Vice President, Sustainable development. On his initiative, a group headed by Didier Beutier, AREVA, Deputy Vice president, Marketing, analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of nuclear energy today and at 2020 based on, economical as well as environmental and social performance indicators.

The survey covers the whole life cycle of nuclear energy and alternative energy technologies, limited to plants in operation or commercially deployed in the near future. It includes views and knowledge of different stakeholders: Industry (consumers and vendors), Associations, Member States, and Academics. It represents the first part of a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats), strategic analysis. The second part to be completed by 2011 and will be based on energy scenarios timeline 2030-2050.

The scope of the ENEF work encompassing the three dimensions of sustainability and the diversified background of its contributors make that report a real reference survey for discussing the attractiveness of nuclear power in Europe on its way to a more sustainable, less carbon intensive and secure electricity production

In finding that balance, I’m not sure it’s possible to overcome the political pressures tugging agencies and officials to stress refinement and deployment of known and maturing technologies (even though that’s where industry and private investors are most focused).

On the left, the pressure is for resources to deploy today’s “green” technology. On the right, as illustrated in a Heritage Foundation report on ways to cut President Obama’s budget for the Energy Department, the philosophy seems to be to discourage all government spending on basic inquiry related to energy.

According to Heritage, science “in service of a critical national interest that is not being met by the private sector” is fine if that interest is national defense, but not fine if it’s finding secure and sustainable (environmentally and economically) sources of energy.

I solicited reactions to the Energy Department review from a variety of technology and innovation analysts. The first to weigh in are Daniel M. Kammen, an energy technology researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, who is on leave working for the World Bank, and Robert D Atkinson, the founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Here’s Kammen: The idea of a regular review and status report on both energy innovation and deployment spending is a good one. Some of the findings in the QTR review are useful, although little is new. Overall, though, this is a useful exercise, and one that should be a requirement from any major programmatic effort.

he real need in the R&D sector is continuity and matching an increasing portfolio of strategic research with market expansion. My former student and colleague Greg Nemet have written consistently on this: - U.S. energy research and development: Declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion - Reversing the Incredible Shrinking Energy R&D Budget

Perhaps the biggest worry in this report, however, is the missing logic and value of a ’shift to near term priorities in energy efficiency and in electric vehicles.’ This may be a useful deployment of some resources, but a range of questions are simply never addressed. Among the questions that need firmer answers are:

Following record levels funding made available to the energy industry through the [stimulus package of spending], what are the clearly identified market failures that exist in this area that added funding will solve? Funding is always welcome, but energy efficiency in particular, can be strongly driven by regulation and standards, and because good energy efficiency innovations have such rapid payback times, would regulatory approaches, or state-federal partnerships in regulation and incentives not accomplish a great deal of what can be done in this area? Congressman Holt raises a number of key questions on related issues, while pointing to some very hopeful experiences, notably in the Apollo program, in his 16 September editorial in Science.

given the state-by-state laboratories we already have of differing approaches to energy efficiency, the logic of spending in this area remains to be proven (as much as we all rightly love and value and benefit from energy efficiency).

Near-term electric vehicle deployment. A similar story could be told here. As the director of the University of California at Berkeley’s Transportation Sustainability Research Center (http://tsrc.berkeley.edu) I am huge believer in electric vehicles [EVs]. However, the review does not make clear what advances in this area are already supported through [the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy], and what areas of near-term research are also not best driven though regulation, such as low-carbon fuel standards, R&D tax credits, ‘feebates’ that transfer funds from those individuals who purchase inefficient vehicles to those who purchase efficient ones. Similar to the story in energy efficiency, we do have already an important set of state-by-state experiments that have been in place for some time, and these warrant an assessment of how much innovation they have driven, and which ones do and do not have an application in scale-up at the federal level.

Finally, the electric vehicle landscape is already very rich in terms of plans for deployment by automakers. What are the barriers five-plus years out that the companies see research-versus-deployment and market-expansion support as the most effective way to drive change in the industry? Where will this focus put the U.S. industry relative to China?

There are some very curious omissions from the report, such as more detail on the need to both generate and report on jobs created in this sector — a political ‘must’ these days (see, e.g., the “green jobs” review by the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley) — and straightforward comparisons in the way of ‘report cards’ on how the US is stacking up relative to other key players (e.g. China, Germany…).

Here’s Robert Atkinson: If DOE is shifting toward a more short-term focus, this is quite disturbing.  It would mean that DOE has given up on addressing the challenge of climate change and instead is just focused on the near term goal of reducing oil imports and modestly reducing the expansion the coal fired power plants. If DOE thinks it is still focused on climate change, do they think they are fighting “American warming”?

If so, cutting the growth of our emissions make sense.  But its global warming and solving this means supporting the development of scalable, cheap low or no-carbon energy so that every country, rich and poor, will have an economic incentive to transitioning to cheap energy.  Increasing building efficiency, modernizing the electric grid, alternative hydrocarbon fuels, and increasing vehicle efficiency do virtually nothing to meet this goal. They are “American warming” solutions.

This is also troubling because (as you point out) who else is going to invest in the long-term, more fundamental, high risk, breakthrough research than the U.S. government.  It certainly won’t be VCs. And it won’t be the Chinese who are principally interested in cutting their energy imports and exporting current generation clean energy, not developing technology to save the planet.  Of course all the folks out there who have been pushing the mistaken view that we have all the clean technologies we need, will hail this as the right direction.  But it’s doing what the rest of the market has been doing in recent years – shifting from high risk, long-term research to short-term, low risk.  If the federal government is doing this it is troubling to say the least.

or those seeking more, here are the slides used by Steven Koonin, the physicist and former BP scientist who now is under secretary for science at the department, in presenting the review earlier this week:

Rolling Out the Quadrennial Technology Review Report

Here is a comment on this topic from Rossi's blog, "The Journal of Nuclear Physics." http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=2#comment-54414 

Dear Alessandro Casali: This photo [shown in the opening of this PESN story] has been taken during the stress test of a series of E-Cats a couple of weeks ago, together with the Greek Scientist Christos Stremmenos. They are some of the E-Cats that will compound the 1 MW plant. In that phase the E-Cats were working making steam WITHOUT energy input. This is why you see us so focused (me and Stremmenos). The 1 MW plant, probably will work mostly without energy input, I suppose, because we are resolving the safety issues connected. The 4 red spots are pumps, the E-Cat clusters are hidden. The three characters in the photo are Prof. Sergio Focardi, Prof. Christos Stremmenos and me. Warm Regards, A.R.

(I think the reason he uses the word "mostly" in the above post, is that the one megawatt plant will require input power to start. Also, if a reactor core starts to drift lower in output, power will be used for a few minutes to bring it back to a normal operating temperature. For the vast majority of the time, there will be no input power.) The fact that the one megawatt plant will use no input power (the vast majority of the time) is very important. This will be absolute -- beyond any doubt -- proof that the technology works as claimed. Simply put, the pathological skeptics and naysayers will not be able to refute that cold fusion is taking place. 

Confirmation the Catalyst and Fuel is Super Cheap

In 1989, after extensive discussions with General Electric, in Schenectady, New York, Stephen was invited to secretly test the second prototype reactor at their facility. The next step for Stephen was to design an enhanced reactor. In 1998, he formed Star Energy as the patent holder and developer of the final stage of the fusion development. He began assembling the requisite testing equipment and enlarged system to produce a commercial device to demonstrate energy release via muon-catalysed fusion. Star Scientific was formed in 2004 and has been performing 'final testing' since 2004.

Thorium reactors offer absolutely zero possibility of a meltdown because it cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction without priming; fission would stop by default.- Thorium reactions do not create weapons-grade by-products.- Waste from a thorium reactive stays radioactive for only a few hundred years rather than tens of thousands of years.- Pure thorium from the ground does not require enrichment, as opposed to uranium.

there are projects underway in the United States, China, India, and elsewhere. Germany and India already have existing commercial power stations powered by thorium. India has a goal of meeting 30 percent of its energy needs from thorium by the year 2050. In the US, a reactor project is ongoing in Odessa Texas and should be operational by 2015.

For more information: http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/index.php

Dip in revenue predicted by Solco Solco, the solar company based in Washington, foresees a sudden dip in revenues for the financial year 2011. However, Solco sales figures bounced back up in September following a prominent fall in July and August 2011, and the company looks at it as a continual occurrence. But owing to the speedy expansion of its national division of solar products, Solco anticipates a fall in revenues to as low as USD 41 million in the year 2011/12, post a 56 percent jump hitting the mark of USD 53.7 Million in 2010/11.

t Solco’s record making profit figures in 2010/11 has stabilized the company’s financial standing which would take them safely across the deteriorating market phase. Solco says that it is acquiring several mid-sized projects across the country,

Predictions for solar panels Solar Panel makers are mostly expected to be faced with huge heaps of excess material in the next year, as many analysts predict considerably lower sales in 2012 following a rise of 40 percent in this year. According to this week’s report of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, prominent dips in the major European market subsidies translate into lower buying capacity in next year as compared to the current year. In contrast to 24.5 GW in 2011, installations would be very low to the tune of 23.8 GW in 2012, thereby increasing pressure on companies burdened with dipping prices and piling stocks.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst Martin Simonek said that greater demand in 2011 as compared to last year has sustained many nations. It would be a different scenario in 2012. However, then again, different people predict differently. According to Simonek, 2011 installations could rise as high as 29.4 GW, whereas, 2012 could see installations from as low as the basic 23.8 GW to the towering 31.8 GW mark.

Goldman Sachs predicts a dip by 10 percent in 2012, bringing annual additional installed capacity down to 20.8 GW as compared to 19.6 GW predicted this year. While Vishal Shah, an analyst from Deutsche Bank predicts 21GW in 2011 and 25GW in 2012, silicon manufacturer Wacker Chemie foresees between 22GW to 26GW in 2011. Solar panel maker Yingli Green estimates it to be between 18 to 19 GW in 2011. Simonek of Bloomberg forecasts an increased demand in 2013, when developing and promising nations see a healthy competition in solar energy by way of introduction of low priced panels.

Hope In The Desert

Desertec, a highly anticipated and venturesome project that endeavours to aid the power industry in Europe with solar power deduced from the Sahara desert is expected to kick off its first ever power plant, worth USD 800 million, in Morocco.

Desertec will launch the first solar thermal 150 MW plant, the first one in the entire network worth USD 400 million. This would also mark the launch of solar PV, and wind provisions, spanning from Egypt to Morocco. The CEO of the project management company Dii, Paul van Son said in a Bloomberg interview that he is very certain that firm and permanent measures would be adopted in 2012. Owing to its stability, government support for expansion of renewable energy and connectivity to Europe through two cables running in the sea all throughout the Strait of Gibraltar, with free power of as much as 1000MW, Morocco would be tested for the first development.

many other nations in North Africa are far ahead of Desertec in executing projects of their own. There are some plants located in Egypt while others are being planned somewhere.

But one day after the announcement, TEPCO denied criticality had occurred, saying it found the amount of xenon was too small to be generated through fission via criticality. Chances of chain reaction not zero Spontaneous fission should not be confused with nuclear criticality, said Aoki, especially since both the temperature and the pressure levels have remained stable in the reactor. But he did say that “the chances of criticality taking place is not zero.” This is what concerns some environmentalists who have closely been observing developments of the ongoing crisis at Fukushima Daiichi, especially given the sheer quantity of melted fuel at the plant.

“I don't think there is a reason to say situation [with a possible chain reaction] has improved much actually,” wrote Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair of Russia’s Ecodefence in an email interview.  “We see the possibility of chain reaction is still there and no one can actually guarantee that no problems will again occur at Fukushima.” An uncontrolled chain reaction occurring in the bowels of one of Fukushima Daiichi’s wrecked reactors could lead to an explosion and yet further spread of radioactivity. One independent report released in Norway this month indicated that releases of radioactive caesium-137 from Fukushima Daiichi equal 40 percent of that which was released at Chernobyl in 1986. Another report by the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety also stated that the amount of caesium-137 that flowed into the Pacific from the coastal plant is some 30 times more than was estimated by TEPCO.

The Brunswick Nuclear Plant has two boiling-water reactors that generate 1,875 megawatts of electricity. Each of the Brunswick reactors is refueled once every 24 months, usually in the spring when the demand for electricity is relatively low. At the Brunswick Plant, 1 million gallons of water per minute are pumped from the Cape Fear River where it passes through the plant’s cooling system and then drops approximately  15 feet to the head of the outflow canal.

The unit shut Wednesday morning after the reactor leaked. An investigation showed the inadequately tightened reactor vessel head was a potentially “significant” safety issue, Progress said in a report filed Friday with the NRC. Workers seeking the source of the leak found that at least 10 of the 64 bolts that secure the reactor vessel head to the pressure vessel were not fully tightened, Progress spokesman Ryan Mosier said in an email Friday.

The Tensioning Tool is inspected and maintained, and is also part of the QC checklist.  This is not a simple situation where someone didn’t torque down the bolts correctly, as multiple personnel would have had to check and confirm the status prior to restart. In fact, according to Progress Energy’s 35 day outage schedule, the reassembly and reactor test are the 9th, and 10th steps of the process, and one can’t help but wonder why this was not detected before the reactor was re-pressurized. Chris had some very good questions regarding the Brunswick event, that I felt were worth sharing.

What testing was performed to determine that the RPV Head was Tensioned properly? What caused the improper Tensioning ? Procedure, Skill of the Craft? Aggressive Schedule? What are the Acceptance Criteria in the procedure for a properly tensioned head” How do you know that you meet the Acceptance Criteria?

Not only are the procedures and QC process in question, but the event also impacts operations and reliability of reactor components.  Chris highlighted a few questions that he felt were critical to ensure safe restart and operation.

Could there have been Foreign Material on the RPV Head Flange? What damage to surrounding equipment in the Drywell was sustained by the Steam/Water Leak? What is the condition of the Refueling Seal, now that it has been sprayed with Steamy/Hot Water? Did Hot/Steamy water find its way on the Outside of the Containment such that Corrosion in the future will be a problem? Did the steam leakage affect the Reactor Vessel Head Studs and their Threaded Holes (in the Reactor Vessel Flange) such that they will fail at a future date? At this point, Progress Energy is keeping fairly quiet about the specifics, and initially only revealed information of a “possible leak at the top of the reactor vessel”.  Monday morning should prove eventful not only for the Utility, but also for regulators.

Solar power. While sunlight is renewable -- for at least another four billion years -- photovoltaic panels are not. Nor is desert groundwater, used in steam turbines at some solar-thermal installations. Even after being redesigned to use air-cooled condensers that will reduce its water consumption by 90 percent, California's Blythe Solar Power Project, which will be the world's largest when it opens in 2013, will require an estimated 600 acre-feet of groundwater annually for washing mirrors, replenishing feedwater, and cooling auxiliary equipment.

Geothermal power. These projects also depend on groundwater -- replenished by rain, yes, but not as quickly as it boils off in turbines. At the world's largest geothermal power plant, the Geysers in California, for example, production peaked in the late 1980s and then the project literally began running out of steam.

Wind power. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the 5,700 turbines installed in the United States in 2009 required approximately 36,000 miles of steel rebar and 1.7 million cubic yards of concrete (enough to pave a four-foot-wide, 7,630-mile-long sidewalk). The gearbox of a two-megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium -- rare earth metals that are rare because they're found in scattered deposits, rather than in concentrated ores, and are difficult to extract.

Biomass.

t expanding energy crops will mean less land for food production, recreation, and wildlife habitat. In many parts of the world where biomass is already used extensively to heat homes and cook meals, this renewable energy is responsible for severe deforestation and air pollution

Hydropower.

hydroelectric power from dams is a proved technology. It already supplies about 16 percent of the world's electricity, far more than all other renewable sources combined.

The amount of concrete and steel in a wind-tower foundation is nothing compared with Grand Coulee or Three Gorges, and dams have an unfortunate habit of hoarding sediment and making fish, well, non-renewable.

All of these technologies also require electricity transmission from rural areas to population centers. Wilderness is not renewable once roads and power-line corridors fragment it

the life expectancy of a solar panel or wind turbine is actually shorter than that of a conventional power plant.

meeting the world's total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy alone would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each with twice the capacity of today's largest machines), 720,000 wave devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants, 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000 solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar power systems. That's a heckuva lot of neodymium.

"renewable energy" is a meaningless term with no established standards.

None of our current energy technologies are truly renewable, at least not in the way they are currently being deployed. We haven't discovered any form of energy that is completely clean and recyclable, and the notion that such an energy source can ever be found is a mirage.

Long did the math for California and discovered that even if the state replaced or retrofitted every building to very high efficiency standards, ran almost all of its cars on electricity, and doubled its electricity-generation capacity while simultaneously replacing it with emissions-free energy sources, California could only reduce emissions by perhaps 60 percent below 1990 levels -- far less than its 80 percent target. Long says reaching that target "will take new technology."

it will also take a new honesty about the limitations of technology

The United States and Euratom have a long and productive history of cooperation on nuclear security and nonproliferation that dates back more than 30 years. The cooperative work under this agreement will be managed by NNSA’s Next Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI). NGSI is a robust, multi-year program to develop the policies, concepts, technologies, expertise, and international infrastructure necessary to strengthen and sustain the international safeguards system.

Euratom was created in 1957 to establish the conditions for the development of nuclear energy in Europe by sharing resources, protecting the general public, and associating other countries and international organizations with this work.

Before entering into the non-profit world, he entered into the family business of oil industry analysis and claims to have achieved a fair amount of financial success. As Lundberg tells the tale, he stopped “punching the corporate time clock” in 1988 to found Fossil Fuels Policy Action.I had just learned about peak oil. Upon my press conference announcing the formation of Fossil Fuels Policy Action, USA Today’s headline was “Lundberg Lines up with Nature.” My picture with the story looked like I was a corporate fascist, not an acid-tripping hippie. The USA Today story led to an invitation to review Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades, for the quarterly Population and Environment journal. In learning for the first time about peak oil (although I had questioned long-term growth in petroleum supplies), I was awakened to the bigger picture as never before. Natural gas was no answer. And I already knew that the supply crisis to come — I had helped predict the 1970s oil shocks — was to be a liquid fuels crisis.

Lundberg tells an interesting story about his initial fundraising activities for his new non-profit group.Setting out to become a clearinghouse for energy data and policy, we had a tendency to go along with the buzzword “natural gas as a bridge fuel” — especially when my previous clients serving the petroleum industry until 1988 included natural gas utilities. They were and are represented by the American Gas Association, where I knew a few friendly executives. Upon starting a nonprofit group for the environment with an energy focus, I met with the AGA right away. I was anticipating one of their generous grants they were giving large environmental groups who were trumpeting the “natural gas is a bridge fuel” mantra.

I slept on it and decided that I would not participate in this corrupt conspiracy. Instead, I had fun writing one of Fossil Fuels Policy Action’s first newsletters about this “bridge” argument and the background story that the gas industry was really competing with fuel oil for heating. I brought up the AGA’s funding for enviros and said I was rejecting it. I was crazy, I admit, for I was starting a new career with almost no savings and no guarantees. So I was not surprised when my main contact at AGA called me up and snarled, “Jan, are you on acid?!

Here is a quote from his July 10, 2011 post titled Nuclear Roulette: new book puts a nail in coffin of nukesCulture Change went beyond studying the problem soon after its founding in 1988: action and advocacy must get to the root of the crises to assure a livable future. Also, information overload and a diet of bad news kills much activism. So it’s hard to find reading material to strongly recommend. But the new book Nuclear Roulette: The Case Against the “Nuclear Renaissance” is must-have if one is fighting nukes today.

He goes to say the following:The uneconomic nature of nuclear power, and the lack of energy gain compared to cheap oil, are two huge reasons for society to quit flirting with more nuclear power, never mind the catastrophic record and certainty of more to come. Somehow the evidence and true track record of dozens of accidents and perhaps 300,000 to nearly 1,000,000 deaths from just Chernobyl, are brushed aside by corporate media and most governments. So, imaginative means of helping to end nuclear proliferation are crucial, the most careful and reasonable-sounding ones being included in summary form in Nuclear Roulette.

Polish utility Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A. (PGE) is still considering several reactor designs for the projects and Poland’s government expects to begin construction of its first nuclear power plant in 2016 and has targeted 2020 as the commercial date of operation (COD) for the first plant. The Generation III+ Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) is GEH’s newest reactor design and offers the world’s most advanced passive safety systems. GEH’s Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) is the world’s only commercially proven Generation III reactor model.

Other preliminary project development agreements signed by GEH include: March 2011 with the Institute of Atomic Energy in Poland (POLATOM), a research institute located in Świerk that advises the government on nuclear energy issues. January 2011 Stocznia Gdansk, a leading Polish shipyard, for the potential manufacturing of nuclear components for GEH. RAFAKO S.A., Europe’s leading boiler equipment manufacturer, for the potential manufacturing of nuclear components for GEH. Gdansk University of Technology, West Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin University, and Koszalin University of Technology. May 2010 with global engineering services firm SNC-Lavalin Polska.

GE currently has more than 10,000 employees in Poland.

Helping Poland Develop Domestic Nuclear Workforce GEH is demonstrating its commitment to supporting Poland’s economy by helping the country create a sustainable, domestic pool of nuclear engineers by donating a number of valuable GateCycle ™ heat balance modeling software packages to several Polish universities. GEH’s customized GateCycle software is used to model nuclear steam cycles and is a powerful tool in teaching students advanced methods of plant modeling and troubleshooting to optimize plant performance. GEH also is hosting 14 engineering interns from Poland. The students recently began their summer internships at GEH’s U.S. headquarters in Wilmington, N.C. The 10-week assignment will expose them to many facets of the nuclear industry including engineering, finance, regulatory affairs and information management.

The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. The NRR Petition Review Board (PRB) held two recorded teleconferences on April 14 and May 25, 2011, with the petitioner, during which the petitioner supplemented and clarified the petition. The results of those discussions were considered in the PRB's determination regarding the petitioner's request for immediate action and in establishing the schedule for the review of the petition. As a result, the PRB acknowledged the petitioner's concern about the impact of a Fukushima- type earthquake and tsunami on U.S. nuclear plants, noting that this concern is consistent with the NRC's mission of protecting public health and safety. Currently, the NRC's monitoring of the events that unfolded at Fukushima has resulted in the Commission establishing a senior-level task force to conduct a methodical and systematic review to evaluate currently available technical and operational information from the Fukushima events. This will allow the NRC to determine whether it should take certain near-term operational or regulatory actions potentially affecting all 104 operating reactors in the United States. In as much as this task force charge encompasses the petitioner's request, which has been interpreted by the PRB to be a determination if additional regulatory action is needed to protect public health and safety in the event of earthquake damage and loss-of-coolant accidents similar to those experienced by the nuclear power reactors in Japan resulting in dire consequences, the NRC is accepting the petition in part, and as described in this paragraph.

A copy of the petition, and the transcripts of the April 14 and May 25, 2011, teleconferences are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.

The first day we heard about the possibility of open criticality at Fukushima, a week or so after the Earthquake in March- I was shocked. It didn’t even register that this was possible. Now, it’s a regular occurrence to see it openly on these videos. (again – look for the gamma artifacts on the video – little white flashes that appear randomly on the screen) Five months ago everyone in the nuclear industry would have said what this video depicts is impossible and should be avoided at all human costs – and yet here we see it. 

August 2, 2011 at 9:39 am I don’t see anything that looks like Liquid Air in the video, but I do see what appears to me to be the Shared Spent Fuel Pool on fire and with open criticality – which is more shocking than anything I’ve ever witnessed. 

f you need a definition of ‘criticality’ here it is (from BBC) This means the fuel rods are exposed to the air. Without water, they will get much hotter, allowing radioactive material to escape.

More remarkably, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), which owns the power station, has warned: “The possibility of re-criticality is not zero“. If you are in any doubt as to what this means, it is that in the company’s view, it is possible that enough fissile uranium is present in the cooling pond in enough density to form a critical mass – meaning that a nuclear fission chain reaction could start.

The pool lies outside the containment chamber.  So if it happened, it would lead to the enhanced and sustained release of radioactive materials – though not to a nuclear explosion – with nothing to stop the radioactive particles escaping.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608

Looks like they have that now – F.C.

How else is the Energy Department working to bring better information about energy, renewable energies and energy technology to the public? Here are a few examples.

1. Your MPG

The “Your MPG” feature on the site lets you upload data about your own vehicle’s fuel usage to your “cyber” garage and get a better picture of how your vehicle is doing in terms of energy consumption. The system also aggregates the personal car data from all of the site’s users anonymously so people can share their fuel economy estimates. “You can track your car’s fuel economy over time to see if your efforts to increase MPG are working,” says David Greene, research staffer at Oak Ridge National Lab. “Then you can compare your fuel data with others and see how you are doing relative to those who own the same vehicle.”

In the works for the site is a predictive tool you can use when you are in the market for a new or used vehicle to more accurately predict the kind of mileage any given car will give you, based on your particular driving style and conditions. The system, says Greene, reduces the +/- 7 mpg margin of error of standard EPA ratings by about 50% to give you a more accurate estimate of what your MPG will be.

Solar Decathlon

In response to the White House’s Startup America program supporting innovation and entrepreneurship, the Energy Department launched its own version — America’s Next Top Energy Innovator Challenge. The technology transfer program gives startups the chance to license Energy Department technologies developed at the 17 national laboratories across the country at an affordable price. Entrepreneurs can identify Energy Department technologies through the Energy Innovation Portal, where more than 15,000 patent and patent applications are listed along with more than 450 market summaries describing some of the technologies in layman’s terms.

2. America’s Next Top Energy Innovator

3. Products: Smarter Windows

DOE funding, along with private investments, supports a number of companies including the Michigan-based company Pleotint. Pleotint developed a specialized glass film that uses energy generated by the sun to limit the amount of heat and light going into a building or a home. The technology is called Sunlight Responsive Thermochromic (SRT™), and it involves a chemical reaction triggered by direct sunlight that lightens or darkens the window’s tint. Windows made from this glass technology are designed to change based on specific preset temperatures.

Another DOE-funded company, Sage ElectroChromics, created SageGlass®, electronically controlled windows that use small electric charges to switch between clear and tinted windows in response to environmental heat and light conditions. And Soladigm has an electronic tinted glass product that is currently undergoing durability testing.

Once a company selects the technology of interest to them, they fill out a short template to apply for an option — a precursor to an actual license of the patent — for $1,000. A company can license up to three patents on one technology from a single lab per transaction, and patent fees are deferred for two years. The program also connects entrepreneurs to venture capitalists as mentors.

Since 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon has challenged collegiate students to develop solar-powered, highly efficient houses. Student teams build modular houses on campus, dismantle them and then reassemble the structures on the National Mall. The competition has taken place biennially since 2005. Open to the public and free of charge, the next event will take place at the National Mall’s West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C. from September 23 to October 2, 2011. There are 19 teams competing this year.

Teams spend nearly two years planning and constructing their houses, incorporating innovative technology to compete in 10 contests. Each contest is worth 100 points to the winner in the areas of Architecture, Market Appeal, Engineering, Communications, Affordability, Comfort Zone, Hot Water, Appliances, Home Entertainment and Energy Balance. The team with the most points at the end of the competition wins.

Since its inception, the Solar Decathlon has seen the majority of the 15,000 participants move on to jobs related to clean energy and sustainability. The DOE’s digital strategy for the Solar Decathlon includes the use of QR codes to provide a mobile interactive experience for visitors to the event in Washington, D.C., as well as Foursquare checkin locations for the event and for each participating house. Many of the teams are already blogging leading up to the event and there are virtual tours and computer animated video walkthroughs to share the Solar Decathlon experience with a global audience. There will be TweetChats using the hashtag #SD2011 and other activities on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube.

The Future

In terms of renewable energies, the DOE tries to stay on the cutting edge. Some of their forward-thinking projects include the Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Framework (KDF), containing an interactive database toolkit for access to data relevant to anyone engaged with the biofuel, bioenergy and bioproduct industries. Another is an interactive database that maps the energy available from tidal streams in the United States. The database, developed by the Georgia Institute of Technology in cooperation with the Energy Department, is available online. The tidal database gives researchers a closer look at the potential of tidal energy, which is a “predictable” clean energy resource. As tides ebb and flow, transferring tidal current to turbines to become mechanical energy and then converting it to electricity. There are already a number of marine and hydrokinetic energy projects under development listed on the site.