Skip to main content

Home/ Open Intelligence / Energy/ Group items tagged us

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
D'coda Dcoda

Devastating review of Yablokov's Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People ... - 0 views

atomicinsights.com/...eople-and-the-environment.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Devastating review of Yablokov’s Cherno by l: Consequences of the Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe for Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple and the Environment by Rod Adams on October 20, 2011 in Accidents , Contamination , Health Effects , Politics of Nuclear Energy htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p://www.facebook.com/sharer.https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p?u=htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe-for-https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple-and-the-environment.html&amhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p;t=Devastating%20review%20of%20Yablokov%E2%80%99s%20Chernobyl%3A%20Consequences%20of%20the%20Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe%20for%20Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastr
  • Devastating review of Yablokov’s Cherno by l: Consequences of the Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe for Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple and the Environment by Rod Adams on October 20, 2011 in Accidents , Contamination , Health Effects , Politics of Nuclear Energy htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p://www.facebook.com/sharer.https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p?u=htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe-for-https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple-and-the-environment.html&amhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p;t=Devastating%20review%20of%20Yablokov%E2%80%99s%20Chernobyl%3A%20Consequences%20of%20the%20Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe%20for%20Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium
  • Devastating review of Yablokov’s Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe for Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple and the Environment by Rod Adams on October 20, 2011 in Accidents, Contamination, Health Effects, Politics of Nuclear Energy htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p://www.facebook.com/sharer.https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p?u=htthttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe-for-https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/ple-and-the-environment.html&amhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p;t=Devastating%20review%20of%20Yablokov%E2%80%99s%20Chernobyl%3A%20Consequences%20of%20the%20Catastrohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phe%20for%20Peohttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fdevastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • book titled Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment in a publication called the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The roots of the decision remain murky. Within a few months after the first printing of the book, Ted Rockwell, a long time member of the Academy, started working to convince NYAS leaders that the decision to print was a grave error that was bad for science and posed a significant risk to the reputation of the Academy as a source of sound, peer-reviewed information. As part of his effort, he encouraged the current editor of Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences to appoint reviewers and to post the results of those reviews.
D'coda Dcoda

Time for a Different Approach for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation by Dr. J. M. Cu... - 0 views

atomicinsights.com/...ng-cuttler-associates-inc.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Time for a Different Ahttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2004%2F11%2Ftime-for-different-approach-for-protection-against-ionizing-radiation-by-dr-j-m-cuttler-p-eng-cuttler-associates-inc.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/phttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2004%2F11%2Ftime-for-different-approach-for-protection-against-ionizing-radiation-by-dr-j-m-cuttler-p-eng-cuttler-associates-inc.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/proach for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation by Dr. J. M. Cuttler, P. Eng, Cuttler &amhttps://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fatomicinsights.com%2F2004%2F11%2Ftime-for-different-approach-for-protection-against-ionizing-radiation-by-dr-j-m-cuttler-p-eng-cuttler-associates-inc.html&size=medium&count=true&annotation=&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F24479126-6666cb8c/p; Associates, Inc. by Rod Adams on November 4, 2004 in Guest Columns Share0 BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PAD
D'coda Dcoda

95% disagree with "Beyond Nuclear". Let's make it 99% [23Oct11] - 0 views

atomicinsights.com/...d-nuclear-lets-make-it-99.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • 95% disagree with “Beyond Nuclear”. Let’s make it 99% by Rod Adams on October 14, 2011 in Antinuclear activist , Politics of Nuclear Energy , Unreliables , Wind energy Share0 One of the more powerful concepts that I studied in college was called “groupthink.” The curriculum developers in the history department at the US Naval Academy thought it was important for people in training to become leaders in the US Navy learn to seek counsel and advice from as broad a range of sources as possible. We were taught how to avoid the kind of bad decision making that can result by surrounding oneself with yes-men or fellow travelers. The case study I remember most was the ill fated Bay of Pigs invasion where virtually the entire Kennedy Administration cabinet thought that it would be a cakewalk . If Patricia Miller had bothered to do the fact-checking required by journalistic integrity she would have come across this video showing 30 feet of water above the fuel at Fukushima with all of the fuel bundles exactly where they’re supposed to be. Aside: Don’t we live in an amazing world? I just typed “Bay of Pigs groupthink” into my browser search box and instantly hit on exactly the link I needed to support the statement above. It even cites the book we used when I was a plebe in 1977, more than 33 years ago. End Aside. Not everyone, however, has the benefit of early leadership lessons about the danger of believing that a small group of likeminded people can provide actionable advice. Some of the people who are most likely to be victims of groupthink are those who adamantly oppose the continued safe operation of emission-free nuclear power plants. The writers who exclusively quote members of that tiny community have also fallen into the groupthink trap.   On October 8, 2011, the Berkeley Patch, a New Jersey based journal that regularly posts negative stories about Oyster Creek, featured an article titled Petitioners to NRC: Shut Down All Fukushima-Like Nuclear Plants . Here is a snapshot of the masthead, the headline and the lede. The article is a diatribe that quotes people on the short list of frequently quoted antinuclear activists including Paul Gunter, Michael Mariotte, Kevin Kamps, Deb Katz and Dale Bridenbaugh. The author faithfully reproduces some of their best attempts to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt using untruths about the actual events at Fukushima. For example, the article uses the following example of how antinuclear activists are still trying to spread the myth that the used fuel pools at Fukushima caught fire. Oyster Creek – the oldest nuclear plant in the United States – has generated over 700 tons of high-level radioactive waste, Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuc
  • 95% disagree with “Beyond Nuclear”. Let’s make it 99% by Rod Adams on October 14, 2011 in Antinuclear activist, Politics of Nuclear Energy, Unreliables, Wind energy Share0 One of the more powerful concepts that I studied in college was called “groupthink.” The curriculum developers in the history department at the US Naval Academy thought it was important for people in training to become leaders in the US Navy learn to seek counsel and advice from as broad a range of sources as possible. We were taught how to avoid the kind of bad decision making that can result by surrounding oneself with yes-men or fellow travelers. The case study I remember most was the ill fated Bay of Pigs invasion where virtually the entire Kennedy Administration cabinet thought that it would be a cakewalk. If Patricia Miller had bothered to do the fact-checking required by journalistic integrity she would have come across this video showing 30 feet of water above the fuel at Fukushima with all of the fuel bundles exactly where they’re supposed to be.Aside: Don’t we live in an amazing world? I just typed “Bay of Pigs groupthink” into my browser search box and instantly hit on exactly the link I needed to support the statement above. It even cites the book we used when I was a plebe in 1977, more than 33 years ago. End Aside. Not everyone, however, has the benefit of early leadership lessons about the danger of believing that a small group of likeminded people can provide actionable advice. Some of the people who are most likely to be victims of groupthink are those who adamantly oppose the continued safe operation of emission-free nuclear power plants. The writers who exclusively quote members of that tiny community have also fallen into the groupthink trap.  On October 8, 2011, the Berkeley Patch, a New Jersey based journal that regularly posts negative stories about Oyster Creek, featured an article titled Petitioners to NRC: Shut Down All Fukushima-Like Nuclear Plants . Here is a snapshot of the masthead, the headline and the lede. The article is a diatribe that quotes people on the short list of frequently quoted antinuclear activists including Paul Gunter, Michael Mariotte, Kevin Kamps, Deb Katz and Dale Bridenbaugh. The author faithfully reproduces some of their best attempts to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt using untruths about the actual events at Fukushima. For example, the article uses the following example of how antinuclear activists are still trying to spread the myth that the used fuel pools at Fukushima caught fire. Oyster Creek – the oldest nuclear plant in the United States – has generated over 700 tons of high-level radioactive waste, Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear said. “Granted that some of that has been moved into dry cast storage, but the pool remains full to its capacity,” Kamps said. “And this was a re-rack capacity. Much later in terms of quantity of high level radioactive waste than it was originally designed for.” This represents 125 million curies of radioactive cesium-137 and the NRC has reported that up to 100 percent of the hazardous material could be released from a pool fire, Kamps said. “I would like to point out that Fukushima Daiichi units one, two, three and four combined in terms of the inventory of high level radioactive waste in their storage pools does not match some of these reactors I mentioned in terms of how much waste is in these pools,” Kamps said. “So the risks are greater here for boil downs and the consequences of a radioactive fire in these pools.” Fortunately, the people who are not a part of the antinuclear community are finally beginning to recognize their own strength and to realize that they do not have to remain silent while the lies are being spread. Here is how a knowledgable commenter responded to the above segment of the article: If Patricia Miller had bothered to do the fact-checking required by journalistic integrity she would have come across this video showing 30 feet of water above the fuel at Fukushima with all of the fuel bundles exactly where they’re supposed to be.
  • On October 8, 2011, the Berkeley Patch, a New Jersey based journal that regularly posts negative stories about Oyster Creek, featured an article titled Petitioners to NRC: Shut Down All Fukushima-Like Nuclear Plants. Here is a snapshot of the masthead, the headline and the lede. The article is a diatribe that quotes people on the short list of frequently quoted antinuclear activists including Paul Gunter, Michael Mariotte, Kevin Kamps, Deb Katz and Dale Bridenbaugh. The author faithfully reproduces some of their best attempts to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt using untruths about the actual events at Fukushima. For example, the article uses the following example of how antinuclear activists are still trying to spread the myth that the used fuel pools at Fukushima caught fire. Oyster Creek – the oldest nuclear plant in the United States – has generated over 700 tons of high-level radioactive waste, Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear said. “Granted that some of that has been moved into dry cast storage, but the pool remains full to its capacity,” Kamps said. “And this was a re-rack capacity. Much later in terms of quantity of high level radioactive waste than it was originally designed for.” This represents 125 million curies of radioactive cesium-137 and the NRC has reported that up to 100 percent of the hazardous material could be released from a pool fire, Kamps said. “I would like to point out that Fukushima Daiichi units one, two, three and four combined in terms of the inventory of high level radioactive waste in their storage pools does not match some of these reactors I mentioned in terms of how much waste is in these pools,” Kamps said. “So the risks are greater here for boil downs and the consequences of a radioactive fire in these pools.”
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • NOTHING happend to the fuel in the pools at Fukushima. I would like to see some evidence other than the word of an activist who frightens kids for a living to support Gunter’s rant about peices of fuel being ejected miles away. From the looks of that video, the fuel didn’t move an inch. There is also a poll associated with the article. The poll discloses that it is completely unscientific, since it allows anyone to vote and is not based on randomly selected participants. However, I think that the results as of 0315 this morning are pretty amusing since the antinuclear opinion piece has been posted for nearly a week.
  • Perhaps this October 12, 2011 post titled Oyster Creek Response that was published on Clean Energy Insight has something to do with the way the results are shaping up with 1029 out of 1080 respondents (95.3%) saying that Oyster Creek should not stop operating. Here is one more example of how inbred the group of antinuclear activists has become. I am talking here about the people who are so adamantly opposed to using nuclear energy that they do not even want existing nuclear plants to keep on producing clean, emission free, low cost electricity. Michael Mariotte of NIRS makes the following extraordinary claim: Ninety-five percent of the people in the world know about Fukushima, Michael Mariotte of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service said.
  • “It took a really extraordinary event for 95 percent of the people in the world to know about it,” he said. “If they know about Fukushima, they know about Mark 1 reactors exploding in the air and releasing toxic radiation across the world and they know that’s not a good thing. Something has to be done to make sure that never happens again.” I could not let that one pass without a comment; I am quite sure that Mariotte has once again fallen victim to the fact that he surrounds himself with people who echo his own prejudices. Here is my response.
  • Marriotte makes an interesting statement by he claiming that “95% of the people in the world” know about Fukushima. That statement might be true about the people in the United States, where advertiser-supported television news programs covered the events with breathless hype for several months. I am pretty sure that you would have a difficult time finding anyone in China, central Africa, the Asian subcontinent, South America or the Middle East who can even pronounce Fukushima, much less know anything about GE Mark 1 containments. Most of them would not even know that they should be worried about radiation because they have never been taught to be afraid of something that they cannot smell, feel, taste, or hear especially when it occurs at levels that have no chance of making them sick within their expected lifetime. Mariotte, Gunter, Kamps, Katz and Bridenbaugh are all members of a vocal, but tiny group of people who have been carrying the water of the fossil fuel industry for decades by opposing nuclear energy, the only real competitor it has. They are victims of groupthink who believe that their neighbors in Takoma Park are representative of the whole world.
  • Just before making this comment, I voted in the unscientific poll associated with the article. 95% say that Oyster Creek should keep on powering New Jersey homes and businesses. They are not impressed by the Beyond Nuclear FUD; they like clean electricity.
D'coda Dcoda

South Africa: The Return of Highly Enriched Uranium to the U.S. in Context [17Aug11] - 0 views

allafrica.com/...201108240901.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 28 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • On 17 August 2011, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the United States issued a press release announcing that the South African government, through the Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa), had returned 6,3kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) spent fuel to the US for safe storage and ultimately for destruction.
  • NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the US Department of Energy (DOE) responsible among other things for maintaining and enhancing the safety, security, reliability and performance of the US nuclear weapons stockpile. The shipment arrived at Savannah River Site (SRS) on 16 August. The SRS is a key DOE industrial complex dedicated to nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship and nuclear materials destruction in support of the US nuclear non-proliferation efforts. It is situated 20 miles south of Aiken, South Carolina.
  • Subsequent press reports and releases by mainly US-based academics and NGOs lauded this development as a significant step in 'reducing and securing vulnerable [emphasis added] radioactive materials held at civilian sites around the world' and stated that it represents an important effort to 'strengthen the world's defences against nuclear terrorism'. While at first reading these may seem reasonable assertions, a number of important caveats need to be highlighted.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Firstly, 'spent fuel' is defined as fuel whose elements have been removed from the reactor because the fissionable material they contain has been depleted to a level near where it can no longer sustain a chain reaction. The high concentration of radioactive fission products in spent power-reactor fuel creates a gamma-radiation field, which at a distance of a metre would be lethal. South Africa, or more accurately Necsa, no longer has any use for this material.
  • Secondly, the US and South Africa have been working constructively for a number of years on various peaceful use applications of nuclear material and in particular on the need to minimise the use of HEU. Examples of such co-operation are the conversion of South Africa's SAFARI-1 reactor to low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel as well as training in medical responses to nuclear and radiological emergencies. Indeed, today South Africa is leading the transition to produce the medical isotope molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) with LEU rather than HEU.
  • Zuma was one of only five African Heads of State or government invited to develop concrete measures towards ensuring that nuclear materials under their control are not stolen or diverted (the others being Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Nigeria). They pledged to improve security as changing conditions may require, and to exchange best practices and practical solutions for doing so. The Summit's final communiqué also highlighted the fact that 'highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium require special precautions'.
  • Thirdly, the return is not unique. The repatriation of used and unused HEU fuel to its country of origin - either the US or Russia - has been an international goal since the early 1980s. Some 1,249kg of US-origin highly enriched uranium from sites around the world have already been returned, including from Chile in April 2010 just after the earthquake the previous February.
  • Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the spent fuel storage facility at Necsa is not, and has never been, 'vulnerable' - in the sense of being in danger of being accessed by organisations or persons with criminal intent or worse, with terrorist ideologies.
D'coda Dcoda

Hiroshima to Fukushima, Finishing the Job | Veterans Today [18Aug11] - 0 views

www.veteranstoday.com/...to-fukushima-finishing-the-job

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 19 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • (San Francisco) Two 10,000 lb (4,545 kg) uranium poison gas “dirty” bombs with small nuclear  dispersion devises set Japan on the road to extinction on August 6, 1945 and August 9, 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. A row of six modified and enlarged US Navy submarine reactors pioneered by US Navy Admiral Hyman Rickover and manufactured by the US based General Electric Corp (GE) finished the kill March 11, 2011. Thanks to the US Navy designed and GE built atomic reactors, the Japanese people are dying, the country of Japan is no more and the land is permanently uninhabitable.
  • Lethal nuclear vapors created by the destroyed Navy/GE reactors and thousands of tons of garbaged and burning old reactor cores are spreading invisible radioactive death and sickness all over the world. What’s more: the atomic reactors spilled their burning guts into the basements and there is evidence the melted reactor cores are still “reacting” 160 days out. Shutting them down is mostly just plain impossible. The burning, radioactive gates of hell are still open wide. Breathe deep everyone. Breathe your own poisoned Fuku tainted air.
  • The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) The best measure of population growth or shrinkage is a country’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR). It is, simply put, the average number of children women have in a society over their child bearing years. Two kids per woman is the “replacement value” for one woman and one male. Two kids per woman means the man and woman replace themselves and the next generation will be the same size as their preceding generation.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • The higher the TFR number, the more the population will grow and expand. On the other hand, a TFR number below 2 kids per woman means the population is shrinking for the next generation. Nuclear weaponeers who know about these things say it is impossible for a society to recover, or grow again, with a TFR below 1.3 kids per woman. In short, that society is doomed. Japan’s TFR plummeted to 1.2 since the detonation of the two 10,000 lb sperm and ovary destroying uranium poison gas bombs in August, 1945.
  • A few weeks after the atomic bombing, Australian journalist George Weller managed to sneak into occupied Japan and nuked Nagasaki in spite of US Army General Douglas MacArthur’s prohibition. Weller, an experienced war correspondent, was utterly stunned at the extent of the other worldly devastation and killing of the Atomic Bomb. Mr. Weller coined the term “Atomic Plague” which then swept around the world on a wave of revulsion at what the Americans had done. Diplomats and other people politically or militarily in-the-know knew the Japanese were eager to surrender and that President Truman lied in his bull shit speech about the Atomic Bomb “saving American lives” that would be forfeit if the US were to invade Japan.
  • What’s more, the dominant owners of the NYT, the Sultzberger family, like it that way. The family has had a slash and burn radiation policy ever since Hiroshima in 1945. No Lie was too Big, in fact, the Bigger and more Bizarre the better. Germany’s WWII Fuhrer Adolph Hitler may have coined the concept “The Big Lie;” but, the New York Times spun it out to a degree that would make even Hitler proud.
  • The Radiation Warfare Committee controlled Manhattan Project to build the Atomic Bomb got its name from its organizer, the Manhattan Engineering District of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Sultzbergers’ NY Times was only too eager to help the fledgling CIA and the US War Department lie about the nuke bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan that incinerated hundreds of thousands of people. Many were literally vaporized into nothingness. The Big Lie Lives On with the NY Times
  • The coming Fuku Kid Disaster and Fuku Kill Off First and foremost will be the ever nasty New York Times (NYT.) When it comes to something really, vitally important to all our futures, our families and friends, we can always count on the NYT to lie through their teeth for the nuclear industry criminals and mass murderers. That is nothing new for the Times, they always have.
  • The six devastated US Navy/GE reactors at Fukushima Daiichi finished the Kill Truman ordered 65 years, 7 months, and 6 days later on March 3, 2011. Sayonara, Japan, you are history. “Who’s Next?” Good question. There are 438 big reactors, just stationary nuclear weapons really, in the world. 104 big nuke reactors are in America and many, like the Fuku reactors,  are by the sea due to the exorbitant, one billion gallons a day water demand of the reactors. Even the inland reactors are exquisitely vulnerable to becoming another Fukushima. If any lose electricity and off site feeds, a Fuku type meltdown is guaranteed.
  • The people in the Japanese NHK TV video below live in Northern Japan. They must evacuate and many are dying. Many won’t leave, preferring Denial as the better course to reality and Evacuation. After all, you can’t see, feel, hear or taste radiation as it liquefies your insides. Any of us could be next.
  • The US Military and probably Russia’s Military, the former Soviet Union, possess weapons that can accomplish this kind of devastation. They should, at least the US has devoted billions to controlling what the DOD calls “earth processes” for 60 years. That would be your basic hurricanes, tornadoes, rain, drought, earthquakes, tsunamis, rogue waves and volcanoes. Even a medium sized tropical storm, not even big enough to be a hurricane or typhoon, contains as much energy as 10,000 Hiroshima sized Atomic Bombs. If the War Department, later renamed to the Department of Defense to confuse the do-gooders, could control the weather or “Earth Processes” they would control the world. That’s the long held dream of Psychos and control freaks everywhere.
  • D'coda Dcoda on 19 Aug 11
     
    only a partial clipping so read article for more
D'coda Dcoda

CPS must die [24Oct07} - 0 views

www2.sacurrent.com/...story.asp

solar nuclear energy subsidy financial cost

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 29 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Collectively, Texas eats more energy than any other state, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. We’re fifth in the country when it comes to our per-capita energy intake — about 532 million British Thermal Units per year. A British Thermal Unit, or Btu, is like a little “bite” of energy. Imagine a wooden match burning and you’ve got a Btu on a stick. Of course, the consumption is with reason. Texas, home to a quarter of the U.S. domestic oil reserves, is also bulging with the second-highest population and a serious petrochemical industry. In recent years, we managed to turn ourselves into the country’s top producer of wind energy. Despite all the chest-thumping that goes on in these parts about those West Texas wind farms (hoist that foam finger!), we are still among the worst in how we use that energy. Though not technically “Southern,” Texans guzzle energy like true rednecks. Each of our homes use, on average, about 14,400 kilowatt hours per year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It doesn’t all have to do with the A/C, either. Arizonans, generally agreed to be sharing the heat, typically use about 12,000 kWh a year; New Mexicans cruise in at an annual 7,200 kWh. Don’t even get me started on California’s mere 6,000 kWh/year figure.
  • Let’s break down that kilowatt-hour thing. A watt is the energy of one candle burning down. (You didn’t put those matches away, did you?) A kilowatt is a thousand burnin’ candles. And a kilowatt hour? I think you can take it from there. We’re wide about the middle in Bexar, too. The average CPS customer used 1,538 kilowatt hours this June when the state average was 1,149 kWh, according to ERCOT. Compare that with Austin residents’ 1,175 kWh and San Marcos residents’ 1,130 kWh, and you start to see something is wrong. So, we’re wasteful. So what? For one, we can’t afford to be. Maybe back when James Dean was lusting under a fountain of crude we had if not reason, an excuse. But in the 1990s Texas became a net importer of energy for the first time. It’s become a habit, putting us behind the curve when it comes to preparing for that tightening energy crush. We all know what happens when growing demand meets an increasingly scarce resource … costs go up. As the pressure drop hits San Anto, there are exactly two ways forward. One is to build another massively expensive power plant. The other is to transform the whole frickin’ city into a de-facto power plant, where energy is used as efficiently as possible and blackouts simply don’t occur.
  • Consider, South Texas Project Plants 1&2, which send us almost 40 percent of our power, were supposed to cost $974 million. The final cost on that pair ended up at $5.5 billion. If the planned STP expansion follows the same inflationary trajectory, the price tag would wind up over $30 billion. Applications for the Matagorda County plants were first filed with the Atomic Energy Commission in 1974. Building began two years later. However, in 1983 there was still no plant, and Austin, a minority partner in the project, sued Houston Power & Lighting for mismanagement in an attempt to get out of the deal. (Though they tried to sell their share several years ago, the city of Austin remains a 16-percent partner, though they have chosen not to commit to current expansion plans).
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • CPS didn’t just pull nukes out of a hat when it went looking for energy options. CEO Milton Lee may be intellectually lazy, but he’s not stupid. Seeking to fulfill the cheap power mandate in San Antonio and beyond (CPS territory covers 1,566 square miles, reaching past Bexar County into Atascosa, Bandera, Comal, Guadalupe, Kendall, Medina, and Wilson counties), staff laid natural gas, coal, renewables and conservation, and nuclear side-by-side and proclaimed nukes triumphant. Coal is cheap upfront, but it’s helplessly foul; natural gas, approaching the price of whiskey, is out; and green solutions just aren’t ready, we’re told. The 42-member Nuclear Expansion Analysis Team, or NEAT, proclaimed “nuclear is the lowest overall risk considering possible costs and risks associated with it as compared to the alternatives.” Hear those crickets chirping?
  • NEAT members would hold more than a half-dozen closed-door meetings before the San Antonio City Council got a private briefing in September. When the CPS board assembled October 1 to vote the NRG partnership up or down, CPS executives had already joined the application pending with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A Supplemental Participation Agreement allowed NRG to move quickly in hopes of cashing in on federal incentives while giving San Antonio time to gather its thoughts. That proved not too difficult. Staff spoke of “overwhelming support” from the Citizen’s Advisory Board and easy relations with City staff. “So far, we haven’t seen any fatal flaws in our analysis,” said Mike Kotera, executive vice president of energy development for CPS. With boardmember and Mayor Phil Hardberger still in China inspecting things presumably Chinese, the vote was reset for October 29.
  • No one at the meeting asked about cost, though the board did request a month-by-month analysis of the fiasco that has been the South Texas Project 1&2 to be delivered at Monday’s meeting. When asked privately about cost, several CPS officers said they did not know what the plants would run, and the figure — if it were known — would not be public since it is the subject of contract negotiations. “We don’t know yet,” said Bob McCullough, director of CPS’s corporate communications. “We are not making the commitment to build the plant. We’re not sure at this point we really understand what it’s going to cost.” The $206 million outlay the board will consider on Monday is not to build the pair of 1,300-megawatt, Westinghouse Advanced Boiling Water Reactors. It is also not a contract to purchase power, McCullough said. It is merely to hold a place in line for that power.
  • It’s likely that we would come on a recurring basis back to the board to keep them apprised of where we are and also the decision of whether or not we think it makes sense for us to go forward,” said Larry Blaylock, director of CPS’s Nuclear Oversight & Development. So, at what point will the total cost of the new plants become transparent to taxpayers? CPS doesn’t have that answer. “At this point, it looks like in order to meet our load growth, nuclear looks like our lowest-risk choice and we think it’s worth spending some money to make sure we hold that place in line,” said Mark Werner, director of Energy Market Operations.
  • Another $10 million request for “other new nuclear project opportunities” will also come to the board Monday. That request summons to mind a March meeting between CPS officials and Exelon Energy reps, followed by a Spurs playoff game. Chicago-based Exelon, currently being sued in Illinois for allegedly releasing millions of gallons of radioactive wastewater beneath an Illinois plant, has its own nuclear ambitions for Texas. South Texas Project The White House champions nuclear, and strong tax breaks and subsidies await those early applicants. Whether CPS qualifies for those millions remains to be seen. We can only hope.
  • CPS has opted for the Super Honkin’ Utility model. Not only that — quivering on the brink of what could be a substantial efficiency program, CPS took a leap into our unflattering past when it announced it hopes to double our nuclear “portfolio” by building two new nuke plants in Matagorda County. The utility joined New Jersey-based NRG Energy in a permit application that could fracture an almost 30-year moratorium on nuclear power plant creation in the U.S.
  • After Unit 1 came online in 1988, it had to be shut down after water-pump shaft seared off in May, showering debris “all over the place,” according to Nucleonics Week. The next month two breakers failed during a test of backup power, leading to an explosion that sheared off a steam-generator pump and shot the shaft into the station yard. After the second unit went online the next year, there were a series of fires and failures leading to a half-million-dollar federal fine in 1993 against Houston Power. Then the plant went offline for 14 months. Not the glorious launch the partnership had hoped for. Today, CPS officials still do not know how much STP has cost the city, though they insist overall it has been a boon worth billions. “It’s not a cut-and-dried analysis. We’re doing what we can to try to put that in terms that someone could share and that’s a chore,” said spokesman McCollough. CPS has appealed numerous Open Records requests by the Current to the state Attorney General. The utility argues that despite being owned by the City they are not required to reveal, for instance, how much it may cost to build a plant or even how much pollution a plant generates, since the electricity market is a competitive field.
  • How do we usher in this new utopia of decentralized power? First, we have to kill CPS and bury it — or the model it is run on, anyway. What we resurrect in its place must have sustainability as its cornerstone, meaning that the efficiency standards the City and the utility have been reaching for must be rapidly eclipsed. Not only are new plants not the solution, they actively misdirect needed dollars away from the answer. Whether we commit $500 million to build a new-fangled “clean-coal” power plant or choose to feed multiple billions into a nuclear quagmire, we’re eliminating the most plausible option we have: rapid decentralization.
  • A 2003 study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates the cost of nuclear power to exceed that of both coal and natural gas. A U.S. Energy Information Administration report last year found that will still be the case when and if new plants come online in the next decade. If ratepayers don’t pay going in with nuclear, they can bet on paying on the way out, when virtually the entire power plant must be disposed of as costly radioactive waste. The federal government’s inability to develop a repository for the tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste means reactors across the country are storing spent fuel in onsite holding ponds. It is unclear if the waste’s lethality and tens of thousands of years of radioactivity were factored into NEAT’s glowing analysis.
  • The federal dump choice, Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, is expected to cost taxpayers more than $60 billion. If it opens, Yucca will be full by the time STP 3&4 are finished, requiring another federal dump and another trainload of greenbacks. Just the cost of Yucca’s fence would set you back. Add the price of replacing a chain-link fence around, let’s say, a 100-acre waste site. Now figure you’re gonna do that every 50 years for 10,000 years or more. Security guards cost extra. That is not to say that the city should skip back to the coal mine. Thankfully, we don’t need nukes or coal, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a D.C.-based non-profit that champions energy efficiency. A collection of reports released this year argue that a combination of ramped-up efficiency programs, construction of numerous “combined heat and power” facilities, and installation of on-site renewable energy resources would allow the state to avoid building new power plants. Texas could save $73 billion in electric generation costs by spending $50 billion between now and 2023 on such programs, according to the research group. The group also claims the efficiency revolution would even be good for the economy, creating 38,300 jobs. If ACEEE is even mostly right, plans to start siphoning millions into a nuclear reservoir look none too inspired.
  • To jump tracks will take a major conversion experience inside CPS and City Hall, a turning from the traditional model of towering plants, reels of transmission line, and jillions of dependent consumers. CPS must “decentralize” itself, as cities as close as Austin and as far away as Seattle are doing. It’s not only economically responsible and environmentally sound, but it is the best way to protect our communities entering what is sure to be a harrowing century. Greening CPS CPS is grudgingly going greener. In 2004, a team of consultants, including Wisconsin-based KEMA Inc., hired to review CPS operations pegged the utility as a “a company in transition.” Executives interviewed didn’t understand efficiency as a business model. Even some managers tapped to implement conservation programs said such programs were about “appearing” concerned, according to KEMA’s findings.
  • While the review exposed some philosophical shortcomings, it also revealed for the first time how efficiency could transform San Antonio. It was technically possible, for instance, for CPS to cut electricity demand by 1,935 megawatts in 10 years through efficiency alone. While that would be accompanied with significant economic strain, a less-stressful scenario could still cut 1,220 megawatts in that period — eliminating 36 percent of 2014’s projected energy use. CPS’s current plans call for investing $96 million to achieve a 225-megawatt reduction by 2016. The utility plans to spend more than four times that much by 2012 upgrading pollution controls at the coal-fired J.T. Deely power plant.
  • In hopes of avoiding the construction of Spruce 2 (now being built, a marvel of cleanliness, we are assured), Citizen Oversight Committee members asked KEMA if it were possible to eliminate 500 megawatts from future demand through energy efficiency alone. KEMA reported back that, yes, indeed it was possible, but would represent an “extreme” operation and may have “unintended consequences.” Such an effort would require $620 million and include covering 90 percent of the cost of efficiency products for customers. But an interesting thing happens under such a model — the savings don’t end in 2012. They stretch on into the future. The 504 megawatts that never had to be generated in 2012 end up saving 62 new megawatts of generation in 2013 and another 53 megawatts in 2014. With a few tweaks on the efficiency model, not only can we avoid new plants, but a metaphorical flip of the switch can turn the entire city into one great big decentralized power generator.
  • Even without good financial data, the Citizen’s Advisory Board has gone along with the plan for expansion. The board would be “pennywise and pound foolish” not to, since the city is already tied to STP 1&2, said at-large member Jeannie O’Sullivan. “Yes, in the past the board of CPS had been a little bit not as for taking on a [greater] percentage of nuclear power. I don’t know what their reasons were, I think probably they didn’t have a dialogue with a lot of different people,” O’Sullivan said.
  • For this, having a City-owned utility offers an amazing opportunity and gives us the flexibility to make most of the needed changes without state or federal backing. “Really, when you start looking, there is a lot more you can do at the local level,” said Neil Elliott of the ACEEE, “because you control building codes. You control zoning. You can control siting. You can make stuff happen at the local level that the state really doesn’t have that much control of.” One of the most empowering options for homeowners is homemade energy provided by a technology like solar. While CPS has expanded into the solar incentives field this year, making it only the second utility in the state to offer rebates on solar water heaters and rooftop panels, the incentives for those programs are limited. Likewise, the $400,000 CPS is investing at the Pearl Brewery in a joint solar “project” is nice as a white tiger at a truck stop, but what is truly needed is to heavily subsidize solar across the city to help kickstart a viable solar industry in the state. The tools of energy generation, as well as the efficient use of that energy, must be spread among the home and business owners.
  • Joel Serface, with bulb-polished pate and heavy gaze, refers to himself as a “product of the oil shock” who first discovered renewables at Texas Tech’s summer “geek camp.” The possibilities stayed with him through his days as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley and eventually led him to Austin to head the nation’s first clean-energy incubation center. Serface made his pitch at a recent Solar San Antonio breakfast by contrasting Texas with those sun-worshipping Californians. Energy prices, he says, are “going up. They’re not going down again.” That fact makes alternative energies like solar, just starting to crack the 10-cent-per-killowatt barrier, financially viable. “The question we have to solve as an economy is, ‘Do we want to be a leader in that, or do we want to allow other countries [to outpace us] and buy this back from them?’” he asked.
  • To remain an energy leader, Texas must rapidly exploit solar. Already, we are fourth down the list when it comes not only to solar generation, but also patents issued and federal research awards. Not surprisingly, California is kicking silicon dust in our face.
D'coda Dcoda

The nuclear power plans that have survived Fukushima [28Sep11] - 0 views

www.scidev.net/...have-survived-fukushima-1.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 01 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • SciDev.Net reporters from around the world tell us which countries are set on developing nuclear energy despite the Fukushima accident. The quest for energy independence, rising power needs and a desire for political weight all mean that few developing countries with nuclear ambitions have abandoned them in the light of the Fukushima accident. Jordan's planned nuclear plant is part of a strategy to deal with acute water and energy shortages.
  • The Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) wants Jordan to get 60 per cent of its energy from nuclear by 2035. Currently, obtaining energy from neighbouring Arab countries costs Jordan about a fifth of its gross domestic product. The country is also one of the world's most water-poor nations. Jordan plans to desalinate sea water from the Gulf of Aqaba to the south, then pump it to population centres in Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa, using its nuclear-derived energy. After the Fukushima disaster, Jordan started re-evaluating safety procedures for its nuclear reactor, scheduled to begin construction in 2013. The country also considered more safety procedures for construction and in ongoing geological and environmental investigations.
  • The government would not reverse its decision to build nuclear reactors in Jordan because of the Fukushima disaster," says Abdel-Halim Wreikat, vice Chairman of the JAEC. "Our plant type is a third-generation pressurised water reactor, and it is safer than the Fukushima boiling water reactor." Wreikat argues that "the nuclear option for Jordan at the moment is better than renewable energy options such as solar and wind, as they are still of high cost." But some Jordanian researchers disagree. "The cost of electricity generated from solar plants comes down each year by about five per cent, while the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power is rising year after year," says Ahmed Al-Salaymeh, director of the Energy Centre at the University of Jordan. He called for more economic feasibility studies of the nuclear option.
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • And Ahmad Al-Malabeh, a professor in the Earth and Environmental Sciences department of Hashemite University, adds: "Jordan is rich not only in solar and wind resources, but also in oil shale rock, from which we can extract oil that can cover Jordan's energy needs in the coming years, starting between 2016 and 2017 ... this could give us more time to have more economically feasible renewable energy."
  • Finance, rather than Fukushima, may delay South Africa's nuclear plans, which were approved just five days after the Japanese disaster. South Africa remains resolute in its plans to build six new nuclear reactors by 2030. Katse Maphoto, the director of Nuclear Safety, Liabilities and Emergency Management at the Department of Energy, says that the government conducted a safety review of its two nuclear reactors in Cape Town, following the Fukushima event.
  • Vietnam's nuclear energy targets remain ambitious despite scientists' warning of a tsunami risk. Vietnam's plan to power 10 per cent of its electricity grid with nuclear energy within 20 years is the most ambitious nuclear energy plan in South-East Asia. The country's first nuclear plant, Ninh Thuan, is to be built with support from a state-owned Russian energy company and completed by 2020. Le Huy Minh, director of the Earthquake and Tsunami Warning Centre at Vietnam's Institute of Geophysics, has warned that Vietnam's coast would be affected by tsunamis in the adjacent South China Sea.
  • Larkin says nuclear energy is the only alternative to coal for generating adequate electricity. "What other alternative do we have? Renewables are barely going to do anything," he said. He argues that nuclear is capable of supplying 85 per cent of the base load, or constantly needed, power supply, while solar energy can only produce between 17 and 25 per cent. But, despite government confidence, Larkin says that a shortage of money may delay the country's nuclear plans.
  • The government has said yes but hasn't said how it will pay for it. This is going to end up delaying by 15 years any plans to build a nuclear station."
  • The Ninh Thuan nuclear plant would sit 80 to 100 kilometres from a fault line on the Vietnamese coast, potentially exposing it to tsunamis, according to state media. But Vuong Huu Tan, president of the state-owned Vietnam Atomic Energy Commission, told state media in March, however, that lessons from the Fukushima accident will help Vietnam develop safe technologies. And John Morris, an Australia-based energy consultant who has worked as a geologist in Vietnam, says the seismic risk for nuclear power plants in the country would not be "a major issue" as long as the plants were built properly. Japan's nuclear plants are "a lot more earthquake prone" than Vietnam's would be, he adds.
  • Undeterred by Fukushima, Nigeria is forging ahead with nuclear collaborations. There is no need to panic because of the Fukushima accident, says Shamsideen Elegba, chair of the Forum of Nuclear Regulatory Bodies in Africa. Nigeria has the necessary regulatory system to keep nuclear activities safe. "The Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority [NNRA] has established itself as a credible organisation for regulatory oversight on all uses of ionising radiation, nuclear materials and radioactive sources," says Elegba who was, until recently, the NNRA's director general.
  • Vietnam is unlikely to experience much in the way of anti-nuclear protests, unlike neighbouring Indonesia and the Philippines, where civil society groups have had more influence, says Kevin Punzalan, an energy expert at De La Salle University in the Philippines. Warnings from the Vietnamese scientific community may force the country's ruling communist party to choose alternative locations for nuclear reactors, or to modify reactor designs, but probably will not cause extreme shifts in the one-party state's nuclear energy strategy, Punzalan tells SciDev.Net.
  • Will the Philippines' plans to rehabilitate a never-used nuclear power plant survive the Fukushima accident? The Philippines is under a 25-year moratorium on the use of nuclear energy which expires in 2022. The government says it remains open to harnessing nuclear energy as a long-term solution to growing electricity demand, and its Department of Science and Technology has been making public pronouncements in favour of pursuing nuclear energy since the Fukushima accident. Privately, however, DOST officials acknowledge that the accident has put back their job of winning the public over to nuclear by four or five years.
  • In the meantime, the government is trying to build capacity. The country lacks, for example, the technical expertise. Carmencita Bariso, assistant director of the Department of Energy's planning bureau, says that, despite the Fukushima accident, her organisation has continued with a study on the viability, safety and social acceptability of nuclear energy. Bariso says the study would include a proposal for "a way forward" for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, the first nuclear reactor in South East Asia at the time of its completion in 1985. The $2.3-billion Westinghouse light water reactor, about 60 miles north of the capital, Manila, was never used, though it has the potential to generate 621 megawatts of power. President Benigno Aquino III, whose mother, President Corazon Aquino, halted work on the facility in 1986 because of corruption and safety issues, has said it will never be used as a nuclear reactor but could be privatised and redeveloped as a conventional power plant.
  • But Mark Cojuangco, former lawmaker, authored a bill in 2008 seeking to start commercial nuclear operations at the Bataan reactor. His bill was not passed before Congress adjourned last year and he acknowledges that the Fukushima accident has made his struggle more difficult. "To go nuclear is still the right thing to do," he says. "But this requires a societal decision. We are going to spark public debates with a vengeance as soon as the reports from Fukushima are out." Amended bills seeking both to restart the reactor, and to close the issue by allowing either conversion or permanent closure, are pending in both the House and the Senate. Greenpeace, which campaigns against nuclear power, believes the Fukushima accident has dimmed the chances of commissioning the Bataan plant because of "increased awareness of what radioactivity can do to a place". Many parts of the country are prone to earthquakes and other natural disasters, which critics say makes it unsuitable both for the siting of nuclear power stations and the disposal of radioactive waste.
  • In Kenya, nuclear proponents argue for a geothermal – nuclear mix In the same month as the Fukushima accident, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency approved Kenya's application for its first nuclear power station (31 March), a 35,000 megawatt facility to be built at a cost of Sh950 billion (US$9.8 billion) on a 200-acre plot on the Athi Plains, about 50km from Nairobi
  • The plant, with construction driven by Kenya's Nuclear Electricity Project Committee, should be commissioned in 2022. The government claims it could satisfy all of Kenya's energy needs until 2040. The demand for electricity is overwhelming in Kenya. Less than half of residents in the capital, Nairobi, have grid electricity, while the rural rate is two per cent. James Rege, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Energy, Communication and Information, takes a broader view than the official government line, saying that geothermal energy, from the Rift Valley project is the most promising option. It has a high production cost but remains the country's "best hope". Nuclear should be included as "backup". "We are viewing nuclear energy as an alternative source of power. The cost of fossil fuel keeps escalating and ordinary Kenyans can't afford it," Rege tells SciDev.Net.
  • Hydropower is limited by rivers running dry, he says. And switching the country's arable land to biofuel production would threaten food supplies. David Otwoma, secretary to the Energy Ministry's Nuclear Electricity Development Project, agrees that Kenya will not be able to industrialise without diversifying its energy mix to include more geothermal, nuclear and coal. Otwoma believes the expense of generating nuclear energy could one day be met through shared regional projects but, until then, Kenya has to move forward on its own. According to Rege, much as the nuclear energy alternative is promising, it is extremely important to take into consideration the Fukushima accident. "Data is available and it must be one step at a time without rushing things," he says. Otwoma says the new nuclear Kenya can develop a good nuclear safety culture from the outset, "but to do this we need to be willing to learn all the lessons and embrace them, not forget them and assume that won't happen to us".
  • But the government adopted its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for 2010-2030 five days after the Fukushima accident. Elliot Mulane, communications manager for the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, (NECSA) a public company established under the 1999 Nuclear Energy Act that promotes nuclear research, said the timing of the decision indicated "the confidence that the government has in nuclear technologies". And Dipuo Peters, energy minister, reiterated the commitment in her budget announcement earlier this year (26 May), saying: "We are still convinced that nuclear power is a necessary part of our strategy that seeks to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through a diversified portfolio, comprising some fossil-based, renewable and energy efficiency technologies". James Larkin, director of the Radiation and Health Physics Unit at the University of the Witwatersrand, believes South Africa is likely to go for the relatively cheap, South Korean generation three reactor.
  • It is not only that we say so: an international audit came here in 2006 to assess our procedure and processes and confirmed the same. Elegba is firmly of the view that blame for the Fukushima accident should be allocated to nature rather than human error. "Japan is one of the leaders not only in that industry, but in terms of regulatory oversight. They have a very rigorous system of licensing. We have to make a distinction between a natural event, or series of natural events and engineering infrastructure, regulatory infrastructure, and safety oversight." Erepamo Osaisai, Director General of the Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC), has said there is "no going back" on Nigeria's nuclear energy project after Fukushima.
  • Nigeria is likely to recruit the Russian State Corporation for Atomic Energy, ROSATOM, to build its first proposed nuclear plant. A delegation visited Nigeria (26- 28 July) and a bilateral document is to be finalised before December. Nikolay Spassy, director general of the corporation, said during the visit: "The peaceful use of nuclear power is the bedrock of development, and achieving [Nigeria's] goal of being one of the twenty most developed countries by the year 2020 would depend heavily on developing nuclear power plants." ROSATOM points out that the International Atomic Energy Agency monitors and regulates power plant construction in previously non-nuclear countries. But Nnimmo Bassey, executive director of the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN), said "We cannot see the logic behind the government's support for a technology that former promoters in Europe, and other technologically advanced nations, are now applying brakes to. "What Nigeria needs now is investment in safe alternatives that will not harm the environment and the people. We cannot accept the nuclear option."
  • Thirsty for electricity, and desirous of political clout, Egypt is determined that neither Fukushima ― nor revolution ― will derail its nuclear plans. Egypt was the first country in the Middle East and North Africa to own a nuclear programme, launching a research reactor in 1961. In 2007 Egypt 'unfroze' a nuclear programme that had stalled in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. After the Egyptian uprising in early 2011, and the Fukushima accident, the government postponed an international tender for the construction of its first plant.
  • Yassin Ibrahim, chairman of the Nuclear Power Plants Authority, told SciDev.Net: "We put additional procedures in place to avoid any states of emergency but, because of the uprising, the tender will be postponed until we have political stability after the presidential and parliamentary election at the end of 2011". Ibrahim denies the nuclear programme could be cancelled, saying: "The design specifications for the Egyptian nuclear plant take into account resistance to earthquakes and tsunamis, including those greater in magnitude than any that have happened in the region for the last four thousand years. "The reactor type is of the third generation of pressurised water reactors, which have not resulted in any adverse effects to the environment since they began operation in the early sixties."
  • Ibrahim El-Osery, a consultant in nuclear affairs and energy at the country's Nuclear Power Plants Authority, points out that Egypt's limited resources of oil and natural gas will run out in 20 years. "Then we will have to import electricity, and we can't rely on renewable energy as it is still not economic yet — Egypt in 2010 produced only two per cent of its needs through it." But there are other motives for going nuclear, says Nadia Sharara, professor of mineralogy at Assiut University. "Owning nuclear plants is a political decision in the first place, especially in our region. And any state that has acquired nuclear technology has political weight in the international community," she says. "Egypt has the potential to own this power as Egypt's Nuclear Materials Authority estimates there are 15,000 tons of untapped uranium in Egypt." And she points out it is about staying ahead with technology too. "If Egypt freezes its programme now because of the Fukushima nuclear disaster it will fall behind in many science research fields for at least the next 50 years," she warned.
D'coda Dcoda

What do you do with the waste? - Kirk Sorensen's answers [13Oct11] - 0 views

atomicinsights.com/...te-kirk-sorensens-answers.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • 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
D'coda Dcoda

It's 2050: Do you know where your nuclear waste is? [09Sep11] - 1 views

bos.sagepub.com/...30.full

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 09 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • Though nuclear power produces electricity with little in the way of carbon dioxide emissions, it, like other energy sources, is not without its own set of waste products. And in the case of nuclear power, most of these wastes are radioactive.1 Some very low level nuclear wastes can be stored and then disposed of in landfill-type settings. Other nuclear waste must remain sequestered for a few hundred years in specially engineered subsurface facilities; this is the case with low level waste, which is composed of low concentrations of long-lived radionuclides and higher concentrations of short-lived ones. Intermediate and high-level waste both require disposal hundreds of meters under the Earth’s surface, where they must remain out of harm’s way for thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (IAEA, 2009). Intermediate level wastes are not heat-emitting, but contain high concentrations of long-lived radionuclides. High-level wastes, including spent nuclear fuel and wastes from the reprocessing of spent fuel, are both heat-emitting and highly radioactive.
  • When it comes to the severity of an accident at a nuclear facility, there may be little difference between those that occur at the front end of the nuclear power production and those at the back end: An accident involving spent nuclear fuel can pose a threat as disastrous as that posed by reactor core meltdowns. In particular, if spent fuel pools are damaged or are not actively cooled, a major crisis could be in sight, especially if the pools are packed with recently discharged spent fuel.
  • Elements of success
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • All countries with well-established nuclear programs have found themselves requiring spent fuel storage in addition to spent fuel pools at reactors. Some, like the US, use dry storage designs, such as individual casks or storage vaults that are located at reactor sites; other countries, Germany for one, use away-from-reactor facilities. Sweden has a large underground pool located at a centralized facility, CLAB, to which different reactors send their spent fuel a year after discharge, so spent fuel does not build up at reactor sites. Dry storage tends to be cheaper and can be more secure than wet storage because active circulation of water is not required. At the same time, because dry storage uses passive air cooling, not the active cooling that is available in a pool to keep the fuel cool, these systems can only accept spent fuel a number of years after discharge.6
  • the most difficult part of the back end of the fuel cycle is siting the required facilities, especially those associated with spent fuel management and disposal. Siting is not solely a technical problem—it is as much a political and societal issue. And to be successful, it is important to get the technical and the societal and political aspects right.
  • France has had more success after failing in its first siting attempt in 1990, when a granite site that had been selected drew large protests and the government opted to rethink its approach to nuclear waste disposal entirely. In 2006, the government announced that it needed a geologic repository for high-level waste, identified at least one suitable area, and passed laws requiring a license application to be submitted by 2015 and the site to begin receiving high-level waste by 2025.
  • Canada recently rethought the siting process for nuclear waste disposal and began a consensus-based participatory process. The Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization was established in 2002, after previous attempts to site a repository failed. The siting process began with three years’ worth of conversations with the public on the best method to manage spent fuel. The organization is now beginning to solicit volunteer communities to consider a repository, though much of the process remains to be decided, including the amount and type of compensation given to the participating communities.
  • The United States had been working toward developing a high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; this fell through in 2010, when the Obama administration decided to reverse this decision, citing political “stalemate” and lack of public consensus about the site. Instead, the Obama administration instituted the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to rethink the management of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.8 The US can flaunt one success, though. The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), located near Carlsbad in southern New Mexico, is actually the only operating deep geologic repository for intermediate level nuclear waste, receiving waste since 1998. In the case of WIPP, it only accepts transuranic wastes from the nuclear weapons complex. The site is regulated solely by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the state of New Mexico has partial oversight of WIPP through its permitting authority established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The city of Carlsbad is supportive of the site and it appears to be tolerated by the rest of the state.9
  • After weathering the Fukushima accident, and given the current constraints on carbon dioxide emissions and potential for growth of nuclear power, redefinition of a successful nuclear power program is now required: It is no longer simply the safe production of electricity but also the safe, secure, and sustainable lifecycle of nuclear power, from the mining of uranium ores to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. If this cannot be achieved and is not thought out from the beginning, then the public in many countries will reject nuclear as an energy choice.
  • Certain elements—including an institution to site, manage, and operate waste facilities—need to be in place to have a successful waste management program. In some countries, this agency is entirely a government entity, such as the Korea Radioactive Waste Management Organization. In other countries, the agency is a corporation established by the nuclear industry, such as SKB in Sweden or Posiva Oy in Finland. Another option would be a public– private agency, such as Spain’s National Company for Radioactive Waste or Switzerland’s National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste.
  • France, Canada, and Germany also have experienced a number of iterations of repository siting, some with more success than others. In the 1970s, Germany selected the Gorleben site for its repository; however, in the late 1990s, with the election of a Red–Green coalition government (the Greens had long opposed Gorleben), a rethinking of repository siting was decreed, and the government established the AkEnd group to re-evaluate the siting process. Their report outlined a detailed siting process starting from scratch, but to date too much political disagreement exists to proceed further.
  • the siting process must be established. This should include decisions on whether to allow a community to veto a site and how long that veto remains operational; the number of sites to be examined in depth prior to site selection and the number of sites that might be required; technical criteria to begin selecting potential sites; non-technical considerations, such as proximity to water resources, population centers, environmentally protected areas, and access to public transportation; the form and amount of compensation to be offered; how the public is invited to participate in the site selection process; and how government at the federal level will be involved.
  • The above are all considerations in the siting process, but the larger process—how to begin to select sites, whether to seek only volunteers, and so on—must also be determined ahead of time. A short list of technical criteria must be integrated into a process that establishes public consent to go forward, followed by many detailed studies of the site—first on the surface, then at depth. There are distinct advantages to characterizing more than one site in detail, as both Sweden and Finland have done. Multiple sites allow the “best” one to be selected, increasing public approval and comfort with the process.
  • he site needs to be evaluated against a set of standards established by a government agency in the country. This agency typically is the environmental agency or the nuclear regulatory agency. The type of standards will constrain the method by which a site will be evaluated with regard to its future performance. A number of countries use a combination of methods to evaluate their sites, some acknowledging that the ability to predict processes and events that will occur in a repository decrease rapidly with each year far into the future, so that beyond a few thousand years, little can be said with any accuracy. These countries use what is termed a “safety case,” which includes multiple lines of evidence to assure safe repository performance into the future.
  • Moving forward
  • Funding is one of the most central needs for such an institution to carry out research and development programs; the money would cover siting costs, including compensation packages and resources for local communities to conduct their own analyses of spent fuel and waste transportation, storage, repository construction, operations, security and safeguards, and future liabilities. Funds can be collected in a number of ways, such as putting a levy on electricity charges (as is done in the US) or charging based on the activity or volume of waste (Hearsey et al., 1999). Funds must also be managed—either by a waste management organization or another industry or government agency—in a way that ensures steady and ready access to funds over time. This continued reliable access is necessary for planning into the future for repository operations.
  • Notes
  • Nuclear wastes are classified in various ways, depending on the country or organization doing the classification. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) notes six general categories of waste produced by civil nuclear power reactors: exempt waste, very short-lived waste, and very low level waste can be stored and then disposed of in landfill-type settings; low level waste, intermediate level waste, and high-level waste require more complex facilities for disposal.
  • Sweden is currently the country closest to realizing a final solution for spent fuel, after having submitted a license application for construction of a geologic repository in March 2011. It plans to open a high-level waste repository sometime after 2025, as do Finland and France.
  • Some countries, such as Sweden, Finland, Canada, and, until recently, the US, plan to dispose of their spent fuel directly in a geologic repository. A few others, such as France, Japan, Russia, and the UK have an interim step. They reprocess their spent fuel, extract the small amount of plutonium produced during irradiation, and use it in new mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. Then they plan to dispose of the high-level wastes from reprocessing in a repository.
D'coda Dcoda

Simulation Map of Cesium-137 Deposition Across the Pacific by CEREA Shows Contamination... - 0 views

ex-skf.blogspot.com/...ium-137-deposition-across.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 01 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • 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.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • CEREA's description of the animation (if the animation doesn't work, or if you want to see the bigger one, go to CEREA's page):
  • Movie of the Fukushima-Daichii activity in the air (caesium-137, ground level)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 activity concentration field is uncertain and could be significantly different from the actual one. 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.
D'coda Dcoda

4 Ways the Department of Energy Is Tapping Tech for a Greener Future [03Aug11] - 0 views

mashable.com/...department-energy-tech

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 03 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • This week, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) re-launched its website, Energy.gov, to provide tools to help individuals and businesses better understand how to save energy and money. You can type your zip code into the site and get hyper-local information about your city, county and state, including information on tax credits, rebates and energy saving tips.
  • The site presents DOE data visually using the open source MapBox suite of tools, and localized data and maps can be shared or embedded on any website or blog. Other data sets the DOE is mapping include alternative fuel locations and per capita energy usage. Anyone can now compare how his state’s energy usage compares with others across the country. In addition to making the data more palatable for the public, the DOE is offering open data sets for others to use.
  • Our goal is simple — to improve the delivery of public services online. We’re using government data to go local in a way that’s never been possible before. We’re connecting the work of the Energy Department with what’s happening in your backyard,” says Cammie Croft, senior advisor and director of new media and citizen engagement at the DOE. “We’re making Energy.gov relevant and accessible to consumers and small businesses in their communities.”
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • 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.
D'coda Dcoda

East coast earthquake reveals faults in nuclear emergency planning [24Aug11] - 0 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...t-earthquake-nuclear-emergency

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 24 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • To say that Tuesday's east coast earthquake surprised everyone would be an understatement.
  • This is why our best bet is planning for the worst. And when we look at the US nuclear energy infrastructure, it becomes clear that we aren't planning for the worst – not even close
  • We had a pretty good warning earlier this year, when the tragic earthquake and tsunami in Japan caused an even bigger tragedy when the Fukushima nuclear power plant suffered a meltdown. Tuesday's earthquake was the worst on the east coast of the US since 1944, measuring at 5.8 on the Richter scale. And while we certainly avoided the kind of crisis that Japan has endured, two nuclear reactors near the site, at the North Anna nuclear power plant, were shut down following the quake. The plant temporarily lost power and halted operations until it switched to back-up generators. Twelve other plants around the country were put on alert following the quake.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • We're also lucky that this particular plant isn't as close to an urban centre as many others in the US. It's nearly 50 miles from Richmond, and about 100 miles from Washington, DC. But the plant that the NRC deemed most at risk was the Indian Point 3 reactor in Buchanan, New York – just 38 miles from New York City. This is the primary reason why New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has called for the plant to be shut down. After Fukushima, everyone within 50 miles of the plant had to be evacuated. Right now, our evacuation plans for all our nuclear sites only cover a 10-mile radius. If something really bad were to happen at Indian Point, it could create the need to evacuate 21 million people
  • The North Anna plant is located about 15 miles from the epicentre of the quake in Mineral, Virginia. It was designed to withstand a 6.2-magnitude quake, according to its owner, Dominion Resources. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission lists the plant as one of the 10 US plants most at risk of damage in a seismic event. So, it seems like we got lucky in this case.
  • Though a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told reporters that "as far as we know, everything is safe", the event revived fears about the safety of US nuclear plants. Most of the region's reactors were reportedly designed to withstand a 5.9 to 6.1 magnitude quake – which means Tuesday's quake was, for many, too close for comfort.
  • don't believe we're going to shut down our existing nuclear energy infrastructure entirely any time soon. But at the very least, the 23 August quake should be a reminder that our worst-case scenarios might not be bad enough. We should perhaps rethink just how ready we are for the worst.
D'coda Dcoda

Shizuoka Governor Kawakatsu Entertains NY Tea Drinkers [16Jul1]] - 0 views

ex-skf.blogspot.com/...rnor-kawakatsu-entertains.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 17 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • Governor Heita Kawakatsu of Shizuoka Prefecture joined a gathering of green tea lovers in New York on July 14 and appealed the safety of the teas grown in Shizuoka Prefecture, the largest tea producer in Japan.
  • The US is the largest market for Japan's tea export with 46% share. The governor said he wanted to dispel the anxiety due to the Fukushima nuke accident and appeal the safety directly to consumers in New York, where the Japanese food is popular.
  • Governor Kawakatsu explained that Shizuoka Prefecture was far away from Fukushima Prefecture where the accident happened, and that the survey of the dried teas in the prefecture's tea growing regions showed that the levels of radioactive cesium were below the safety limit. He said, "Shizuoka's tea is not only safe but good for your health." At the gathering, there were demonstrations on how to enjoy green tea in different ways.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • The Tea Association of the US's chairman said, "There's nothing in the world like green tea from Japan. If we upload the data [that the governor has given us] to our homepage, the sale of green tea will be back to normal."
  • Answers to the question of what's wrong with the governor's statement:1. Shizuoka is far away from Fukushima, so what? That does not change the fact that radioactive materials have been falling in Shizuoka since the Fukushima blowup, and hasn't stopped at the prefectural border (although initially some people in Shizuoka actually claimed that the Hakone Mountains blocked the radiation).2. The statement that "the levels of radioactive cesium were below the safety limit" is plain wrong. French authorities confiscated the green tea grown and processed in Shizuoka Prefecture when that tea tested over 1000 becquerels/kg of radioactive cesium, twice the loose safety limit of Japan and the EU. Also, the tea from Warashina District tested higher than the 500 becquerels/kg limit, which was first discovered by Radish Boya, an online grocer in Tokyo.
  • 3. Standard? What standard? The radiation safety limit for food in the US is 170 becquerels/kg. Of all teas from Shizuoka's tea growing regions, only 4 would be considered safe, being below 170 becquerels/kg. The data is right there in the Shizuoka prefectural government website.
  • If the governor tries to get away by saying the radioactive materials in the brewed tea in a teacup tested below the safety limit, that's also wrong. The Shizuoka government website also has that data, which shows between 1.6 and 14 becquerels/kg of radioactive cesium. Since it is water that is used to brew the tea, we can translate this as having 1.6 to 14 becquerels/liter of radioactive cesium. It sure clears the Japan's extremely loose standard after Fukushima, which is 200 becquerels/liter.
  • However, the US standard for drinks is 0.11 becquerels/liter. None of the Shizuoka tea, even when brewed, would pass the safety standard of the US. Several would fail the WHO standard, which is 10 becquerels/liter.Maybe the Tea Association chairman didn't know about the standards in the US. Or maybe the strict standards have been modified quietly in the US just like the EU did.
D'coda Dcoda

German Nuclear Decommissioning and Renewables Build-Out [23Oct11] - 0 views

theenergycollective.com/...oning-and-renewables-build-out

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • 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  
  • ...12 more annotations...
  • SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND OTHER COSTS   The estimated capital costs and other costs for decommissioning the nuclear plants, restoring the sites, building out renewables, wind and solar energy balancing plants, and reorganizing electric grids over 9 years are summarized below.    The capital cost and subsidy cost for the increased energy efficiency measures was not estimated, but will likely need to be well over $180 billion over 9 years, or $20 billion/yr, or $20 b/($3286 b in 2010) x 100% = 0.6% of GDP, or $250 per person per yr.     Decommission nuclear plants, restore sites: 23 @ $1 billion/plant = $23 billion Wind turbines, offshore: 53,300 MW @ $4,000,000/MW = $213.2 billion   Wind turbines, onshore: 27,900 MW @ $2,000,000/MW = $55.8 billion Wind feed-in tariff extra costs rolled into electric rates over 9 years: $200 billion  Solar systems: 82,000 MW @ $4,500,000/MW = $369 billion Solar feed-in tariff extra costs rolled into electric rates over 9 years = $250 billion. Wind and solar energy balancing plants: 25,000 MW of CCGTs @ $1,250,000/MW = $31.3 billion Reorganizing European elecric grids tied to German grids: $150 billion
  • RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARGETS   In September 2010 the German government announced the following targets:   Renewable electricity - 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 Renewable energy - 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050 Energy efficiency - Reducing the national electricity consumption 50% below 2008 levels by 2050.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany   Germany has a target to reduce its nation-wide CO2 emissions from all sources by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-85% below 1990 levels by 2050. That goal could be achieved, if 100% of electricity is generated by renewables, according to Mr. Flasbarth. Germany is aiming to convince the rest of Europe to follow its lead.
  • Biomass: At the end of 2010, about 5,200 MW of biomass was installed at a capital cost of about $18 billion. Biomass energy produced was 33.5 TWh, or 5.5% of production. Plans are to add 1,400 MW of biomass plants in future years which, when fully implemented, would produce about 8.6 TWh/yr.   Solar: At the end of 2010, about 17,320 MW of PV solar was installed in Germany at a capital cost of about $100 billion. PV solar energy produced was 12 TWh, or 2% of total production. The excess cost of the feed-in-tariff energy bought by utilities and rolled into the electricity costs of rate payers was about $80 billion during the past 11 years.   Most solar panels are in southern Germany (nation-wide solar CF 0.095). When skies are clear, the solar production peaks at about 7 to 10 GW. Because of insufficient capacity of transmission and quick-ramping gas turbine plants, and because curtailment is not possible, part of the solar energy, produced at a cost to the German economy of about 30 to 50 eurocent/kWh is “sold” at European spot prices of about 5 eurocent/kWh to France which has significant hydro capacity for balancing the variable solar energy. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46142/impact-pv-solar-feed-tariffs-germany  
  • Wind: At the end of 2010, about 27,200 MW of onshore and offshore wind turbines was installed in Germany at a capital cost of about $50 billion. Wind energy produced was 37.5 TWh, or 6.2% of total production. The excess cost of the feed-in-tariff energy bought by utilities and rolled into electricity costs of rate payers was about $50 billion during the past 11 years.   Most wind turbines are in northern Germany. When wind speeds are higher wind curtailment of 15 to 20 percent takes place because of insufficient transmission capacity and quick-ramping gas turbine plants. The onshore wind costs the Germany economy about 12 eurocent/kWh and the offshore wind about 24 eurocent/kWh. The owners of the wind turbines are compensated for lost production.   The alternative to curtailment is to “sell” the energy at European spot prices of about 5 eurocent/kWh to Norway and Sweden which have significant hydro capacity for balancing the variable wind energy; Denmark has been doing it for about 20 years.   As Germany is very marginal for onshore wind energy (nation-wide onshore wind CF 0.167) and nearly all of the best onshore wind sites have been used up, or are off-limits due to noise/visual/environmental impacts, most of the additional wind energy will have to come from OFFSHORE facilities which produce wind energy at about 2 to 3 times the cost of onshore wind energy. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61774/wind-energy-expensive
  • A 2009 study by EUtech, engineering consultants, concluded Germany will not achieve its nation-wide CO2 emissions target; the actual reduction will be less than 30%. The head of Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Jochen Flasbarth, is calling for the government to improve CO2 reduction programs to achieve targets. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,644677,00.html   GERMAN RENEWABLE ENERGY TO-DATE   Germany announced it had 17% of its electrical energy from renewables in 2010; it was 6.3% in 2000. The sources were 6.2% wind, 5.5% biomass, 3.2% hydro and 2.0% solar. Electricity consumption in 2010 was 603 TWh (production) - 60 TWh (assumed losses) = 543 TWh http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/ren-Strom-D/index_e.php  
  • Hydro: At the end of 2010, about 4,700 MW of hydro was installed. Hydro energy produced was 19.5 TWh, or 3.2% of production. Hydro growth has been stagnant during the past 20 years. See below website.   As it took about $150 billion of direct investment, plus about $130 billion excess energy cost during the past 11 years to achieve 8.2% of total production from solar and wind energy, and assuming hydro will continue to have little growth, as was the case during the past 20 years (almost all hydro sites have been used up), then nearly all of the renewables growth by 2020 will be mostly from wind, with the remainder from solar and biomass. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010??cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-March30-2011   Wind and Solar Energy Depend on Gas: Wind and solar energy is variable and intermittent. This requires quick-ramping gas turbine plants to operate at part-load and quickly ramp up with wind energy ebbs and quickly ramp down with wind energy surges; this happens about 100 to 200 times a day resulting in increased wear and tear. Such operation is very inefficient for gas turbines causing them to use extra fuel/kWh and emit extra CO2/kWh that mostly offset the claimed fuel and CO2 reductions due to wind energy. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent  
  • Wind energy is often sold to the public as making a nation energy independent, but Germany will be buying gas mostly from Russia supplied via the newly constructed pipeline under the Baltic Sea from St. Petersburg to Germany, bypassing Poland.   GERMANY WITHOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY   A study performed by The Breakthrough Institute concluded to achieve the 40% CO2 emissions reduction target and the decommissioning of 21,400 MW of nuclear power plants by 2022, Germany’s electrical energy mix would have to change from 60% fossil, 23% nuclear and 17% renewables in 2010 to 43% fossil and 57% renewables by 2020. This will require a build-out of renewables, reorganization of Europe’s electric grids (Europe’s concurrence will be needed) and acceleration of energy efficiency measures.   According to The Breakthrough Institite, Germany would have to reduce its total electricity consumption by about 22% of current 2020 projections AND achieve its target for 35% electricity generated from renewables by 2020. This would require increased energy efficiency measures to effect an average annual decrease of the electricity consumption/GDP ratio of 3.92% per year, significantly greater than the 1.47% per year decrease assumed by the IEA's BAU forecasts which is based on projected German GDP growth and current German efficiency policies.
  • The Breakthrough Institute projections are based on electricity consumption of 544  and 532 TWh  in 2008 and 2020, respectively; the corresponding production is 604 TWh in 2008 and 592 TWh in 2020.   http://thebreakthrough.org/blog//2011/06/analysis_germanys_plan_to_phas-print.html http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/germany2007.pdf   Build-out of Wind Energy: If it is assumed the current wind to solar energy ratio is maintained at 3 to 1, the wind energy build-out will be 80% offshore and 20% onshore, and the electricity production will be 592 TWh, then the estimated capital cost of the offshore wind turbines will be [{0.57 (all renewables) - 0.11 (assumed biomass + hydro)} x 592 TWh x 3/4] x 0.8 offshore/(8,760 hr/yr x average CF 0.35) = 0.0533 TW offshore wind turbines @ $4 trillion/TW = $213 billion and of the onshore wind turbines will be [{0.57 (all renewables) - 0.11 (assumed biomass + hydro)} x 592 TWh x 3/4] x 0.2 onshore/(8,760 hr/yr x average CF 0.167) = 0.279 TW of wind turbines @ $2 trillion/TW = $56 billion, for a total of $272 billion. The feed in tariff subsidy for 9 years, if maintained similar to existing subsidies to attract adequate capital, will be about $150 billion offshore + $50 billion onshore, for a total of $200 billion.    
  • Note: The onshore build-out will at least double Germany’s existing onshore wind turbine capacity, plus required transmission systems; i.e., significant niose, environmental and visual impacts over large areas.   Recent studies, based on measured, real-time, 1/4-hour grid operations data sets of the Irish, Colorado and Texas grids, show wind energy does little to reduce CO2 emissions. Such data sets became available during the past 2 to 3 years. Prior studies, based on assumptions, estimates, modeling scenarios, and statistics, etc., significantly overstate CO2 reductions.  http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent   Build-out of PV Solar Energy: The estimated capital cost of the PV solar capacity will be [{0.57 (all renewables) - 0.11 (assumed biomass + hydro)} x 592 TWh x 1/4]/(8,760 hr/yr x average CF 0.095) = 0.082 TW @ $4.5 trillion/TW = $369 billion. The feed in tariff subsidy, if maintained similar to existing subsidies to attract adequate capital, will be about $250 billion.   Reorganizating Electric Grids: For GW reasons, a self-balancing grid system is needed to minimize CO2 emissions from gas-fired CCGT balancing plants. One way to implement it is to enhance the interconnections of the national grids with European-wide HVDC overlay systems (owning+O&M costs, including transmission losses), and with European-wide selective curtailment of wind energy, and with European-wide demand management and with pumped hydro storage capacity. These measures will reduce, but not eliminate, the need for balancing energy, at greater wind energy penetrations during high-windspeed weather conditions, as frequently occur in Iberia (Spain/Portugal).  
  • European-wide agreement is needed, the capital cost will be in excess of $150 billion and the adverse impacts on quality of life (noise, visuals, psychological), property values and the environment will be significant over large areas.    Other Capital Costs: The capacity of the quick-ramping CCGT balancing plants was estimated at 25,000 MW; their capital cost is about 25,000 MW x $1,250,000/MW = $31.3 billion. The capital costs of decommissioning and restoring the sites of the 23 nuclear plants will be about $23 billion.   Increased Energy Efficiency: Increased energy efficiency would be more attractive than major build-outs of renewables, because it provides the quickest and biggest "bang for the buck", AND it is invisible, AND it does not make noise, AND it has minimal environmental impact, AND it usually reduces at least 3 times the CO2 per invested dollar, AND it usually creates at least 3 times the jobs per invested dollar, AND it usually creates at least 3 times the energy reduction per invested dollar, AND it does all this without public resistance and controversy.   Rebound, i.e., people going back to old habits of wasting energy, is a concept fostered by the PR of proponents of conspicuous consumption who make money on such consumption. People with little money love their cars getting 35-40 mpg, love getting small electric and heating bills. The rebound is mostly among people who do not care about such bills.
  • A MORE RATIONAL APPROACH   Global warming is a given for many decades, because the fast-growing large economies of the non-OECD nations will have energy consumption growth far outpacing the energy consumption growth of the slow-growing economies of the OECD nations, no matter what these OECD nations do regarding reducing CO2 emissions of their economies.   It is best to PREPARE for the inevitable additional GW by requiring people to move away from flood-prone areas (unless these areas are effectively protected, as in the Netherlands), requiring new  houses and other buildings to be constructed to a standard such as the Passivhaus standard* (such buildings stay cool in summer and warm in winter and use 80 to 90 percent less energy than standard buildings), and requiring the use of new cars that get at least 50 mpg, and rearranging the world's societies for minimal energy consumption; making them walking/bicycling-friendly would be a good start.   If a nation, such as the US, does not do this, the (owning + O&M) costs of its economy will become so excessive (rising resource prices, increased damage and disruptions from weather events) that its goods and services will become less competitive and an increasing percentage of its population will not be able to afford a decent living standard in such a society.   For example: In the US, the median annual household income (inflation-adjusted) was $49,445, a decline of 7% since 2000. As the world’s population increases to about 10 billion by 2050, a triage-style rationing of resources will become more prevalent. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1
  • * A 2-year-old addition to my house is built to near-Passivhaus standards; its heating system consists of a thermostatically-controlled 1 kW electric heater, set at 500 W, that cycles on/off on the coldest days for less than 100 hours/yr. The addition looks inside and out entirely like standard construction. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses
  • D'coda Dcoda on 23 Oct 11
     
    Excellent, lengthy article , lots of data
D'coda Dcoda

Areva, TVA Discuss Use of Mixed-Oxide Nuclear Fuel From Retired Weapons [21Feb11] - 1 views

nuclearstreet.com/...rom-retired-weapons022104.aspx

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • French energy group Areva has entered tentative talks with the Tennessee Valley Authority that could pave the way for TVA’s nuclear plants to use fuel made from retired weapons. On Friday, the company announced it signed a letter of intent with TVA to initiate discussions on the use of fuel from the Department of Energy’s Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. While it would not obligate TVA to use the fuel, the letter highlights the agency’s ongoing relationship with DOE in evaluating the fuel-from-weapons program
  • Scheduled to begin operating in 2016, the mixed-oxide facility at DOE’s Savannah River site in South Carolina will blend plutonium from disassembled weapons with depleted uranium oxide, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration. Using the fuel in commercial reactors would make the plutonium unfit for explosives and help meet a commitment made by the United States and Russia in 2000 to dispose of 68 metric tons of surplus plutonium. Shaw Areva MOX Services Llc. holds the contract to build and operate the South Carolina facility
  • According to NNSA, more than 30 commercial reactors currently use mixed-oxide fuel, including at plants in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Belgium and Switzerland.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • “As the world leader in MOX fuel production, Areva has a long, successful history of producing reliable mixed-oxide fuel in Europe and has many satisfied customers around the globe. We look forward to partnering with TVA as it evaluates the potential use of MOX fuel in its nuclear plants,” Jacques Besnainou, CEO of Areva North America, said in a release
  • D'coda Dcoda on 23 Jul 11
     
    pushing the notorious MOX fuel
D'coda Dcoda

How I spent my Sunday in Fukushima » Safecast [08Aug11] - 0 views

blog.safecast.org/...drive-report-august-7

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 09 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • This morning Pieter, Xeni and I (pictured above) set out with Miles, along with father/son superteam Joe and Bryan Moross. The plan was to drop off a few Geiger counters with volunteers and try to cover some some new ground, perhaps near the exclusion zone. But it ended up being so much more.
  • The day began in Shinjuku around close to 7:30am when we picked up a rental car, this was a large group with a lot of gear so we had a need for two vehicles and the usual Safecast car on it’s own wasn’t quite enough. We wasted no time and started driving north. Depending on where you are in the city, background radiation levels in Tokyo hover right around 50 CPM which is only slightly higher than what we believe they were prior to 3/11 though we weren’t measuring things then so can’t be positive. For our purposes we are assuming the average around the country was 35 CPM which is worth noting before I start mentioning numbers going forward. It wasn’t too long in our trip before we hit our first hotspot in Nasu.
  • Our first stop was Nihonmatsu which is not too far from Koriyama to meet up with some volunteers in the area and hand out a few new sensors for them to take measurements with. We met at restaurant and of course started measuring things the moment we set foot in the parking lot. Levels were noticeably higher than we’d seen just a few hours prior in Tokyo.
  • ...14 more annotations...
  • Another bit worth noting here in case you haven’t been following along with the work Safecast has been doing so far, surface contamination is much higher than air contamination. There are two main reasons for this – “Fallout” literally means this radioactive crap fell out of the sky and found it’s new home on the ground, and much of contents of said crap are beta emitters. Beta radiation is lower energy than gamma so you need to get close to it to measure it – which in this case is the ground. If you only measure the air you miss the betas all together. Anyway. Surface is higher than air, and around 3000 CPM on the ground in the parking lot here is 10X the air levels. As occasionally happens when we are measuring out in public, people approach us to find out what we’re doing.
  • People are curious, and often they are concerned. Hiroko Ouchi was both. On top of that she was upset. She said that she hasn’t been able to get any information about the levels around them, the levels they are living in from the government or TEPCO. She said at first she wasn’t concerned because residents were told everything was fine and not to worry, but over time people started taking readings on their own and hearing about readings taken by others that suggested things weren’t all fine and this really stressed her out. This area is far enough away from the plant that no one is being officially evacuated, which means anyone who wants to leave has to do it on their own and pay for it themselves. This has caused a lot of trauma in the community as some people leave and some people stay. Ouchi-san said it is very upsetting for people to be in this position and have their questions go unanswered.
  • Once back in the car we decided to head east and see how close we could get to the exclusion zone. We watched the readings rise and fall, though generally increase on the whole the further we went. We have a device outside of the car, and several inside taking readings. At many points we would see a 25% increase depending on which side of the car we pointed a device towards. Very quick changes in very small areas here. At one point things seemed to be increasing very rapidly and at much higher jumps than we’d seen previously. We were so distracted by the drastic readings that we almost ran right into a roadblock staffed by several police officers who were standing around in the street. We turned past them and drove down the road a short ways and then stopped to look at our devices which were completely blowing up.
  • On my last transatlantic flight I measured over 800 CPM on the flight. Seeing over 1000 CPM in the car was a bit shocking, opening the door and putting the device on the ground in the middle of the street and seeing it climb, in a matter of seconds, to almost 16,000 CPM was, well, I still don’t even know how to describe it. I was completely taken aback by this. We were maybe one city block from where the officers were standing – outside and unprotected and decided we needed to go back and talk to them.
  • The officers were very polite and happy to talk to us. We asked them if they were concerned that they were standing outside all day with no protective gear and they told us their bosses have assured them it is perfectly safe and so they have to trust them. We told them about the readings we’d taken just steps from where they were and offered to show them personally that the levels were incredibly high – they declined saying they needed to trust the authorities. Which was weird, because to most people – they are the authorities
  • We measure radiation all the time, and were noticeably shaken after seeing the readings we just had, and these guys were being told there was nothing to worry about. Suddenly some sort of commanding officer arrived and told us we had to leave and everyone stopped talking to us. Like turning off a switch.
  • We got back in the car and drove about 1km away the other direction away from the roadblock.
  • There was a small restaurant that was closed up and seemed like a good place to stop, take some measurements and talk about what had just happened
  • This restaurant had signs taped in the window saying basically “Sorry we are closed for an undetermined period of time. Will try to reopen in the spring.”
  • It was here that we took our highest and most concerning readings of the day. The parking lot of the restaurant was active, but less than we’d just seen. But when we walked across the street – maybe 10 feet away, we measured over 20,000 CPM and 9 µSv/hr. We pulled out our SAM 940 to try and identify the isotopes and found things we weren’t expecting at all. So we grabbed some samples to send to a lab for professional analysis and got out of there quick.
  • As we were starting to wrap up a car drove by and came to a quick stop. Two gentlemen got out, one of them was a reporter for Asahi TV and the other was Tadao Mumakata, a resident of Koroyama who is working on a way to produce geiger counters locally. They knew about Safecast and were excited to run into us. We talked for a while and then decided to go get some food before heading back to Tokyo. We stopped at a smallish family restaurant and talked about our plans and goals, geiger counts and what we’d learned – hoping to pass some of this on and hopefully help someone skip over some of the early mistakes we’d made ourselves. They were happy for the info and we exchanged contacts for further discussion.
  • around 2:30 am we made it back and started dropping people off at their respective houses/hotels. But no spare moment could be wasted. At the final stop we uploaded the log files from the bGeigie – the geiger counter we had mounted outside of the car all day logging radiation and mapping it against GPS points. This produces a map of the whole drive, and dumps the data into our full database, filling in a few more pieces of the big picture.
  • And it really is a big picture. These places have never had the kinds of detailed measurements we’re taking, and the measurements that have happened haven’t been shared openly with the residents – who without question are the ones who need to have that info the most. I’ve known this since we started the project but seeing it first hand today and hearing people thank us for trying and for caring was heavy. This project is important and I’m so honored to be a part of it, and so glad to have others involved who have done the impossible to get us this far already.
  • Please contact Japan cat network (www.japancatnet.com)( my friends David/Susan) and /or JEARS (Japan earthquake animal rescue) on FB as they are doing great work in that evacuated area and perhaps would be interested in a collaborative effort to get data and ensure animal safety.
  • D'coda Dcoda on 09 Aug 11
     
    These reports are coming from a volunteer group that's independently mapping radiation levels in Japan.
D'coda Dcoda

Saudi Arabia's nuclear energy ambitions [18Aug11] - 0 views

ansnuclearcafe.org/...7741

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 19 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) plans to build 16 nuclear reactors over the next 20 years spending an estimated $7 billion on each plant. The $112 billion investment, which includes capacity to become a regional exporter of electricity, will provide one-fifth of the Kingdom’s electricity for industrial and residential use and, critically, for desalinization of sea water.
  • dom’s electricity for industrial and residential use and, critically, for desalinization of sea water.
  • This past April, the Saudi government announced the development of a nuclear city to train and house the technical workforce that will be needed to achieve these ambitions. It is clear that KSA’s plans for spending its sovereign wealth fund will be mostly focused on the home front. At the same time, a former Saudi ambassador to the United States , Prince Turki al-Faisal (served 2005-2006), has warned that a regional nuclear arms race could start if Iran does not curb its nuclear efforts. He told the Wall Street Journal on July 20, “It is in our interest that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, for their doing so would compel Saudi Arabia … to pursue policies that could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences.”
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • According to the WSJ, the Saudi government said the former ambassador does not speak for it in an official capacity. Al-Faisal, however, is widely believed to be on a short list to be the next foreign minister of KSA. How credible his claim is about the potential for a regional arms race remains to be seen. Swapping nukes for oil drums
  • The main driver for KSA’s plans to build reactors is that at the rate that it is burning its own oil, it may have substantially less to export in just a decade or so. At a minimum, it may lose the excess capacity the rest of the world relies on when there are disruptions in supplies from other countries. One scenario suggested by energy analysts that follow oil markets is that within two decades most of the KSA output would be used for domestic consumption. Total Saudi reserves are estimated at 267 billion barrels. Debates rage in the news media over so-called peak oil, but energy experts discount them as speculative at best, and fantastic or worse on the downside.
  • Current production estimates put total KSA production capacity at 12.5 million barrels a day with a maximum output of 15 million barrels a day. The Wall Street Journal reported in April 2011 that production was running at 8 million-9 million barrels a day compared to 11 million barrels a day in 2010 reported by the Energy Information Administration. The difference is the global economic downturn has reduced demand. What’s got the attention of energy planners is that domestic use in KSA could grow from 3.4 million barrels of oil a day in 2009 to 8.3 million barrels a day by 2028.
  • The official Saudi press agency said in April 2010 that it was “alarmed” by increasing oil and gas consumption for domestic use and the resulting impact on export revenues. Reduction of consumption, which pushes up use of fossil fuel to produce electricity, is not an option for both economic and political reasons. In 2011, the Saudi government has increased its subsidies of energy supplies by $100 million for domestic use, in part to dampen any possibilities of social unrest like that which toppled regimes in Tunisia and Egypt.
  • Like other Arab countries, KSA has a large population of unemployed young people who have better than average educations.  This is a volatile mix and the arch conservatives that run KSA have defused it with lavish subsidies.
  • Electricity demand is predicted to increase from 75 GWe by 2018 to more than 120 Gwe by 2030. This growth can’t be sustained by fossil fuel alone and also maintain the income stream the nation depends on from oil exports. Nuclear reactors are an obvious choice to intervene in an unsustainable growth scenario.
  • This outlook is sending the Saudi government down a path to develop nuclear energy. In April, it announced that it was setting up the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE) to pursue this objective. Saudi Arabia is building up its transmission and distribution grids to interconnect with the UAE on the east and Oman to the south.  It is developing its so-called empty quarter which Middle East experts point out isn’t as empty as it sounds.
  • The new city’s charter states that nuclear and renewable energies, especially solar, would be developed to ensure continued supplies of drinking water and electricity to its growing population and save hydrocarbon resources such as petroleum and gas for use by future generations. The objective is to make them a source of income for a much longer period.
Dan R.D.

13-Year-Old Uses Fibonacci Sequence For Solar Power Breakthrough [19Aug11] - 0 views

hardware.slashdot.org/...e-For-Solar-Power-Breakthrough

solar design innovation opportunities

shared by Dan R.D. on 19 Aug 11 - No Cached
  • Dan R.D. on 19 Aug 11
     
    An anonymous reader tips news of 7th grader Aidan Dwyer, who used phyllotaxis - the way leaves are arranged on plant stems in nature - as inspiration to arrange an array of solar panels in a way that generates 20-50% more energy than a uniform, flat panel array. Aidan wrote, "I designed and built my own test model, copying the Fibonacci pattern of an oak tree. I studied my results with the compass tool and figured out the branch angles. The pattern was about 137 degrees and the Fibonacci sequence was 2/5. Then I built a model using this pattern from PVC tubing. In place of leaves, I used PV solar panels hooked up in series that produced up to 1/2 volt, so the peak output of the model was 5 volts. The entire design copied the pattern of an oak tree as closely as possible. ... The Fibonacci tree design performed better than the flat-panel model. The tree design made 20% more electricity and collected 2 1/2 more hours of sunlight during the day. But the most interesting results were in December, when the Sun was at its lowest point in the sky. The tree design made 50% more electricity, and the collection time of sunlight was up to 50% longer!" His work earned him a Young Naturalist Award from the American Museum of Natural History and a provisional patent on the design.
D'coda Dcoda

The Environmental Case for Nuclear Energy - Korea [26Sep11] - 0 views

www.koreaherald.com/...Detail.jsp

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 27 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • Six months after the Fukushima disaster, the repercussions of history’s second-largest nuclear meltdown are still being felt, not only in Japan but around the world. Predictably, people are rethinking the wisdom of relying on nuclear power. The German and Swiss governments have pledged to phase out the use of nuclear power, and Italy has shelved plans to build new reactors. Public debate on future nuclear energy use continues in the United Kingdom, Japan, Finland, and other countries.So far, it is unclear what the reaction of the Korean government will be. Certainly, the public backlash to nuclear energy that has occurred elsewhere in the world is also evident in Korea; according to one study, opposition to nuclear energy in Korea has tripled since the Fukushima disaster. However, there are countervailing considerations here as well, which have caused policy-makers to move cautiously. Korea’s economy is often seen as particularly reliant on the use of nuclear power due to its lack of fossil fuel resources, while Korean companies are some of the world’s most important builders (and exporters) of nuclear power stations.
  • There are three primary reasons why nuclear power is safer and greener than power generated using conventional fossil fuels. First ― and most importantly ― nuclear power does not directly result in the emission of greenhouse gases. Even when you take a life-cycle approach and factor in the greenhouse gas emissions from the construction of the plant, there is no contest. Fossil fuels ― whether coal, oil, or natural gas ― create far more global warming.
  • The negative effects of climate change will vastly outweigh the human and environmental consequences of even a thousand Fukushimas. This is not the place to survey all the dire warnings that have been coming out of the scientific community; suffice it to quote U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s concise statement that climate change is the world’s “only one truly existential threat … the great moral imperative of our era.” A warming earth will not only lead to death and displacement in far-off locales, either. Typhoons are already hitting the peninsula with greater intensity due to the warming air, and a recent study warns that global warming will cause Korea to see greatly increased rates of contagious diseases such as cholera and bacillary dysentery.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • As the world’s ninth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it should be (and is) a major priority for Korea to reduce emissions, and realistically that can only be accomplished by increasing the use of nuclear power. As Barack Obama noted with regard to the United States’ energy consumption, “Nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. It’s that simple. (One plant) will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That’s like taking 3.5 million cars off the road.” Environmentalists have traditionally disdained nuclear power, but even green activists cannot argue with that logic, and increasing numbers of them ― Patrick Moore, James Lovelock, Stewart Brand and the late Bishop Hugh Montefiore being prominent examples ― have become supporters of the smart use of nuclear power.
  • Second, the immediate dangers to human health of conventional air pollution outweigh the dangers of nuclear radiation. In 2009, the Seoul Metropolitan Government measured an average PM10 (particulate) concentration in the city of 53.8 g/m3, a figure that is roughly twice the level in other developed nations. According to the Gyeonggi Research Institute, PM10 pollution leads to 10,000 premature deaths per year in and around Seoul, while the Korea Economic Institute has estimated its social cost at 10 trillion won. While sulfur dioxide levels in the region have decreased significantly since the 1980s, the concentration of nitrogen dioxide in the air has not decreased, and ground-level ozone levels remain high. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power does not result in the release of any of these dangerous pollutants that fill the skies around Seoul, creating health hazards that are no less serious for often going unnoticed.
  • And third, the environmental and safety consequences of extracting and transporting fossil fuels are far greater than those involved with the production of nuclear power. Korea is one of the largest importers of Indonesian coal for use in power plants, for example. This coal is not always mined with a high level of environmental and safety protections, with a predictable result of air, water, and land pollution in one of Asia’s most biologically sensitive ecosystems. Coal mining is also one of the world’s more dangerous occupations, as evidenced by the many tragic disasters involving poorly managed Chinese mines. While natural gas is certainly a better option than coal, its distribution too can be problematic, whether by ship or through the recently proposed pipeline that would slice down through Siberia and North Korea to provide direct access to Russian gas.
  • What about truly green renewable energy, some might ask ― solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and tidal energy? Of course, Korea would be a safer and more sustainable place if these clean renewable resources were able to cover the country’s energy needs. However, the country is not particularly well suited for hydroelectric projects, while the other forms of renewable energy production are expensive, and are unfortunately likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. The fact is that most Koreans will not want to pay the significantly higher energy prices that would result from the widespread use of clean renewables, and in a democratic society, the government is unlikely to force them to do so. Thus, we are left with two realistic options: fossil fuels or nuclear. From an environmental perspective, it would truly be a disaster to abandon the latter.
  • By Andrew Wolman Andrew Wolman is an assistant professor at the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Graduate School of International and Area Studies, where he teaches international law and human rights.
Jan Wyllie

Fracking floors energy giants - Business Analysis & Features - Business - The Independent - 0 views

www.independent.co.uk/...ors-energy-giants-8059727.html

gas fracking supply demand

shared by Jan Wyllie on 19 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • A fortnight after writing $2.84bn (£1.84bn) off the value of its Fayetteville shale gas business in Arkansas, BHP is poised to reveal on Wednesday that the charge helped push down its profits by a massive 40 per cent – to $14.2bn – in the year to June 30.
  • The FTSE 100 mining giant was forced into the writedown after a decade-long stampede into the brave new world of US shale gas produced so much of the stuff that its price tumbled to 10-year lows, taking the value of its producers with them.
  • "The problem is exacerbated because the minerals leasing system in the US obliges lessees to drill fairly quickly or relinquish their drilling rights," he added.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • US gas price fell from $3.88 per thousand cubic feet when the deal was struck to as little as $1.91 in April, before recovering slightly to now hover around $2.75. Today's mildly-improved US gas price is well below its peak of $14 per thousand cubic feet in 2005
  • hile protests in the US have largely failed to curb the shale gas industry's development, the plummeting gas price is now doing the job for them. The number of shale gas rigs operating in the US has tumbled by 44 per cent in the past year to stand at about 300 now, according to industry estimates.
  • Hydrocarbon producers such as Chesapeake and BHP are furiously switching their fracking resources from gas to oil, which is unlikely to suffer the same depression in its price as gas as the US has the infrastructure in place to export much of the additional oil it produces from shale. As a result, the number of shale oil rigs has leapt by 35 per cent to about 860 in the past year.
  • as an expected flurry of LNG export terminals begin to come onstream in about three years, fracking companies will have a valuable further outlet for their gas – the relatively lucrative European and Asian markets.
1 - 20 of 677 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page