Skip to main content

Home/ Open Intelligence / Energy/ Group items tagged value

Rss Feed Group items tagged

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

Scientists Radically Raise Estimates of Fukushima Fallout [25Oct11] - 0 views

www.nature.com/...478435a.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 26 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in March released far more radiation than the Japanese government has claimed. So concludes a study1 that combines radioactivity data from across the globe to estimate the scale and fate of emissions from the shattered plant. The study also suggests that, contrary to government claims, pools used to store spent nuclear fuel played a significant part in the release of the long-lived environmental contaminant caesium-137, which could have been prevented by prompt action. The analysis has been posted online for open peer review by the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
  • Andreas Stohl, an atmospheric scientist with the Norwegian Institute for Air Research in Kjeller, who led the research, believes that the analysis is the most comprehensive effort yet to understand how much radiation was released from Fukushima Daiichi. "It's a very valuable contribution," says Lars-Erik De Geer, an atmospheric modeller with the Swedish Defense Research Agency in Stockholm, who was not involved with the study. The reconstruction relies on data from dozens of radiation monitoring stations in Japan and around the world. Many are part of a global network to watch for tests of nuclear weapons that is run by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization in Vienna. The scientists added data from independent stations in Canada, Japan and Europe, and then combined those with large European and American caches of global meteorological data.
  • Stohl cautions that the resulting model is far from perfect. Measurements were scarce in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima accident, and some monitoring posts were too contaminated by radioactivity to provide reliable data. More importantly, exactly what happened inside the reactors — a crucial part of understanding what they emitted — remains a mystery that may never be solved. "If you look at the estimates for Chernobyl, you still have a large uncertainty 25 years later," says Stohl. Nevertheless, the study provides a sweeping view of the accident. "They really took a global view and used all the data available," says De Geer.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • Challenging numbers Japanese investigators had already developed a detailed timeline of events following the 11 March earthquake that precipitated the disaster. Hours after the quake rocked the six reactors at Fukushima Daiichi, the tsunami arrived, knocking out crucial diesel back-up generators designed to cool the reactors in an emergency. Within days, the three reactors operating at the time of the accident overheated and released hydrogen gas, leading to massive explosions. Radioactive fuel recently removed from a fourth reactor was being held in a storage pool at the time of the quake, and on 14 March the pool overheated, possibly sparking fires in the building over the next few days.
  • But accounting for the radiation that came from the plants has proved much harder than reconstructing this chain of events. The latest report from the Japanese government, published in June, says that the plant released 1.5 × 1016 bequerels of caesium-137, an isotope with a 30-year half-life that is responsible for most of the long-term contamination from the plant2. A far larger amount of xenon-133, 1.1 × 1019 Bq, was released, according to official government estimates.
  • The new study challenges those numbers. On the basis of its reconstructions, the team claims that the accident released around 1.7 × 1019 Bq of xenon-133, greater than the estimated total radioactive release of 1.4 × 1019 Bq from Chernobyl. The fact that three reactors exploded in the Fukushima accident accounts for the huge xenon tally, says De Geer. Xenon-133 does not pose serious health risks because it is not absorbed by the body or the environment. Caesium-137 fallout, however, is a much greater concern because it will linger in the environment for decades. The new model shows that Fukushima released 3.5 × 1016 Bq caesium-137, roughly twice the official government figure, and half the release from Chernobyl. The higher number is obviously worrying, says De Geer, although ongoing ground surveys are the only way to truly establish the public-health risk.
  • Stohl believes that the discrepancy between the team's results and those of the Japanese government can be partly explained by the larger data set used. Japanese estimates rely primarily on data from monitoring posts inside Japan3, which never recorded the large quantities of radioactivity that blew out over the Pacific Ocean, and eventually reached North America and Europe. "Taking account of the radiation that has drifted out to the Pacific is essential for getting a real picture of the size and character of the accident," says Tomoya Yamauchi, a radiation physicist at Kobe University who has been measuring radioisotope contamination in soil around Fukushima. Click for full imageStohl adds that he is sympathetic to the Japanese teams responsible for the official estimate. "They wanted to get something out quickly," he says. The differences between the two studies may seem large, notes Yukio Hayakawa, a volcanologist at Gunma University who has also modelled the accident, but uncertainties in the models mean that the estimates are actually quite similar.
  • The new analysis also claims that the spent fuel being stored in the unit 4 pool emitted copious quantities of caesium-137. Japanese officials have maintained that virtually no radioactivity leaked from the pool. Yet Stohl's model clearly shows that dousing the pool with water caused the plant's caesium-137 emissions to drop markedly (see 'Radiation crisis'). The finding implies that much of the fallout could have been prevented by flooding the pool earlier. The Japanese authorities continue to maintain that the spent fuel was not a significant source of contamination, because the pool itself did not seem to suffer major damage. "I think the release from unit 4 is not important," says Masamichi Chino, a scientist with the Japanese Atomic Energy Authority in Ibaraki, who helped to develop the Japanese official estimate. But De Geer says the new analysis implicating the fuel pool "looks convincing".

  • The latest analysis also presents evidence that xenon-133 began to vent from Fukushima Daiichi immediately after the quake, and before the tsunami swamped the area. This implies that even without the devastating flood, the earthquake alone was sufficient to cause damage at the plant.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Advertisement

    The Japanese government's report has already acknowledged that the shaking at Fukushima Daiichi exceeded the plant's design specifications. Anti-nuclear activists have long been concerned that the government has failed to adequately address geological hazards when licensing nuclear plants (see Nature 448, 392–393; 2007), and the whiff of xenon could prompt a major rethink of reactor safety assessments, says Yamauchi.

  • The model also shows that the accident could easily have had a much more devastating impact on the people of Tokyo. In the first days after the accident the wind was blowing out to sea, but on the afternoon of 14 March it turned back towards shore, bringing clouds of radioactive caesium-137 over a huge swathe of the country (see 'Radioisotope reconstruction'). Where precipitation fell, along the country's central mountain ranges and to the northwest of the plant, higher levels of radioactivity were later recorded in the soil; thankfully, the capital and other densely populated areas had dry weather. "There was a period when quite a high concentration went over Tokyo, but it didn't rain," says Stohl. "It could have been much worse." 
D'coda Dcoda

TEPCO doesn't know where melted fuel is at in reactors or actual level of radioactive p... - 0 views

enenews.com/-released-about-start-checking

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 29 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • Fukushima Reactors Status of Reactors Reactor No. 1 Reactor No. 2 Reactor No. 3 Spent Fuel Pools Spent Fuel Pool No. 1 Spent Fuel Pool No. 2 Spent Fuel Pool No. 3 Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 Common Spent Fuel Pool Radiation Releases Plutonium Uranium Chernobyl Comparisons Criticality Japan Tokyo Area Outside Tokyo U.S. & Canada West Coast California Los Angeles San Francisco Bay Area Hawaii Seattle Canada Midwest East Coast Florida US Nuclear Facilities Pacific Radiation Facts Internal Emitters Health Children Testing Food Water Air Rain Soil Milk Longterm Strange Coverups? Video Home Terms About Contact     Cooling system for reactors and spent fuel pools stopped working three times over 16-day period at Alabama nuke plant » NHK: TEPCO doesn’t know where melted fuel is at in reactors or actual level of radioactive particles still being released — About to start checking July 29th, 2011 at 06:43 AM POSITION: relative; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 336px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline-table; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; HEIGHT: 280px; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER
  • The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant says it will extract air from troubled reactors at the plant to measure the amount of radioactive substances. [...] The operation is intended to obtain accurate data on what kind of radioactive substances are being released and in what quantity. The air extraction is expected to begin later on Friday for the No.1 reactor and in early August for the No.2 unit. No plans have been decided for the No.3 reactor due to high radiation levels in part of its building.
  • that TEPCO doesn’t know where the melted fuel is or the actual level of radioactive particles still being released: TEPCO hopes the findings may also help the company grasp the extent of leakage of nuclear fuels into the containment vessels. Up to around one billion becquerels of radioactive substances arebelieved to be released every hour from reactors No.1, 2 and 3. It isnot known how accurate this figure is because it was worked out bytaking readings of the air on the plant’s premises.
D'coda Dcoda

Hearing under way for proposed Ga. nuclear plant [27Sep11] - 0 views

www.forbes.com/...es-ga-new-nuclear_8704051.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 28 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission began hearing testimony Tuesday that will help it decide in coming months whether to allow the Atlanta-based Southern Co. to build a $14 billion nuclear power plant in eastern Georgia.No power company has received a license to build a nuclear plant since 1978, a period when utilities cancelled more than five dozen proposed plants as the economy soured, financing costs soared and demand for electricity weakened. A meltdown the following year at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania worsened the pressure and sent the industry into a long slump
  • The nuclear industry is hoping that Southern Co. plan to build two more reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta will relaunch their sector. It's a test case for whether nuclear reactors can be built on time and without the endemic cost overruns that plagued power companies decades ago."This is an important and historic day at the NRC," NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko said.NRC staffers have decided that Southern Co.'s plan met federal safety requirements. The two-day hearing at the agency's headquarters in Maryland allows NRC commissioners the opportunity to quiz their staff and Southern Co. officials on the quality of the review. It's the first such hearing since the NRC changed its licensing process for nuclear plants in the late 1980s.
Jan Wyllie

NRC 'knowledge center' helps younger employees benefit from experts' experience [29Aug11] - 0 views

www.federaltimes.com/...108290301

shared by Jan Wyllie on 06 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last fall began identifying hundreds of employees with expertise it deems too valuable to lose.It captures that expertise by a variety of means — recorded presentations and interviews, collected documents — for posting on the online NRC Knowledge Center. Veteran employees also connect with staff through mentor programs, job shadowing and brown-bag lunches."The workforce today doesn't have the 30 years of experience in licensing and inspecting nuclear power plants," said Patricia Eng, NRC's senior adviser for knowledge management. "In 2009, 50 percent of the NRC staff had been with us for less than five years," which created a "huge training issue," she said.
  • . There are virtual communities of practice, based on profession and skill set, where members can post questions and answers, documents and videos that are permanently stored and available for view.
  • soon be able to subscribe to RSS feeds.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • They identified about 285 experts nearing retirement and others with few experienced workers to someday replace them in such fields as power plant construction inspection and fire protection."That information that is in short supply that is walking out the door, we call this high-risk, high-value knowledge," Hudson said.NRC estimates it loses 4,000 work years of experience every year through attrition and retirement.
  • "You can put in place the tools [and] infrastructure that allows rapid capture and transfer of knowledge, but what it really comes down to is organization culture," and agency leaders must support development of knowledge management initiatives, said Andre, now a senior vice president for intelligence business strategies at CACI.Leaders must not only say they value knowledge sharing or continuous learning, they must reward behaviors that reflect those values, Andre said.
D'coda Dcoda

The Dispatch Queue - An Alternative Means of Accounting for External Costs? [28Sep11] - 0 views

ansnuclearcafe.org/...-accounting-for-external-costs

alternatives legislation

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 05 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Without much going on recently that hasn’t been covered by other blog posts, I’d like to explore a topic not specifically tied to nuclear power or to activities currently going on in Washington, D.C. It involves an idea I have about a possible alternative means of having the electricity market account for the public health and environmental costs of various energy sources, and encouraging the development and use of cleaner sources (including nuclear) without requiring legislation. Given the failure of Congress to take action on global warming, as well as environmental issues in general, non-legislative approaches to accomplishing environmental goals may be necessary. The Problem
  • One may say that the best response would be to significantly tighten pollution regulations, perhaps to the point where no sources have significant external costs. There are problems with this approach, however, above and beyond the fact that the energy industry has (and will?) successfully blocked the legislation that would be required. Significant tightening of regulations raises issues such as how expensive compliance will be, and whether or not viable alternative (cleaner) sources would be available. The beauty of simply placing a cost (or tax) on pollution that reflects its costs to public health and the environment is that those issues need not be addressed. The market just decides between sources based on the true, overall cost of each, resulting in the minimum overall (economic + environmental) cost-generation portfolio
  • The above reasoning is what led to policies like cap-and-trade or a CO2 emissions tax being proposed as a solution for the global warming problem. This has not flown politically, however. Policies that attempt to have external costs included in the market cost of energy have been labeled a “tax increase.” This is particularly true given that the associated pollution taxes (or emissions credit costs) would have largely gone to the government.
  • ...15 more annotations...
  • Well, if we can’t tax pollution, how about encouraging the use of clean sources by giving them subsidies? This has proved to be more popular so far, but this idea has also recently run into trouble, given the current situation with the budget deficit and national debt. Events like the Solyndra bankruptcy have put government clean energy subsidies even more on the defensive. Thus, it seems that neither policies involving money flowing to the government nor policies involving money flowing from the government are politically viable at this point.
  • One final idea, which does not involve money going to or from government, is simply requiring that cleaner sources provide a certain fraction of our overall power generation. The many state Renewable Portfolio Standards (that do not include nuclear) and the Clean Energy Standard being considered by Congress and the Obama administration (which does include nuclear) are examples of this policy. While better than nothing, such policies are not ideal in that they are crude, and don’t involve a quantitative incentive based on real external costs. An energy source is either defined as “clean,” or it is not. Note that the definition of “clean” would be decided politically, as opposed to objectively based on tangible external costs determined by scientific studies (nuclear’s exclusion from state Renewable Portfolio Standards policies being one outrageous example). Finally, there is the fact that any such policy would require legislation.
  • All of the above begs the question whether there is a policy available that will encourage the use of cleaner energy sources that is revenue-neutral (i.e., does not involve money flowing to or from the government), does not involve the outright (political) selection of certain energy sources over others, and does not require legislation. Enter the Dispatch Queue
  • There must be enough power plants in a given region to meet the maximum load (or demand) expected to occur. In fact, total generation capacity must exceed maximum demand by a specified “reserve margin,” to address the possibility of a plant going offline, or other possible considerations. Due to the fact that demand varies significantly with time, a significant fraction of the generation capacity remains offline, some or most of the time. The dispatch queue is a means by which utilities, or independent regional grid operators, decide which power plants will operate in order to meet demand at any given instant. A good discussion of dispatch queues and how they operate can be found in this Department of Energy report.
  • The general goal of the methodology used to set the dispatch queue order is to minimize overall generation cost, while staying in compliance with all federal or state laws (environmental rules, etc.). This is done by placing the power plants with the lowest “variable” cost first in the queue. Plants with the highest “variable” cost are placed last. The “variable” cost of a plant represents how much more it costs to operate the plant than it costs to leave it idle (i.e., it includes the fuel cost and maintenance costs that arise from operation, but does not include the plant capital cost, personnel costs, or any fixed maintenance costs). Thus, one starts with the least expensive plants, and moves up (in cost) until generation meets demand. The remaining, more expensive plants are not fired up. This ensures that the lowest-operating-cost set of plants is used to meet demand at any given time
  • As far as who makes the decisions is concerned, in many cases the local utility itself runs the dispatch for its own service territory. In most of the United States, however, there is a large regional grid (covering several utilities) that is operated by an Independent System Operator (ISO) or Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), and those organizations, which are independent of the utilities, set the dispatch queue for the region. The Idea
  • As discussed above, a plant’s place in the dispatch queue is based upon variable cost, with the lowest variable cost plants being first in the queue. As discussed in the DOE report, all the dispatch queues in the country base the dispatch order almost entirely on variable cost, with the only possible exceptions being issues related to maximizing grid reliability. What if the plant dispatch methodology were revised so that environmental costs were also considered? Ideally, the public health and environmental costs would be objectively and scientifically determined and cast in terms of an equivalent economic cost (as has been done in many scientific studies such as the ExternE study referenced earlier). The calculated external cost would be added to a plant’s variable cost, and its place in the dispatch queue would be adjusted accordingly. The net effect would be that dirtier plants would be run much less often, resulting in greatly reduced pollution.
  • This could have a huge impact in the United States, especially at the current time. Currently, natural gas prices are so low that the variable costs of combine-cycle natural gas plants are not much higher than those of coal plants, even without considering environmental impacts. Also, there is a large amount of natural gas generation capacity sitting idle.
  • More specifically, if dispatch queue ordering methods were revised to even place a small (economic) weight on environmental costs, there would be a large switch from coal to gas generation, with coal plants (especially the older, dirtier ones) moving to the back of the dispatch queue, and only running very rarely (at times of very high demand). The specific idea of putting gas plants ahead of coal plants in the dispatch queue is being discussed by others.
  • The beauty of this idea is that it does not involve any type of tax or government subsidy. It is revenue neutral. Also, depending on the specifics of how it’s implemented, it can be quantitative in nature, with environmental costs of various power plants being objectively weighed, as opposed certain sources simply being chosen, by government/political fiat, over others. It also may not require legislation (see below). Finally, dispatch queues and their policies and methods are a rather arcane subject and are generally below the political radar (many folks haven’t even heard of them). Thus, this approach may allow the nation’s environmental goals to be (quietly) met without causing a political uproar. It could allow policy makers to do the right thing without paying too high of a political cost.
  • Questions/Issues The DOE report does mention some examples of dispatch queue methods factoring in issues other than just the variable cost. It is fairly common for issues of grid reliability to be considered. Also, compliance with federal or state environmental requirements can have some impacts. Examples of such laws include limits on the hours of operation for certain polluting facilities, or state requirements that a “renewable” facility generate a certain amount of power over the year. The report also discusses the possibility of favoring more fuel efficient gas plants over less efficient ones in the queue, even if using the less efficient plants at that moment would have cost less, in order to save natural gas. Thus, the report does discuss deviations from the pure cost model, to consider things like environmental impact and resource conservation.
  • I could not ascertain from the DOE report, however, what legal authorities govern the entities that make the plant dispatch decisions (i.e., the ISOs and RTOs), and what types of action would be required in order to change the dispatch methodology (e.g., whether legislation would be required). The DOE report was a study that was called for by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which implies that its conclusions would be considered in future congressional legislation. I could not tell from reading the report if the lowest cost (only) method of dispatch is actually enshrined somewhere in state or federal law. If so, the changes I’m proposing would require legislation, of course.
  • The DOE report states that in some regions the local utility runs the dispatch queue itself. In the case of the larger grids run by the ISOs and RTOs (which cover most of the country), the report implies that those entities are heavily influenced, if not governed, by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is part of the executive branch of the federal government. In the case of utility-run dispatch queues, it seems that nothing short of new regulations (on pollution limits, or direct guidance on dispatch queue ordering) would result in a change in dispatch policy. Whereas reducing cost and maximizing grid reliability would be directly in the utility’s interest, favoring cleaner generation sources in the queue would not, unless it is driven by regulations. Thus, in this case, legislation would probably be necessary, although it’s conceivable that the EPA could act (like it’s about to on CO2).
  • In the case of the large grids run by ISOs and RTOs, it’s possible that such a change in dispatch methodology could be made by the federal executive branch, if indeed the FERC has the power to mandate such a change
  • Effect on Nuclear With respect to the impacts of including environmental costs in plant dispatch order determination, I’ve mainly discussed the effects on gas vs. coal. Indeed, a switch from coal to gas would be the main impact of such a policy change. As for nuclear, as well as renewables, the direct/immediate impact would be minimal. That is because both nuclear and renewable sources have high capital costs but very low variable costs. They also have very low environmental impacts; much lower than those of coal or gas. Thus, they will remain at the front of the dispatch queue, ahead of both coal and gas.
D'coda Dcoda

Senate Appropriators on Nuclear Energy [16Sep11] - 0 views

www.aip.org/112.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 09 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee included extensive language in their FY 2012 committee report about nuclear energy.  They wrote of being “extremely concerned that the United States continues to accumulate spent fuel from nuclear reactors without a comprehensive plan to collect the fuel or dispose of it safely, and as a result faces a $15,400,000,000 liability by 2020,” called for the development of “consolidated regional storage facilities,” and mandated research on dry cask storage, advanced fuel cycle options, and disposal in geological media.  The appropriators provided no funding for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program or Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support.  In a separate section, they direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study on the lessons learned from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and discuss beyond design-basis events and mitigating impacts of earthquakes. Language from the committee report 112-75 follows, with page number references to the pdf version of this document.
  • Nuclear Energy The FY 2011 appropriation was $732.1 million The FY 2012 administration request was $754.0 million The FY 2012 House-passed bill provides $733.6 million, an increase of $1.5 million or 0.2 percent from the current budget. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill provides $583.8 million, a decline of $148.3 million or 20.3 percent.
  • (Page 80) “The events at the Fukushima-Daiichi facilities in Japan have resulted in a reexamination of our Nation’s policies regarding the safety of commercial reactors and the storage of spent nuclear fuel.  These efforts have been supported by appropriations in this bill, and the Committee provides funding for continuation and expansion of these activities.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • “While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely for at least 60 years in wet or dry cask storage beyond the licensed life of the reactor, the Committee has significant questions on this matter and is extremely concerned that the United States continues to accumulate spent fuel from nuclear reactors without a comprehensive plan to collect the fuel or dispose of it safely, and as a result faces a $15,400,000,000 liability by 2020. The Committee approved funding in prior years for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future [BRC], which was charged with examining our Nation’s policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommending a new plan. The BRC issued a draft report in July 2011 with recommendations, which is expected to be finalized in January 2012. The Committee directs prior existing funding, contingent on the renewal of its charter, to the BRC to develop a comprehensive revision to Federal statutes based on its recommendations, to submit to Congress for its consideration.
  • “The Committee directs the Department to develop and prepare to implement a strategy for the management of spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste within 3 months of publication of the final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future.  The strategy shall reduce long-term Federal liability associated with the Department’s failure to pick up spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors, and it should propose to store waste in a safe and responsible manner. The Committee notes that a sound Federal strategy will likely require one or more consolidated storage facilities with adequate capacity to be sited, licensed, and constructed in multiple regions, independent of the schedule for opening a repository. The Committee directs that the Department’s strategy include a plan to develop consolidated regional storage facilities in cooperation with host communities, as necessary, and propose any amendments to Federal statute necessary to implement the strategy.
  • “Although successfully disposing of spent nuclear fuel permanently is a long-term effort and will require statutory changes, the Committee supports taking near- and mid-term steps that can begin without new legislation and which provide value regardless of the ultimate policy the United States adopts. The Committee therefore includes funding for several of these steps in the Nuclear Energy Research and Development account, including the assessment of dry casks to establish a scientific basis for licensing; continued work on advanced fuel cycle options; research to assess disposal in different geological media; and the development of enhanced fuels and materials that are more resistant to damage in reactors or spent fuel pools.
  • “The Committee has provided more than $500,000,000 in prior years toward the Next Generation Nuclear Plant [NGNP] program.  Although the program has experienced some successes, particularly in the advanced research and development of TRISO [tristructural-isotropic] fuel, the Committee is frustrated with the lack of progress and failure to resolve the upfront cost-share issue to allocate the risk between industry and the Federal Government. Although the Committee has provided sufficient time for these issues to be resolved, the program has stalled. Recognizing funding constraints, the Committee cannot support continuing the program in its current form. The Committee provides no funding to continue the existing NGNP program, but rather allows the Department to continue high-value, priority research and development activities for high-temperature reactors, in cooperation with industry, that were included in the NGNP program.”
  • The report also contains extensive language regarding Nuclear Energy Research and Development: “Use of Prior Existing Balances. - If the Secretary renews the charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Department is directed to use $2,500,000 of prior existing balances appropriated to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to develop a comprehensive revision to Federal statutes based on its recommendations.  The recommendation should be provided to Congress not later than March 30, 2012 for consideration.
  • “Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies. - The Committee recommends $68,880,000 for Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies, including $24,300,000 for the Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation, $14,580,000 for the National Science User Facility at Idaho National Laboratory, and $30,000,000 for Crosscutting research.  The Committee does not recommend any funding for Transformative research. The Committee recommends that the Department focus the Energy Innovation Hub on the aspects of its mission that improve nuclear powerplant safety.
  • Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support. - The Committee provides no funding for Light Water Reactor Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support. “Reactor Concepts Research, Development, and Demonstration. - The Committee provides $31,870,000 for Reactor Concepts Research, Development and Demonstration. Of this funding, $21,870,000 is for Advanced Reactor Concepts activities. The Committee does not include funding for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Demonstration project. The Department may, within available funding, continue high-value, priority research and development activities for high-temperature reactor concepts, in cooperation with industry, that were conducted as part of the NGNP program.  The remaining funds, $10,000,000, are for research and development of the current fleet of operating reactors to determine how long they can safely operate.
  • “Fuel Cycle Research and Development. - The Committee recommends $187,917,000 for Fuel Cycle Research and Development.  Within available funds, the Committee provides $10,000,000 for the Department to expand the existing modeling and simulation capabilities at the national laboratories to assess issues related to the aging and safety of storing spent nuclear fuel in fuel pools and dry storage casks. The Committee includes $60,000,000 for Used Nuclear Fuel Disposition, and directs the Department to focus research and development activities on the following priorities: $10,000,000 for development and licensing of standardized transportation, aging, and disposition canisters and casks; $3,000,000 for development of models for potential partnerships to manage spent nuclear fuel and high level waste; and $7,000,000 for characterization of potential geologic repository media.
  • “The Committee provides funding for evaluation of standardized transportation, aging and disposition cask and canister design, cost, and safety characteristics, in order to enable the Department to determine those that should be used if the Federal Government begins transporting fuel from reactor sites, as it is legally obligated to do, and consolidating fuel. The Committee notes that the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future has, in its draft report, recommended the creation of consolidated interim storage facilities, for which the Federal Government will need casks and canisters to transport and store spent fuel.
  • D'coda Dcoda on 09 Oct 11
     
    too long to highlight all of it so see the rest on the site
D'coda Dcoda

Permitted Un-Safe Radiation levels allowed in Food [20Sep11] - 1 views

http://foodwatch.de/foodwatch/content/e36/e68/e42217/e44994/e45033/2011-09-20pressreleasefoodwatch_IPPNW_EN_ger.pdf Diigo won't highlight on pdf's, this one is important and concerns current level...

food and drink

started by D'coda Dcoda on 07 Oct 11 no follow-up yet
Dan R.D.

Sustainable ROI for an Empathetic Civilization [14Oct11] - 0 views

ciscocanada.wordpress.com/...for-an-empathetic-civilization

business economy value sustainability

shared by Dan R.D. on 17 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • SROI stands for Sustainable Return on Investment (p.65). “SROI determines the full value of a project by assigning monetary values to all costs and benefits—economic, social and environmental” says HDR Inc, a design and engineering firm that invented and perfected SROI.
D'coda Dcoda

We may be too late to evacuate [15Oct11] - 0 views

fukushima-diary.com/...we-may-be-too-late-to-evacuate

health population

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 16 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • In Chernobyl, 0.09 uSv/h → Children started having symptoms. (near radiation level as westen Tokyo) 0.16 uSv/h → Adults got leukemia within 5 years. (near radiation level as Adachiku) 0.232 uSv/h → Mandatory evacuation area in Cheronobyl. (near radiation level as Asakusa or Tokyo Disneyland) I received a lot of queries. I would like to add some more explanation to this. This is a lecture of Ms. Noro Mika, who runs the NPO “Bridge to Chernobyl”
  • She has been visiting Chernobyl for 25 years and help children to accept in Hokkaido for one month etc.. Currently, the radiation levels in some parts of Kanto area are 3 mSv/year. Annotator’s comment: According to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the numerical values announced by the local government prove only the emission of gamma rays. The iodine and the cesium decay while emitting beta rays. If we have to deal strictly with gamma rays emissions, the degree of contamination can be understood, but we can’t measure the level of individual external exposure. Besides, the numerical values detected at the monitoring posts are measured at 10m above the ground level or even more.
  • In Chernobyl, an area 30 km from the nuclear plant, where the radiation level was 0.232 μSv/hour, was declared “no-entry zone”. In Chernobyl, in area where radiation levels were daily even 0.16 μSv/hour have been admitted as being dangerous, and in fact, adults got leukemia and died. Annotator: In case, in Kamakura, were I live, the level is 0.16 μSv/hour. Concerning the gamma dose rate in a certain spots one meter above the ground level, the radiation levels declared officially for Kamakura city are generally between 0.11〜0.14 μSv/hour. Radioactivity, in case of of iron, concrete, etc causes the oxidation and corrosion, but in humans accelerates the aging process and cause them sickness.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • And the effects start appearing in 2~3 years. We didn’t understand from the beginning where the hot spots were. But after checking later the areas where a lot of children got sick, in Belarus probably the radioactive substances were easily carried by the wind because the flat level ground, but it became clear that in areas 20~30 km from the plant there were places contaminated about just as much as Chernobyl. Kamakura is about 300 kilos away from Fukushima in a straight line. Based on the results of the investigations made after the nuclear accident in Chernobyl, in Europe the fact of assuming that 800km from the nuclear plant might be contaminated has been made taken into consideration as a basic rule for safety.
  • In Chernobyl, because contaminated farm products were made served in school lunches, about 70% of the children suffered from various kinds of health damages. Those (health problems) were not limited to their generation, and when those children became parents their problems passed to their children too. Because radioactive substances have similarities with nutrients like calcium, the mammals will feed a lot of them to their babies. Radioactive substances get easily out of their bodies by milk – hence, there were many cases when after giving birth to their first baby, a large quantity of radioactive substances were passed to the (first born) child and the mother’s health improved, but those children had serious congenital disorders (became people with serious disabilities).
  • Annotator’s comment: Because I believe that breast-feeding has a tremendous influence not only on nutrition, but also on the mental aspect; that’s why I hope that the mothers who are breast-feeding their children pay strict attention also to the their level of internal exposure and evacuate as soon as possible. Because the danger of the radioactive substances is known well enough, the world is watching the way Japan is dealing with the situation. A country which abandons its children and doesn’t value their lives is not a country worthy of trust.
  • Besides, there is no country who would buy things from a country that loosens it’s standards. The gov and Tepco spread misinformation (misinform the population). They should think about requesting the farmers give up growing farming products which are contaminated, give them compensation, and provide them new and safe farmlands.
  • n case of Chernobyl, party members, doctors and a nurses, teachers could afford to evacuate, because they could keep sustaining themselves even if they moved, but the poor people could not afford to evacuate. The symptoms which appeared at children who remained were the following: Headache nosebleed diarrhea thyroid problems not growing taller hard to recover after catching a cold swelling of the lymphatic glands, easily get sick with pneumonia kidney pain renal cancer
  • [that I have a] (because while radioactivity leaves the body, the urinary tract is affected) pain in the back side of the knee arthralgia wounds that take a long time to cure asthma hair loss problems with their hair growing alteration in visual acuity poor appetite poor concentration fatigability/easily getting tired cardiac pain (cardialgia) low resistance to diseases. The school lessons were shortened to 25 minutes, and because their kidneys became week, there are primary school children who wet their beds.
  • Even after becoming adults, the following cases were recorded: increase of myocardial infarcts an increase in the nr of sudden deaths death of young people in their 30th Accumulation of cesium in heart – even if eliminate from their bodies it (cesium) enters the body again after eating being exempted from the military service for having small holes in their hearts Regarding their children, the following medical cases were recorded - Brain damage, proved by the fact that they were slow in eating their meals.
  • Mothers of many children who were different from the other normal children give them to adoption, even if they didn’t have renal surgery or health problems, or a handicap. This kind of things are happening. (Source) German Translation
D'coda Dcoda

Homes Near U.S. Nuclear Plants Face New Challenges [25Mar11] - 0 views

www.har.com/...ar-Plants-Face-New-Challenges-

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 29 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • The chilling images of a melting nuclear reactor in Japan is causing more buyers to take a closer look at how far their new home would be to a nuclear reactor. As such, sellers near towns with nuclear reactors may have a longer wait in finding a buyer and even see their home values drop, Reuters News reports. “I’d be shocked if this didn’t have a temporary negative effect on selling prices,” says David Clark, professor of economics at Marquette University, who has studied the impact of nuclear power plants on home values. Just how long-lasting the impact will depend on how bad the situation gets in Japan, Clark adds. 
  • Other experts say the impact to real estate values will be temporary and home owners near nuclear power plants shouldn’t be too worried. For example, home prices tumbled following the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant incident in Pennsylvania. However, prices stabilized a couple of years later, according to research studies. 
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.
D'coda Dcoda

Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants on Marine Radioactivity - Environmental S... - 0 views

pubs.acs.org/...es202816c

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 09 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • The impacts on the ocean of releases of radionuclides from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants remain unclear. However, information has been made public regarding the concentrations of radioactive isotopes of iodine and cesium in ocean water near the discharge point. These data allow us to draw some basic conclusions about the relative levels of radionuclides released which can be compared to prior ocean studies and be used to address dose consequences as discussed by Garnier-Laplace et al. in this journal.(1) The data show peak ocean discharges in early April, one month after the earthquake and a factor of 1000 decrease in the month following. Interestingly, the concentrations through the end of July remain higher than expected implying continued releases from the reactors or other contaminated sources, such as groundwater or coastal sediments. By July, levels of 137Cs are still more than 10 000 times higher than levels measured in 2010 in the coastal waters off Japan. Although some radionuclides are significantly elevated, dose calculations suggest minimal impact on marine biota or humans due to direct exposure in surrounding ocean waters, though considerations for biological uptake and consumption of seafood are discussed and further study is warranted.
  • there was no large explosive release of core reactor material, so most of the isotopes reported to have spread thus far via atmospheric fallout are primarily the radioactive gases plus fission products such as cesium, which are volatilized at the high temperatures in the reactor core, or during explosions and fires. However, some nonvolatile activation products and fuel rod materials may have been released when the corrosive brines and acidic waters used to cool the reactors interacted with the ruptured fuel rods, carrying radioactive materials into the ground and ocean. The full magnitude of the release has not been well documented, nor is there data on many of the possible isotopes released, but we do have significant information on the concentration of several isotopes of Cs and I in the ocean near the release point which have been publically available since shortly after the accident started.
  • We present a comparison of selected data made publicly available from a Japanese company and agencies and compare these to prior published radionuclide concentrations in the oceans. The primary sources included TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company), which reported data in regular press releases(3) and are compiled here (Supporting Information Table S1). These TEPCO data were obtained by initially sampling 500 mL surface ocean water from shore and direct counting on high-purity germanium gamma detectors for 15 min at laboratories at the Fukushima Dai-ni NPPs. They reported initially results for 131I (t1/2 = 8.02 days), 134Cs (t1/2 = 2.065 years) and 137Cs (t1/2 = 30.07 years). Data from MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology—Japan) were also released on a public Web site(4) and are based on similar direct counting methods. In general MEXT data were obtained by sampling 2000 mL seawater and direct counting on high-purity germanium gamma detectors for 1 h in a 2 L Marinelli beaker at laboratories in the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. The detection limit of 137Cs measurements are about 20 000 Bq m–3 for TEPCO data and 10 000 Bq m–3 for MEXT data, respectively. These measurements were conducted based on a guideline described by MEXT.(5) Both sources are considered reliable given the common activity ratios and prior studies and expertise evident by several Japanese groups involved in making these measurements. The purpose of these early monitoring activities was out of concern for immediate health effects, and thus were often reported relative to statutory limits adopted by Japanese authorities, and thus not in concentration units (reported as scaling factors above “normal”). Here we convert values from both sources to radionuclide activity units common to prior ocean studies of fallout in the ocean (Bq m–3) for ease of comparison to previously published data.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • We focus on the most complete time-series records from the north and south discharge channels at the Dai-ichi NPPs, and two sites to the south that were not considered sources, namely the north Discharge channels at the Dai-ni NPPs about 10 km to the south and Iwasawa beach which is 16 km south of the Dai-ichi NPPs (Figure 1). The levels at the discharge point are exceedingly high, with a peak 137Cs 68 million Bq m–3 on April 6 (Figure 2). What are significant are not just the elevated concentrations, but the timing of peak release approximately one month after to the earthquake. This delayed release is presumably due to the complicated pattern of discharge of seawater and fresh water used to cool the reactors and spent fuel rods, interactions with groundwater, and intentional and unintentional releases of mixed radioactive material from the reactor facility.
  • the concentrations of Cs in sediments and biota near the NPPs may be quite large, and will continue to remain so for at least 30–100 years due to the longer half-life of 137Cs which is still detected in marine and lake sediments from 1960s fallout sources.
  • If the source at Fukushima had stopped abruptly and ocean mixing processes continued at the same rates, one would have expected that the 137Cs activities would have decreased an additional factor of 1000 from May to June but that was not observed. The break in slope in early May implies that a steady, albeit lower, source of 137Cs continues to discharge to the oceans at least through the end of July at this site. With reports of highly contaminated cooling waters at the NPPs and complete melt through of at least one of the reactors, this is not surprising. As we have no reason to expect a change in mixing rates of the ocean which would also impact this dilution rate, this change in slope of 137Cs in early May is clear evidence that the Dai-ichi NPPs remain a significant source of contamination to the coastal waters off Japan. There is currently no data that allow us to distinguish between several possible sources of continued releases, but these most likely include some combination of direct releases from the reactors or storage tanks, or indirect releases from groundwater beneath the reactors or coastal sediments, both of which are likely contaminated from the period of maximum releases
  • It is prudent to point out though what is meant by “significant” to both ocean waters and marine biota. With respect to prior concentrations in the waters off Japan, all of these values are elevated many orders of magnitude. 137Cs has been tracked quite extensively off Japan since the peak weapons testing fallout years in the early 1960s.(13) Levels in the region east of Japan have decreased from a few 10s of Bq m–3 in 1960 to 1.5 Bq m–3 on average in 2010 (Figure 2; second x-axis). The decrease in 137Cs over this 50 year record reflects both radioactive decay of 137Cs with a 30 year half-life and continued mixing in the global ocean of 137Cs to depth. These data are characteristic of other global water masses.(14) Typical ocean surface 137Cs activities range from <1 Bq m–3 in surface waters in the Southern Hemisphere, which are lower due to lower weapons testing inputs south of the equator, to >10–100 Bq m–3 in the Irish Sea, North Sea, Black Sea, and Baltic Seas, which are elevated due to local sources from the intentional discharges at the nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities at Sellafield in the UK and Cape de la Hague in France, as well as residual 137Cs from Chernobyl in the Baltic and Black Seas. Clearly then on this scale of significance, levels of 137Cs 30 km off Japan were some 3–4 orders of magnitude higher than existed prior to the NPP accidents at Fukushima.
  • Finally though, while the Dai-ichi NPP releases must be considered “significant” relative to prior sources off Japan, we should not assume that dose effects on humans or marine biota are necessarily harmful or even will be measurable. Garnier-Laplace et al.(1) report a dose reconstruction signal for the most impacted areas to wildlife on land and in the ocean. Like this study, they are relying on reported activities to calculate forest biota concentrations,
  • D'coda Dcoda on 09 Dec 11
     
    From Wood's Hole, note that calculations are based on reports from TEPCO & other Japanese agencies. Quite a bit more to read on the site.
D'coda Dcoda

Mainichi: Radiation detected in drinking water from underground source - Over 15 miles ... - 0 views

enenews.com/miles-from-fukushima-meltdowns

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 27 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Water underground is contaminated, Fukushima Diary, Dec. 26, 2011: Ministry of the Environment measured cesium from well water at 4 locations in Minamisoma [25 km north of Fukushima plant]. It was about 1.3~14.7 Bq/kg, it was for drinking. The samples were taken in October and November. [...]
  • Babelfish Translation result for http://mainichi.jp/select/weathernews/news/20111227k0000m040028000c.html Headline: Fukushima 1st nuclear plant: From well water 4 places of cesium detection south Soma Source: Mainichi.jp Date: Dec. 26, 2011
  • t announced that the environmental ministry on the 26th, inspected the density of the well underwater radioactive cesium of drinking which in emergency evacuation preparation area (in 9 ends of the month cancellation) inside Fukushima prefecture
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • detected the small quantity at 4 places of south Soma city. Being maximum, water 1 liter (kilometer) to hit and but with 14.7 Becquerel, below provisional regulation value (1 kilo- hit, 200 Becquerel) of the public welfare Ministry of Labor, the new reference level (same 10 Becquerel) which aims April toward of next year enforcement was exceeded at 3 places. To investigate at 1317 places of the same city and Hirono Cho and Naraha Cho 10, in November, as for the other self-governing community and the like of the same area in the midst of continuation. At 1 places of the same Ku Kitahara as 2 places of south Soma Ichihara Cho Ku Kita Nagano, per 1 liters 11.4~14.7 Becquerel, 1.3 Becquerel were detected with the same Ku 萱 beach. As for detection lower limit value with 5 Becquerel, as for the other well it was non- detection. According to the environmental ministry you say that there is a possibility the earth near the cesium is attached blending. The well with private possession, has informed about the result, almost there is no possibility many people drinking.
D'coda Dcoda

NTI: Global Security Newswire - Senior U.S. Official Denies Talk of Foreign Nuclear Was... - 0 views

www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/...nw_20110930_6350.php

waste disposal public opinion

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 05 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • A senior U.S. Energy Department official on Wednesday disputed reports that the Obama administration has sought Mongolian support for construction of a storage site for international spent nuclear fuel in the Central Asian nation (see GSN, March 30).
  • The assertion -- made by a high-ranking official who asked not to be named in addressing a diplomatically sensitive issue -- directly countered remarks offered last spring by a veteran State Department official who leads U.S. nuclear trade pact negotiations. The diplomat, Richard Stratford, told a Washington audience in March that Energy Department leaders had made initial contacts with their counterparts in Ulaanbaatar about potential cooperation on a range of nuclear fuel services that Mongolia would like to develop for international buyers.
  • Among the possible features of a joint project, Stratford said, could be the creation of a repository for U.S.-origin fuel that has been used by Washington's partners in the region, potentially including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. If brought to fruition, the proposal would be "a very positive step forward," he said at the time, because no nation around the globe thus far has successfully built a long-term storage facility for dangerous nuclear waste. The Obama administration in 2009 shuttered plans for a U.S. storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada -- which would have been the world's only permanent repository -- after prolonged debate over potential environmental and health hazards (see GSN, Sept. 13).
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • n an interview this week with Global Security Newswire, the high-level Energy Department official said that discussions have focused on an array of potential nuclear energy market roles for Mongolia, from mining its substantial uranium reserves to fabricating fuel and more. However, the unofficial talks have not broached the idea of Mongolia becoming a recipient of foreign-origin spent fuel, the senior figure said. "I never thought about U.S. spent fuel. Never," the Energy official said. "I never even thought about it, much less discussed it." The Obama administration generally supports the idea of creating international operations for waste storage and other fuel-cycle functions that might help stem global nuclear proliferation, but "what the Mongolian government and the Mongolian people end up deciding they want to do is completely their decision and I would not dream of imposing our views on that," the senior official said. "There's no discussion of an international spent-fuel repository," added a second Energy Department official who participated in the same interview. "What has been included as part of the comprehensive fuel services discussions are potential long-term storage of Mongolian-origin used fuel that has Mongolian uranium [in it]."
  • Adding Value An evolving concept of nuclear fuel "leasing" would have the Mongolians build on their existing uranium ore resources to ultimately provide reactor-ready fuel to foreign nations and, additionally, stand ready to take back used uranium fuel rods once they are depleted, according to reports. The idea, said the more junior Energy official, is that Mongolia could "potentially add long-term storage as part of the value of that uranium resource to potential buyers." Even if foreign-origin spent fuel cannot be stored in Mongolia, the nation's talks with its international partners might yet allow for U.S., Japanese or other companies to build facilities in the Central Asian nation to produce Mongolian fuel for sale abroad, which could later be returned to Ulaanbaatar for storage after it is used.
D'coda Dcoda

Short-Termism and Energy Revolutions [30Sep11] - 0 views

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/...termism-and-energy-revolutions

policy formulation

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 07 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • The calls these days for a technological “energy revolution” are widespread. But how do you spark breakthroughs when the natural bias of businesses, investors and governments is toward the here and now? In governance, politics creates a bias toward the short term. This is why bridges sometimes fall down for lack of maintenance. That’s also why it’s so hard to sustain public investment in the research and intellectual infrastructure required to make progress on the frontiers of chemistry, biology and physics, even though it is this kind of work that could produce leaps in how we harvest, harness, store and move energy. (This is why I asked, “Are Chemists and Engineers on the Green Jobs List?” back in 2008.)
  • To get the idea, you only have to look at the sputtering state of President Obama’s mostly unfunded innovation hubs, or look once again at the energy sliver in the graph showing America’s half-century history of public investment in basic scientific research. (There’s not much difference in research patterns in most other industrialized countries.) You can also look at the first Quadrennial Technology Review produced by the Department of Energy (summarized by Climate Progress earlier this week). The review was conducted after the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology wisely recommended regular reviews of this sort as part of its prescription for accelerating change in energy technologies.
  • This excerpt from the new review articulates the tension pretty transparently for a government report: There is a tension between supporting work that industry doesn’t— which biases the department’s portfolio toward the long term—and the urgency of the nation’s energy challenges. The appropriate balance requires the department to focus on accelerating innovation relevant to today’s energy technologies, since such evolutionary advances are more likely to have near- to mid-term impact on the nation’s challenges. We found that too much effort in the department is devoted to research on technologies that are multiple generations away from practical use at the expense of analyses, modeling and simulation, or other highly relevant fundamental engineering research activities that could influence the private sector in the nearer term.
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • In finding that balance, I’m not sure it’s possible to overcome the political pressures tugging agencies and officials to stress refinement and deployment of known and maturing technologies (even though that’s where industry and private investors are most focused).
  • On the left, the pressure is for resources to deploy today’s “green” technology. On the right, as illustrated in a Heritage Foundation report on ways to cut President Obama’s budget for the Energy Department, the philosophy seems to be to discourage all government spending on basic inquiry related to energy.
  • According to Heritage, science “in service of a critical national interest that is not being met by the private sector” is fine if that interest is national defense, but not fine if it’s finding secure and sustainable (environmentally and economically) sources of energy.
  • I solicited reactions to the Energy Department review from a variety of technology and innovation analysts. The first to weigh in are Daniel M. Kammen, an energy technology researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, who is on leave working for the World Bank, and Robert D Atkinson, the founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Here’s Kammen: The idea of a regular review and status report on both energy innovation and deployment spending is a good one. Some of the findings in the QTR review are useful, although little is new. Overall, though, this is a useful exercise, and one that should be a requirement from any major programmatic effort.
  • he real need in the R&D sector is continuity and matching an increasing portfolio of strategic research with market expansion. My former student and colleague Greg Nemet have written consistently on this: - U.S. energy research and development: Declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion - Reversing the Incredible Shrinking Energy R&D Budget
  • Perhaps the biggest worry in this report, however, is the missing logic and value of a ’shift to near term priorities in energy efficiency and in electric vehicles.’ This may be a useful deployment of some resources, but a range of questions are simply never addressed. Among the questions that need firmer answers are:
  • There are some very curious omissions from the report, such as more detail on the need to both generate and report on jobs created in this sector — a political ‘must’ these days (see, e.g., the “green jobs” review by the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at Berkeley) — and straightforward comparisons in the way of ‘report cards’ on how the US is stacking up relative to other key players (e.g. China, Germany…).
  • given the state-by-state laboratories we already have of differing approaches to energy efficiency, the logic of spending in this area remains to be proven (as much as we all rightly love and value and benefit from energy efficiency).
  • Near-term electric vehicle deployment. A similar story could be told here. As the director of the University of California at Berkeley’s Transportation Sustainability Research Center (http://tsrc.berkeley.edu) I am huge believer in electric vehicles [EVs]. However, the review does not make clear what advances in this area are already supported through [the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy], and what areas of near-term research are also not best driven though regulation, such as low-carbon fuel standards, R&D tax credits, ‘feebates’ that transfer funds from those individuals who purchase inefficient vehicles to those who purchase efficient ones. Similar to the story in energy efficiency, we do have already an important set of state-by-state experiments that have been in place for some time, and these warrant an assessment of how much innovation they have driven, and which ones do and do not have an application in scale-up at the federal level.
  • Finally, the electric vehicle landscape is already very rich in terms of plans for deployment by automakers. What are the barriers five-plus years out that the companies see research-versus-deployment and market-expansion support as the most effective way to drive change in the industry? Where will this focus put the U.S. industry relative to China?
  • Following record levels funding made available to the energy industry through the [stimulus package of spending], what are the clearly identified market failures that exist in this area that added funding will solve? Funding is always welcome, but energy efficiency in particular, can be strongly driven by regulation and standards, and because good energy efficiency innovations have such rapid payback times, would regulatory approaches, or state-federal partnerships in regulation and incentives not accomplish a great deal of what can be done in this area? Congressman Holt raises a number of key questions on related issues, while pointing to some very hopeful experiences, notably in the Apollo program, in his 16 September editorial in Science.
  • Here’s Robert Atkinson: If DOE is shifting toward a more short-term focus, this is quite disturbing.  It would mean that DOE has given up on addressing the challenge of climate change and instead is just focused on the near term goal of reducing oil imports and modestly reducing the expansion the coal fired power plants. If DOE thinks it is still focused on climate change, do they think they are fighting “American warming”?
  • If so, cutting the growth of our emissions make sense.  But its global warming and solving this means supporting the development of scalable, cheap low or no-carbon energy so that every country, rich and poor, will have an economic incentive to transitioning to cheap energy.  Increasing building efficiency, modernizing the electric grid, alternative hydrocarbon fuels, and increasing vehicle efficiency do virtually nothing to meet this goal. They are “American warming” solutions.
  • This is also troubling because (as you point out) who else is going to invest in the long-term, more fundamental, high risk, breakthrough research than the U.S. government.  It certainly won’t be VCs. And it won’t be the Chinese who are principally interested in cutting their energy imports and exporting current generation clean energy, not developing technology to save the planet.  Of course all the folks out there who have been pushing the mistaken view that we have all the clean technologies we need, will hail this as the right direction.  But it’s doing what the rest of the market has been doing in recent years – shifting from high risk, long-term research to short-term, low risk.  If the federal government is doing this it is troubling to say the least.
  • or those seeking more, here are the slides used by Steven Koonin, the physicist and former BP scientist who now is under secretary for science at the department, in presenting the review earlier this week:
  • Rolling Out the Quadrennial Technology Review Report
D'coda Dcoda

UCS Nuclear Power Safety & Security Recommendations | Union of Concerned Scientists [14... - 0 views

www.ucsusa.org/...ar-safety-recommendations.html

safety security

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 29 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Download: U.S. Nuclear Power after Fukushima | U.S. Nuclear Power after Fukushima -- Summary
  • The report outlines and explains 23 specific recommendations, listed below.   = Key recommendation that the NRC should make a top priority. Preventing and Mitigating the Effects of Severe Accidents Extend the scope of regulations to include the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents. Require reactor owners to develop and test emergency procedures for situations when no AC or DC power is available for an extended period. Modify emergency planning requirements to ensure that everyone at significant risk from a severe accident--not just the people within the arbitrary 10-mile planning zone--is protected.
  • Improving the Safety and Security of Spent Fuel The NRC should require plant owners to move spent fuel at reactor sites from storage pools to dry casks when it has cooled enough to do so. The NRC should require reactor owners to improve the security of existing dry cask storage facilities. The NRC should require plant owners to significantly improve emergency procedures and operator training for spent fuel pool accidents Making Existing Reactors Safer The NRC should enforce its fire protection regulations and compel the owners of more than three dozen reactors to comply with regulations they currently violate.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Making Existing Reactors More Secure against Terrorist Attacks The NRC should revise its assumptions about terrorists' capabilities to ensure nuclear plants are adequately protected against credible threats, and these assumptions should be reviewed by U.S. intelligence agencies. The NRC should modify the way it judges force-on-force security exercises by assessing a plant's "margin to failure," rather than whether the plant merely passes or fails. The U.S. government should establish a program for licensing private security guards that would require successful completion of a federally supervised training course and periodic recertification. Making New Reactors More Secure against Terrrorist Attacks The NRC should require new reactor designs to be safer than existing reactors. The NRC should require new reactor designs to be more secure against land- and water-based terrorist attacks.
  • Improving the NRC's Cost-Benefit and Risk-Informed Analyses The NRC should increase the value it assigns to a human life in its cost-benefit analyses so the value is consistent with other government agencies. The NRC should require plant owners to calculcate the risk of fuel damage in spent fuel pools as well as reactor cores in all safety analyses. The NRC should not make decisions about reactor safety using probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) until it has corrected its flawed application of this tool. Ensuring Public Participation The NRC should fully restore the public's right to obtain information and question witnesses in hearings about changes to existing power plant licenses and applications for new licenses.
D'coda Dcoda

Uranium Deals Prove Most Lucrative as Nuclear Demand Increases: Real M&A [25Oct11] - 0 views

www.bloomberg.com/...n-nuclear-demand-real-m-a.html

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 26 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Uranium takeovers are offering investors the biggest potential payoffs, less than a year after the partial meltdown of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant. Hathor Exploration Ltd. (HAT), the owner of a uranium deposit in northern Saskatchewan, yesterday traded 8.4 percent above a bid from Rio Tinto Group that topped an offer from Cameco Corp. (CCO) That signals investors are now betting Hathor will extract the biggest price hike of any pending North American deal greater than $500 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Kalahari Minerals Plc (KAH), which resumed talks with China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group after a takeover was derailed by Japan’s disaster, would now hand shareholders a higher return than the pre-Fukushima agreement, even with a 5 percent lower offer.
  • Hathor slipped 0.2 percent to C$4.49 in Toronto today, while Cameco fell 0.2 percent to C$20.88. Rio Tinto retreated 2.1 percent to 3,302.5 pence in London. Cameco, the world’s biggest uranium producer, took its takeover offer for Hathor directly to shareholders after the companies couldn’t agree on a price. The proposal would give Hathor’s shareholders C$3.75 a share in cash, valuing the uranium explorer at C$520 million ($530 million), according to the Aug. 26 statement.
  • After investors pushed the stock as much as 12 percent above Cameco’s offer, Rio Tinto, the world’s second-largest mining company, trumped the proposal last week. Rio Tinto’s bid valued Hathor at C$4.15 a share in cash, or C$578 million, according to the Oct. 19 statement.
D'coda Dcoda

Cesium measured from Tofu in Aichi, Mid Japan - 0 views

fukushima-diary.com/...d-from-tofu-in-aichi-mid-japan

tofu japan

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 20 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Food is produced in contaminated areas and consumed in less contaminated places. Cesium was measured from Tofu. The Tofu was purchased at a supermarket chain, Max Valu in Aichi prefecture. (446km from Fukushima plant) It’s made of soybean from south part of Iwate prefecture. Iwate is in the disaster area of 311, about 220 km from Fukushima plant.
D'coda Dcoda

EPA Rigged RADNET Japan Nuclear Radiation Monitoring Equipment [19May11] - 0 views

blog.alexanderhiggins.com/...t-levels-nuclear-fallout-22823

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 16 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • The EPA re-calibrated (rigged) Japan nuclear radiation monitoring equipment causing them to report lower levels of radioactive fallout after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown than what was detected before the disaster. I recently programmed an application to pull all of the EPA radiation monitoring graphs for all major US cities and complied them into an easy to use web interface. Of course we took the data being reported with a grain of salt under the suspicion that the Feds were fiddling with the results. Now, an investigative report looking into why the much of the EPA radiation monitoring equipment was offline when the Fukushima nuclear meltdown occurred reveals that EPA has in fact rigged radiation monitoring equipment to report lower values of radiation.
  • RadNet – the EPA’s front-line, radiological detection network is severely flawed and suffers from maintenance and reliability issues. The lack of consistent data and the number of units offline (a techie term for broken) at the time they were most needed shows that the EPA was not prepared for this emergency. Besides that fact the broken system left us all unprotected; the confusion, apprehension and fear witnessed as people try to wade through the incomplete and inaccurate data online is evidenced by an exchange on the UC Berkely website over this RadNet graph:
  • The graph shows that this monitoring station was one of the units actually running on  3/11 . The readings were significantly higher prior to 3/11 and drop to a much lower level  afterwards. This is an indication that the units were running in an uncalibrated condition and were adjusted only after the events at Fukushima. Who is responsible for assuring that the system is up and running?  The EPA contracted this responsibility to a private company, Environmental Dimensions, Inc.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Environmental Dimensions, Inc (EDI) has provided maintenance for EPA’s RadNet monitoring systems under a sole source contract which can be viewed at the end of this article. The base amount of the contract is $238,000.00. This does not include materials and travel, which is billed back to the government as needed. The contract was awarded to what is stated as a “Woman-owned 8(a) Small Disadvantaged Business“.  The disadvantaged woman in this case is EDI company president Patricia S. Bradshaw, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense appointed by George Bush.
  • In reality, the US has seen an increase in radiation levels as evidenced by several nuclear fallout simulations, along with spikes in radiation in the drinking water, rainwater, milk, and food. In fact, the graph above is not the only graph that is suspect either. Here are some more of the EPA RADNET radiation graphs that show drops in radiation levels, after the Fukushima meltdown, which should have shown increases. Keep in mind, some clearly show spikes after the event but there is still a significant drop in the baseline levels of radiation. Other graphs show an unexplained drop-offs in radiation levels some time after the quake.
D'coda Dcoda

Cesium from Fukushima plant fell all over Japan [26Nov11] - 0 views

ajw.asahi.com/...AJ201111260001

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 27 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • Radioactive substances from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant have now been confirmed in all prefectures, including Uruma, Okinawa Prefecture, about 1,700 kilometers from the plant, according to the science ministry. The ministry said it concluded the radioactive substances came from the stricken nuclear plant because, in all cases, they contained cesium-134, which has short half-life of two years. Before the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake, radioactive substance were barely detectable in most areas.
  • the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's survey results released on Nov. 25 showed that fallout from the Fukushima plant has spread across Japan. The survey covered the cumulative densities of radioactive substances in dust that fell into receptacles during the four months from March through June. Figures were not available for Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures, where the measurement equipment was rendered inoperable by the March 11 disaster. One measurement station was used for each of the other 45 prefectures. The highest combined cumulative density of radioactive cesium-134 and cesium-137 was found in Hitachinaka, Ibaraki Prefecture, at 40,801 becquerels per square meter. That was followed by 22,570 becquerels per square meter in Yamagata, the capital of Yamagata Prefecture, and 17,354 becquerels per square meter in Tokyo's Shinjuku Ward.
  • The current air radiation level in Ibaraki Prefecture is about 0.14 microsievert per hour, equivalent to an annual dose of about 1 millisievert, the safety limit for exposure under normal time international standards. Large amounts of radioactive dust fell in Tokyo, but a separate survey has detected relatively low accumulations of cesium in the soil. "Tokyo has smaller soil surfaces than other prefectures, but road and concrete surfaces are less prone to fixate cesium deposits, which were probably diffused by the wind and rain," a ministry official explained.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The fallout densities were considerably lower in the Chugoku and Kyushu regions in western Japan. The smallest figure of 0.378 becquerel per square meter came from Uto, Kumamoto Prefecture. The density in Osaka was 18.9 becquerels per square meter. The peak value in Ibaraki Prefecture was 970,000 times larger than the cumulative fallout density of 0.042 becquerel per square meter in fiscal 2009, found in an earlier nationwide survey before the Fukushima crisis started.
  • Also on Nov. 25, the science ministry released maps of aerially measured radioactive cesium from the Fukushima plant that accumulated in Aomori, Ishikawa, Fukui and Aichi prefectures. This was the final batch of the 22 prefectures in eastern Japan where mapping was to be completed by the end of this year. Nowhere in the four prefectures did the accumulations exceed 10,000 becquerels per square meter, the threshold for defining an area as being affected by the nuclear accident. This reconfirmed the science ministry's view that radioactive plumes wafted only as far west as the border of Gunma and Nagano prefectures and as far north as the border of Miyagi and Iwate prefectures, ministry officials said.
1 - 20 of 58 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page