Tilting at Windmills? Not in my backyard.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/11/business/wind.php

“It just makes sense,” said Mercurio, who is 61 and runs a company selling and installing windmills. “This is a clean, renewable source of energy.”

Some of his neighbors say it is also annoying. They say it is too big. They say it is too noisy. And some residents in this middle-class borough have gone to court to try to make him take it down, while the township has halted it since winter, setting up a collision between the ideals of alternative energy and the suburban reality of a notorious not-in-my-backyard culture.

Well, there you go. Would the neighbours prefer he built a coal burner in the backyard?

Personally, the best solution for everyone would probably be, hypothetically, if we went built something like, lets say, an Adams Engine in the backyard.

Not as much of an eyesore, just like any other large garage, and it could perhaps supply the whole neighbourhood’s electricity, depending on how big it is! The neighbours have got to be a clear winner here!

Life-cycle analysis of energy intensity and greenhouse gas intensty of nuclear energy.

This is a very, very comprehensive and useful work – and especially good literature review – of Whole-of-Life-Cycle analysis of the energy intensity and greenhouse gas intensity of nuclear energy.

There’s one key point that stands out specifically, again and again when reading it.

We’ve come to the same conclusion before, and most of you reading this blog probably know exactly what I’m talking about, but let’s just spell it out:

Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith are WRONG.

“Dirty bombs”

We’ve heard a lot in the media over the last week or so about the radiological “dirty bomb”, following the GAO’s “sting” of the US NRC’s licensing procedures for users of industrial radioactive sources.

The potent, destructive element at the heart of a radiological bomb is not simply a radionuclide.

The potent, destructive force harnessed in the use of a radiological bomb as a weapon of terror is none less than the all-too-familiar Nuclear Boogeyman itself. The fear, ignorance and anxiety which surrounds radioactivity and nuclear technology.

A dirty bomb harnesses pure, concentrated “Nuclear Boogeyman”, and builds it into a weapon of terror, creating one of the most extraordinarily potent weapons of terror conceivable.

For terrorists to create widespread fear and terror, nobody nessecarily needs to be killed or injured at all. The radiological bomb is perhaps, potentially, the exemplar of this idea.

As soon as there’s a hint of terrorism, as soon as there’s a hint of artificial radioactivity, the terror of the Terrorist Boogeyman and the terror of the Nuke Boogeyman will multiply synergistically.

The very idea of terrorism scares the shit out of people, in a way completely out of proportion to any actual quantifiable threat which they may face. This remarkable phenomenon is unique, and is not shared by any known phenomenon you may care to think of. Except for radioactivity.

One millirem, ten millirems, ten Bananas CEDE, it doesn’t matter.

Simply being able to detect and quantify any kind of artificial radioisotope proves, in the public conciousness, that that’s it, there’s deadly radioactivity there, and we’re all going to die.

Consider the Three Mile Island incident. People had the absolute shit scared out of them, over what? 8-10 millirems on average, if I recall correctly.

If we ever see a radiological dispersion device used in an act of terrorism, I think that the result we’ll see will be similar to TMI. Widespread fear and anxiety, with no radiation dose that will actually hurt people.

Here’s an Australian news outlet’s headline: Fake firm sold nuclear bomb material in sting.

Yes, they said nuclear bomb material.

When a Am/Be sealed neutron source used by Halliburton in oil well instrumentation was lost in Nigeria in 2003, here’s what Fox spun it into when they found out:

“The fact that a load of weapons grade plutonium has disappeared from Nigeria should send a signal to all Americans that a nuclear device could be planted here. It is possible. And those with the mindset to do that have to be confronted…But you will not refute. You cannot refute, and neither can anyone else, that we have plutonium missing in Nigeria, we have two rogue governments, North Korea and Iraq, who are certainly capable of aiding and abetting people who will plant an atomic device, a nuclear device in a city in this country.”

Astonishing, isn’t it? The level of ignorance, mistruth and bullshit is simply astonishing.

Now, the radioactive devices in question here are the nuclear moisture/density gauges often employed in civil engineering, made famous by Troxler Laboratories.

Let’s say that our hypothetical terrorist company has just purchased 50 gauges, which they’re licensed for.

These instruments contain two radioactive sealed sources, usually, 8 mCi of Cs-137, and a 40 mCi Am-241/Be neutron source.

Even if 50 of these Cs-137 sources were collected, and dismantled, with the source material (Often Cs-137 Chloride, as far as I’m aware) formed into a dispersible form, that’s 400 mCi of activity, total.

That should be compared to the 1.375 kilocuries of the Cs-137 source involved in the Guiana accident, which is often used as an example of the potential threat of a radiological weapon.

Given a known quantity of a known radioisotope in a known form, with an explosive dispersal charge, the actual degree of dose and the degree of radiological contamination can be quantitatively assessed. Such studies have been performed by various governmental security agencies. I don’t have any examples of those studies in front of me, but perhaps a kind reader will provide a link to remind me?

Rod over at Atomic Insights has got a brilliant post up talking about dirty bombs, what the real risks are, and how people can protect themselves from the real potential risk.

Knowledge is the most effective tool available in the fight against terrorism. That’s absolutely right.

Some comic relief

This is quite possibly the single most stupid thing i’ve ever seen:

Sit down, and suspend your disbelief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDd0_uYUnCc

Do these people make any coherent, sensible point, what so ever? There’s no actual argument that I can see, at all.

The “They make it look so beautiful” bit cracks me up.

Sure, Cherenkov radiation is beautiful, but we didn’t make it that way.

You can’t blame nuclear energy for the physical characteristics of nature not being set up the way you like them.

The latest news in dangerous fossil fuels

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22156294-23109,00.html

SEVENTY Chinese miners were trapped yesterday after a coal mine flooded in central Henan province, the state Xinhua news agency reported, saying rescue efforts were under way.

The miners were working at the Zhijian coal mine in Shanxian county, about 200km west of the provincial capital Zhengzhou, when they were trapped, a county official told Xinhua.

The mine, built in 1958, is state-owned.

China’s mines are considered the most dangerous in the world. More than 4700 workers were killed last year, according to official figures, although independent labour groups put deaths at up to 20,000 annually.

Of course, comparing China’s coal industry to the Western world’s is like comparing Chernobyl to an AP1000. So I won’t make that comparison.

But still, in this day and age, people don’t need to be dying in this way. It really is a tragedy.

Will Australia become “the world’s nuclear waste dump”?

This sort of thing keeps getting raised, as a potential future for nuclear energy in Australia is discussed, particularly in the context of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Whilst there might be commercial opportunities for Australia in storing waste from other nations in a geological repository here, and I believe that there’s nothing unsafe about it, I really don’t think we have any obligation to do so.

Of course, all the discussion to date saying that we’re going to end up serving as the “world’s nuclear waste dump” is little more than conspiracy theory.

Saying Australia has some sort of obligation to take back radioactive waste or irradiated fuel because we’re a Uranium exporter is kind of like asking, say, Saudi Arabia to plant a whole load of trees, or build a massive carbon dioxide geosequestration facility, to deal with the dangerous waste from their exported fossil fuels, isn’t it?

Every nation using nuclear energy has understood, from the outset, that they’re responsible for dealing with the waste themselves.

Howard has said it’s not going to happen, Switkowski has said he doesn’t see any reason to support it, and I think the majority of the pro-nuclear-energy community don’t see any extremely compelling reason for it to happen.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, other than the fact that it’s a political and a public relations disaster, but at this point in time, I see no need and certainly no obligation whatsoever for it to happen.

The real potential for nuclear energy in GHG abatement

We often hear from the anti-nuclear crowd that nuclear energy just isn’t practically able to put a significant dent in worldwide GHG emissions fast enough over the immediate future, and this excuse for interest in nuclear energy is worthless.

Let’s see if we can quantitatively find out if this is true.

The basic outline of these numbers is taken from here, but I’ve reworked it.

The Carbon dioxide emissions profile from coal ranges from 0.97 kg to 1.3 kg CO2e/kWhe, Nuclear power ranges from 9 to 21 g/kWh.

How many nuclear power plants are needed to reduce ultimate atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases by 1 part per million?

If there is a positive feedback loop – warming soils releasing carbon dioxide and methane, plants growing in dryer soils and warmer oceans holding less carbon – then GHG we add today will produce more tomorrow. But for now, assume no feedback loop exists. Pouring 2.1 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere raises GHG concentrations by 1 ppm.

At this point, we can assume every ppm saved counts, as it reduces the amount of damage we do the Earth.

Considering a 1GW nuclear plant, the plant lasts 60 years, and has a 90% capacity factor, then the plant will produce 1GW * 24 hours/day * 365 day/year * 60 years * 90% = 526 billion kWh, and produce 7.89 million tons of CO2, assuming 15g/kWh.

Each kWh from coal puts 1 kg of CO2e into the atmosphere.

526 billion kWh * 1 kg CO2e/kWh * 3/11 = 140 million tonnes Ce.

The factor of 3/11 gives the mass in tonnes Ce.
2.1 billion tonnes Ce/(140 million tonnes Ce/plant – 2.15 million tonnes Ce/plant) = 15,234 MW of nuclear power, to get a 1 ppm abatement.Building 10 large 1500MW nuclear power plants will give us a 1 ppm reduction in CO2 emissions versus burning coal.

And, like it or not, that’s what the alternative has always been in the past, and that’s what the alternative will continue to be in the foreseeable future. Burning coal. That’s what we’re doing right now, and that’s what has got to be stopped.
If we start 15,000 MW in nuclear power every year for the next 20 years, these power plants will potentially reduce atmospheric GHG concentrations by 20 ppm. If these take an average of 4 – 5 years to build, at least 60 GW will be under construction every year.
In the late 1970s and early 80s, 150 GW was under construction. This was the peak of the earlier construction period, when plant construction was much slower than it would be today.

Not only were new designs being worked out, but a new regulatory system as well. Add in a few nuisance lawsuits here and there. Nevertheless, the construction rate was 4 – 5 times what it would need to be to reduce GHG concentrations by 20 ppm through projects started over the next 20 years.

Perhaps in 25 years it will become obvious that solar, etc will be able to supply electricity needs and no more nuclear power plants need be built. But it’s not bloody obvious today. What is clear is that building nuclear power plants decreases atmospheric GHG concentrations.

Sodium as a reactor coolant

I have a quick question for the readers.

We often hear from the anti-nuclear crowd that molten Sodium metal, often used as a coolant in fast-spectrum reactors, “explodes when exposed to air”.

Now, anyone with a basic familiarity with chemistry can tell you that a sufficient quantity of Sodium will explode when in contact with water, and molten liquid sodium especially so.

But how reactive is molten Sodium in contact with air?

We know that solid Na is reasonably stable on contact with air, and it can indeed be handled, cut weighed and so forth, both in industry and in the laboratory, in an air atmosphere, although it is generally handled as much as possible under an inert atmosphere where possible so as to prevent oxidation.

Solid Sodium certainly is not explosive or pyrophoric in contact with air.
Is liquid Sodium explosive or pyrophoric in contact with air?

Can anyone provide any credible, useful references on the topic?

Looking for a particular blog post…

Hello all,

Last week, whilst reading the usual nuclear energy blogs and news sites, I found an interesting article about fossil-fired energy plants being forced to shut down under high temperature conditions. Now, this is a significant comeuppance for those who are quick to point out that nuclear power plants have been forced to shut down in the past to avoid excessively high water discharge into environmental systems.

But, now, I can’t seem to find the post.

Does anyone recognise what I’m talking about? I’d appreciate it, if you could find the link for me.