Australian Aboriginals’ are desperately fighting to prevent nuclear waste dumping on their land. nuclear-news.net
The German government is going to stop giving credit guarantees for exports of nuclear equipment. nuclear-news.net
Blog
-
Geiger Readings for June 14, 2014
Ambient office = 79 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 99 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 82 nanosieverts per hourVine ripened tomato from Top Foods = 90 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 64 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 53 nanosieverts per hourHalibut – Caught in USA = 95 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 132 – New EPA Regulations for the Release of Kr-85
The Fukushima nuclear disaster occured in March of 2011. In addition to the actual radioactive fallout, there has been a great deal of other fallout including a wave of new safety regulation for the reactors in different countries. In the United States, the EPA is responsible for setting levels of the different kinds of emissions that are allowed for power plants in the United States. Currently, parts of 40 CFR 190 are under revision for emissions from nuclear power plants.
When operating correctly, nuclear power plants have very low emissions of anything other than water vapor. This fact is often promoted when considering the effect of nuclear power generation on global climate change. Unfortunately, when not operated correctly or as a result of accidents, many harmful types of radioactive particles can be released into the environment. There is also little mention of the carbon dioxide released during construction, transportation of fuel and waste, and handling of nuclear waste. There are many places in the world where radioactive materials have been released into the environment rendering large areas unsafe for human use.
Radioactive isotopes of many elements such as plutonium, uranium, radium, strontium, iodine, cesium, carbon, and americium have been explicitly mentioned before in regulations because they can be absorbed by tissue and pose a long term threat to human health. It makes sense to regulate such dangerous products of nuclear processes.
The new rules deal with krypton-85, a radionuclide which has never been of concern. Kr-85 is one of the series of elements known as noble gases. They cannot react with any other element to form chemical compounds. If breathed in or consumed, atoms of Kr-85 just pass on through the body, unable to be absorbed, to interact or to build up in tissue. If released, it quickly dissipates and does not pose a threat to human health. Large amounts of Kr-85 are released into the environment by uranium reprocessing plants.
Dr. Per Peterson, one of America’s most renowned nuclear engineers from UC Berkeley, recently said that, “The major issue is that EPA may be attempting to regulate emissions of krypton-85, a noble gas that disperses so rapidly that it causes no detectable dose to anything anywhere, and no public heath consequence even remotely. There exists no plausible public health or environmental reason to regulate Kr-85 emissions, since they do not and can never have any significant public health or environmental impact.”
There have be charges by critics of the new regulations that setting very low emission standards may be an intentional ploy to make new reactor designs so expensive that nuclear power will not be able to compete in the open market for energy generation. They point out that since Kr-85 poses absolutely no threat to human health or the environment, the EPA should not have authority to regulate emissions. They say that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the government agency which should have jurisdiction in this matter.
Krypton made to glow by electronic current:
-
Geiger Readings for June 13, 2014
Ambient office = 105 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 97 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 116 nanosieverts per hourIcerberg lettuce from Top Foods = 54 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 113 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 104 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 131 – The Battle Between Nuclear and Renewable Power Generation
I have blogged in the past about the battle between the nuclear industry and the renewable energy sector. For many years, nuclear enjoyed a protected status as an energy source. Billions of dollars allocated for loans and grants and long-term contracts guaranteed a fixed price for electricity generated by nuclear power, even if cheaper electricity was available. Renewable alternatives were constantly criticized because they could not compete in the open market and it was said that it would be impossible to scale up renewable sources to provide a significant portion of the electricity demand.
Recently a variety of independent financial analysts have concluded that there is an economic revolution coming in the electricity sector. They predict that during the next decade a combination of conservation, increased efficiency, renewable energy sources and inexpensive natural gas will meet the demand for new sources of electricity. The current “baseload” model will be rendered obsolete by the changes, they say. It is possible that in the next couple of decades, we might see the amount of energy provided by renewables rise to forty percent of the total electricity consumed in the United States.
The nuclear utilities in the United States know they face a serious existential threat. They are spending a great deal of money on lobbying law makers to provide special support and pricing for their electricity. The U.S. fleet of reactors is aging past original licenses and the nuclear utilities are requesting license extensions. Unfortunately, some of the old reactors are just too expensive to repair and upgrade so they are being permanently closed.
Some pundits and politicians say that all approaches to energy generation are needed and that nuclear energy should be pursued along with renewables. Unfortunately, nuclear electricity generation and renewables electricity generation require fundamentally different infrastructure. Nuclear reactors are major inflexible baseload generators that work best with the one-way system of power generation and distribution that currently exists. Renewables on the other hand will require a smart grid that can handle a two-way flow of electricity. The consumers and the generators are both widely distributed in a renewables infrastructures. The U.S. electric grid is deteriorating and is badly in need of repair and upgrading. The grid will have to be improved but it will have to be either centralized or distributed, favoring nuclear power or renewable power.
Two major players in the U.S. nuclear industry, Exelon and Entergy, have chosen to attack renewable energy on the basis that the production tax credit for wind is unfair This is especially ironic in view the fact that nuclear power has been the “recipient of ten times as much subsidy as renewables on a life cycle basis and continues to receive massive subsidies in the form of socialized the cost of liability insurances and waste management, underfunded decommissioning, inadequately compensated water use, federal loan guarantee and production tax credits for new reactors, continuing R&D funding for small modular reactor technology, and advanced cost recovery for nuclear investment in a number of states.”
The nuclear industry is fighting to retard or abolish “economic dispatch, net metering, bidding efficiency as a resource, and demand response” all of which favor a renewables infrastructure. The nuclear industry is working to be defined as a renewable source to get tax credits.
Subsidies given to the renewables industry have resulted in great and rapid innovation. Many different systems can be tried with much less cost and long term commitment which yields a much better return on investment than investing in nuclear power. Even without subsidies, renewables are now able to compete directly in the free market for electrical generation. Nuclear power is just not a good bet for the future.
Diagram of a “smart grid”:
-
Geiger Readings for June 12, 2014
Ambient office = 85 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 88 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 87 nanosieverts per hourCrimini mushroom from Top Foods = 68 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 114 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 94 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Weapons 81 – Update on Problems with the U.S. Nuclear Forces 2
I have posted several times about the problems in the U.S. nuclear missile forces. The U.S. missile force is responsible for the maintenance and launch of four hundred and fifty intercontinental missiles based in North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. Generals have been fired for misbehavior, launch officers cannot pass certification exams, facilities are deteriorating, soldiers have been arrested for drug offenses and, in general, morale is at an all time low. The decrepit Minuteman 3 missile force is viewed by airmen as an unattractive posting and a career dead end. Hearings have been held and studies have been conducted to find causes and solutions. I thought it was time for an update on the situation.
There have been complaints about the Air Force nuclear missile management for years. A 2012 review of corrective attempts since 2008 concluded that the actions were “movement without direction.” The study said that unless the Air Force improves its ability to develop, sustain and value nuclear expertise, the nuclear missile force will continue to decline as they have for the past two decades.
In light of all the problems and recent bad publicity, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has demanded swift and comprehensive action to restore public confidence in the nuclear force. Air Force leaders have come up with a number of corrective actions. Cash bonuses will be offered to officers and gaps in the ranks will be filled. A new nuclear service medal will be created. Money will be allocated to repair and modernized missile launch facilities. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, who just took her post in December, will be in charge of the new effort to resolve the missile force problems. Although these changes will have some impact, critics are not sure that their impact will significantly address the root problem.
Some analysts say that the basic problem with the missile force is related to the end of the Cold War two decades ago. As the focus of the military turned to the war on terror, the old model of a conflict between two nuclear armed superpowers has faded in importance. In addition, if the launch officers are called on to launch their missiles, they will just be insuring the complete collapse of human civilization. That has got to have an impact on morale.
At first, Air Force officials took the common position that everything was OK and that the problems were just the usual griping and minor mistakes. After James was appointed as Air Force Secretary, she began a series of visits to all three missile bases and concluded that far from being routine, the problems were systemic. While the announced changes may be moves in the right direction, Hagel is still waiting for the completion of two reviews that began in February. It will be interesting to see how well the changes in progress match the recommendations of the reviews when they are complete. James has called for elevating the command of the missile force from a three star general to a four star general. This would raise the importance of the missile forcers in the overall Air Force command structure.
Launch officers at North Dakota missile base:
-
Radiation News Roundup June 11, 2014
