Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I think that is what the NRC is trying to do now, though they are hampered by Nancy Pelosi and Larry Reid in almost any positive action, ranging from opening Yucca Mountain to facilitating new plant licenses. Your sainted Obama carefully avoids any reference to nuclear power in all of his rather inflated "change" rhetoric -- unfortunately for us all.

Interestingly, in the early days the British and the Germans were a good deal more innovative than either us or the French, applying a number of different reactor designs, including novel fuel element designs and even gas-cooled reactors. We stuck to more basic pressurized water and boiling water reactors; while the French, in addition, very quickly mastered the benefits of standardized design and operation in theirs. (The Russians preferred plants optimized also for plutonium production along with power generation. This resulted in carbon moderated plants that were deemed too dangerous in all the Western countries: Chernobyl proved them right.)

New pressurized water and boiling water reactor designs have been developed and approved (by the NRC). They involve much more efficient and relaible basic designs and even provide for "ultra safe" options, including the ability to cool down the reactor in an emergency without the need for ANY external power sources. (The efficiency & reliability improvements are particularly significant in view of the fact that our present 20+ year old nuclear plants are already the most efficient and reliable (based on operating data) sources we have today).

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Yes, and still growing. I believe they are currently up to about 78% of total electrical power production from nuclear. This is an obviously sensible option for them, and it appears to enjoy widespread public support. The French borrowed some very good basic reactor designs developed here, and organized their design, construction and operation in a much more systematic way than we did, achieving very good results in the process.

There were some severe disruptions recently

Quote:

Fears over France's nuclear reactors have been raised as the government orders ground water tests at its 58 power stations, after a uranium leak at one polluted local water supplies.

More than 90% of France's electricity is nuclear or hydro, and they are the world's (I think) largest exporter of electricity.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

...
The Big Missing Piece to the Wind-Solar Puzzle Is...
A massive energy storage system that can guarantee uninterrupted power delivery.

Meaning: clean electricity all the time, even when the winds aren't blowing and the sun isn't shining.

And now there's a battery unit being produced in Japan that claims it can provide just that.

There's one more piece to the puzzle, okie. How much greenhouse gas and/or polluting emissions will be produced by manufacturing, and repeated charging and drawing electricity from those batteries? Also how often must those batteries be replaced or remanufactured, and what kind of facility will be required to house and maintain those batteries? Those batteries are likely to be too big to fit in your game room or garage, and too heavy to lift up to your attic.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

There were some severe disruptions recently
Quote:
Fears over France's nuclear reactors have been raised as the government orders ground water tests at its 58 power stations, after a uranium leak at one polluted local water supplies.

More than 90% of France's electricity is nuclear or hydro, and they are the world's (I think) largest exporter of electricity.

I read the linked article, Walter, but am skeptical of the technical details it reported. The article states that 74Kg of "liquid uranium" were "spilled into the ground" during a routine transfer from one container to another. I can't imagine what a nuclear power plant would be doing with molten "liquid uranium". There is absolutely no reason for any activity involving molten uraniup at a nuclear power plant. Moreover pure uranium itself (a natually occurring element) is not a particular hazard, and not particularly mobile in groundwater. Much more likely is that 74Kg of coolant (water) containing trace quantities of radioactive materials, including uranium. were spilled. That amounts to 9 or so gallons of contaminated water -- not a very big deal. Radiation is easily detectable in miniscule quantities that wouldn't hurt anyone. However it is a little-understood subject that almost always involves gross distortions and misunderstanding in reported events such as this one.

More than anything the article is suggestive of the ignorance and hysteria that usually attends the reporting of anything involving radionuclides.

0 Replies

After some reflection, I believe the following statement from an earlier post summarizes the essential points about the whole energy issue, whether one approaches it from a global warming or merely economic perspective;

I believe the essential requirement for our needed new energy sourcing is that it be cheap. If you have cheap, abundant energy sources then you can solve all the related problems, whether they be environmental, economic, aesthetic, or even things like fresh water availability. If you don't have cheap energy, then you can't do anything.

If we can find the wisdom to avoid foolish acts of government intervention involving mandated production quots, direct subsidies, and the like, then I am confident that we will soon have competitive, relatively cheap wind power. The worst thing we can do for wind power is to use government mandates to force its use or government subsidies to hide its real cost and destroy the incentive for beneficial innovation.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
There were some severe disruptions recently
Quote:
Fears over France's nuclear reactors have been raised as the government orders ground water tests at its 58 power stations, after a uranium leak at one polluted local water supplies.

More than 90% of France's electricity is nuclear or hydro, and they are the world's (I think) largest exporter of electricity.

I read the linked article, Walter, but am skeptical of the technical details it reported. The article states that 74Kg of "liquid uranium" were "spilled into the ground" during a routine transfer from one container to another. I can't imagine what a nuclear power plant would be doing with molten "liquid uranium". There is absolutely no reason for any activity involving molten uraniup at a nuclear power plant. Moreover pure uranium itself (a natually occurring element) is not a particular hazard, and not particularly mobile in groundwater. Much more likely is that 74Kg of coolant (water) containing trace quantities of radioactive materials, including uranium. were spilled. That amounts to 9 or so gallons of contaminated water -- not a very big deal. Radiation is easily detectable in miniscule quantities that wouldn't hurt anyone. However it is a little-understood subject that almost always involves gross distortions and misunderstanding in reported events such as this one.

More than anything the article is suggestive of the ignorance and hysteria that usually attends the reporting of anything involving radionuclides.

Not to mention that it is this very kind of thing that well intentioned folks prone to 'chicken little' conclusions hold up as evidence that nuclear is far too dangerous to use as a source of energy.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I read the linked article, Walter, but am skeptical of the technical details it reported. The article states that 74Kg of "liquid uranium" were "spilled into the ground" during a routine transfer from one container to another. I can't imagine what a nuclear power plant would be doing with molten "liquid uranium". There is absolutely no reason for any activity involving molten uraniup at a nuclear power plant. Moreover pure uranium itself (a natually occurring element) is not a particular hazard, and not particularly mobile in groundwater. Much more likely is that 74Kg of coolant (water) containing trace quantities of radioactive materials, including uranium. were spilled. That amounts to 9 or so gallons of contaminated water -- not a very big deal. Radiation is easily detectable in miniscule quantities that wouldn't hurt anyone. However it is a little-understood subject that almost always involves gross distortions and misunderstanding in reported events such as this one.

More than anything the article is suggestive of the ignorance and hysteria that usually attends the reporting of anything involving radionuclides.

French official sources say that it were 30 cubic metres (= 30,000 liters [7,925 gallons])of liquid contaminated with natural uranium that was released into two rivers and topsoil.

Last Thursday, there was another incident (Uranium-bearing liquid has leaked from a broken underground pipe) and today 15 French nuke workers were exposed to radioactivity

0 Replies

Well "30 cubic meters of "liquid contaminated with natural uranium" makes me suspicious too. In the first place there is no need or occasion whatever for free "natural uranium" to be found anywhere near a nuclear power plant. The enriched uranium in the nuclear fuel is completely enclosed in metallic cladding, and bathed in the cooling water inside a 4 inch thick steel reactor vessel. The only liquid to be found in such volumes in a power plant is the reactor coolant, which is distilled, purified water. The only contaminant normally found in the coolant is the miniscule quantities of surface corrosion products (mostly iron, carbon, and nickel from the piping and occasionally the odd cobalt atom from valve seats).

If there had been a fuel element failure (a rare occurrence - in 45 years as the world's largest operator of nuclear plants, the U.S. Navy has never had one) there could be traces of nuclear fuel and fission products - basically uranium and a few other isotopes - in the coolant. If this is the case here, then the real story is the fuel element failure, and not the spill. If there was a fuel element failure and a spill of 30 cubic meters of contaminated coolant involving about 74 Kg of enriched uranium fuel, then the story is much worse than what was reported - an eventuality which I doubt seriously.

The other link you reported, involving the "contamination" of 15 French workers, noted that the workers were given medical exams and no ill effects were found. This usually means that the workers were in the close vicinity when an automatic alarm went off, warning them of nearby radioactivity. The finding of no health effects usually means that no internal contamination was found (a relatively simple all body scan) and that the external exposure was minimal. In effect they got less radiation than a passenger on a long range airline trip (say San Francisco to Melborne or Frankfurt to New Delhi) gets every day. In other words , an event that would go entirely unreported and unnoticed had it involved anything other than nuclear radiation.

All of this illustrates the general incompetence of the press on most subjects and the gross exaggerations usually present in the press reporting of anything involving nuclear radiation.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

All of this illustrates the general incompetence of the press on most subjects and the gross exaggerations usually present in the press reporting of anything involving nuclear radiation.

The numbers and what happened were presented officially - that's why the French government ordered the inspection of all the other reactors.

0 Replies

* The IPCC's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by 500-2000%;

* CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;

* The IPCC's values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;

* The IPCC's values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;

* "Global warming" halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;

* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;

* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists' draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;

* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;

* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

0 Replies

Quote:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

H2O_MAN wrote:

* The IPCC's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by 500-2000%;

* CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;

* The IPCC's values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;

* The IPCC's values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;

* "Global warming" halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;

* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;

* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists' draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;

* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;

* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

You should provide credit for the non scientific source of your list H2Oman.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

All of this illustrates the general incompetence of the press on most subjects and the gross exaggerations usually present in the press reporting of anything involving nuclear radiation.

Amen. If anyone has ever had a story written about a project that they were working on, they will always confirm the frustration that alot is not reported accurately. It may be a non-political issue. I have had that experience. Ever since then, I have always read every newspaper article through the lens of skepticism, and often you can read obvious errors in many articles as probable errors without even knowing the details as the reporter should know. Also, headlines are totally misleading, sometimes giving the opposite impression of what the article actually concludes. Also, I see more and more editorializing in news reports all the time, things that would have been totally taboo a few decades ago. Some news reports border on being a total editorial, and not only leave out pertinent information, but misrepresent the information reported.

I am left to conclude that the schools of journalism are not doing a very good job.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
All of this illustrates the general incompetence of the press on most subjects and the gross exaggerations usually present in the press reporting of anything involving nuclear radiation.

The numbers and what happened were presented officially - that's why the French government ordered the inspection of all the other reactors.

An 8,000 gallon spill of reactor coolant IS a big deal in terms of the deviation it implies from normal, very tightly controlled, operations. The French government's directive that other plants be inspected and their operations reviewed is merely a normal response to such an event. It is very likely that such broad inspections are ordered several times every year by government regulators in France and most countries operating nuclear plants.

However, it does NOT involve a significant hazard to either the public or the environment. The coolant in an operating reactor is intensely radioactive. However virtually all of the radioactivity comes from an isotope of nitrogen in the water that is activated by the intense radioactivity in the reactor. It (nitrogen 17) has a 7 second half life, and is gone within a few minutes, leaving only the residual radioactivity due to the miniscule concentration of corrosion products (mostly iron, carbon, nickel, and sometimes cobalt) which have half lives ranging from hours to a month or so (cobalt is more hazardous, with as 5 year half life).

Frankly I don't understand the reports of natural uranium in the discharged water - it sounds to me like misinformation arising from the news media. If there was a fuel element failure and significant concentrations of uranium from the fuel were in the coolant, then the accident was MUCH worse than the French government reported, something I doubt very much.

0 Replies

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

175
French physicist Dr. Serge Galam, director of research at the National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS) and member of a laboratory of Ecole Polytechnique, expressed man-made global warming skepticism in 2007. "The human cause of global warming is the subject of a consensus of scientists and experts, but not a diagnosis indisputable," Galam wrote in a February 7, 2007 article in Le Monde titled "No Scientific Certainty on Climate." "The world, our planet, is showing signs of changing its undeniable natural cycles, which also shape the course of all life forms currently on the Earth. These changes are clearly visible, but remain limited for the time being," Galam explained. He also compared man-made climate fears to ancient pagan fears of nature. "Throughout the history, our ancestors were persuaded that the forces of nature obeyed the gods, and that these was the mistakes which involved their ires, which appeared then by natural disordered states. During very a long time, one believed to be able to stop them by human and animal sacrifices. Science taught us that that was not founded, and here that this old antiquated belief re-appears with a found vitality, and who in more is pressed on the scientists in the name of science," he explained. (translated)

0 Replies

Ah I hadn't thought of this in terms of the ancient practice of offering sacrifices and burnt offerings to appease the gods and entice them to shower all manner of blessings, including favorable weather, upon the worshippers. That's an interesting metaphor.

Aren't we seeing much of that in the AGW debate? The only important difference is that the religion now calls for sacrifices of our chosen lifestyles, freedoms, and choices as well as perhaps whole populations assigned to more generations of abject poverty when denied ability to exploit their natural resources to prosper themselves as all the rest of us have already done. If we do that, the planet will be made whole and all will be goodness and light. The gods must be laughing.

0 Replies

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

176

0 Replies

Circling back to an earlier discussion of oil spills, and the charge that they are rather rare:

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u289/ukit23/large_24wboil2.jpg

Oil tanker collides with another ship, spills 10k barrels of #6 fuel oil, which is hard to clean up. This sort of thing happens EVERYWHERE that industry is found, which is why putting oil rigs inside protected wetlands is a Bad Idea.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/ap_collision_closes_mississipp.html

Quote:

State Department of Environmental Quality officials warned the unrefined, tar-like # 6 fuel oil is so thick that it could sink, complicating the cleanup efforts. Therefore, the fuel oil won't simply evaporate off the surface, which means workers will try to remove it before it starts to sink.

...

Residents in Algiers, Gretna, St. Bernard Parish and Plaquemines Parish are also being asked to conserve water, as water intakes for those communities are closed to prevent contamination of the drinking water supply. Water flowing through the tap is from reserve supplies, which could run out in many areas by afternoon or early evening, officials said.

...

Oil from the spill is visible along the New Orleans riverfront, with a thick coat of black muck washing up along the rocks near the Moonwalk. Farther away from the bank, the muck broke off into small islands.

A thick blanket of oil stuck to the hull of a Coast Guard cutter patrolling the area between the wrecked barge and the riverfront near the Aquarium of the Americas. The surrounding air there smells like it would near a gas station or in a traffic jam, only stronger.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Oil tanker collides with another ship, spills 10k barrels of #6 fuel oil, which is hard to clean up. This sort of thing happens EVERYWHERE that industry is found, which is why putting oil rigs inside protected wetlands is a Bad Idea.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/ap_collision_closes_mississipp.html

Quote:
State Department of Environmental Quality officials warned the unrefined, tar-like # 6 fuel oil is so thick that it could sink, complicating the cleanup efforts. Therefore, the fuel oil won't simply evaporate off the surface, which means workers will try to remove it before it starts to sink.

...

Cycloptichorn

Better to pipe or ground transport oil than ship oil over water. So drill in ANWR and mine oil shale in Colorado.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Better to pipe or ground transport oil than ship oil over water. So drill in ANWR

I am curious how you propose to get oil from ANWR to the lower 48 without shipping over water.

I suppose one could always argue that the Exxon Valdez was really a pipeline.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

.........I am curious how you propose to get oil from ANWR to the lower 48 without shipping over water.
.

Parados - Canada is not an ocean, as you appear to believe.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know