Nuclear VS. Renewables, EVs, and Jobs - Truth in the House!

[GRA]

On the off chance that there's anyone who found the mention of natural (fission) nuclear reactors interesting, but didn't follow up owing to the noise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd first read about this in Gwyneth Cravens book "The Power to Save the World".

Oh, and just to stir the pot, I include a link to a Sunday NYT blog, the intro of which is as follows:

"Four climate scientists, three of whom have published in peer-reviewed literature on energy issues (a sampler from Wigley, Hansen and Caldeira), are pressing the case for environmental groups to embrace the need for a new generation of nuclear power plants in a letter they distributed overnight to a variety of organizations and journalists.

"Amory Lovins, Joe Romm and Mark Jacobson would disagree, I’d bet. I certainly know many other energy and climate analysts who would sign on in a heartbeat, including the physics Nobel laureate Burt Richter and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

"Here’s the text of the letter, by Kenneth Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, James E. Hansen of Columbia University and Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Adelaide*:"

The text of the letter can be found here:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

On the off chance that there's anyone who found the mention of natural (fission) nuclear reactors interesting, but didn't follow up owing to the noise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the wiki piece:

and on September 25, 1972, the CEA announced their finding that self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions had occurred on Earth about 2 billion years ago

Humans have been on the planet for about 200,000 years.

While a nice factoid for a future Jeopardy contestant, this in no way supports use of nuclear power for any reason.



How does nature generate electricity? Essentially, in fuel cells operating at room temperature in water and sunlight with no waste. Whether in chloroplasts converting light to electricity, or in animal cells - not only is water split, but the electron is split from hydrogen. Some processes use the electron movement, while others use the movement of the hydrogen nucleus - a proton. There are essentially 'motors' or 'turbines' made of proteins that spin on protein bearings that sit in cell walls - they spin when a proton (a hydrogen nucleus) passes through the 'motor' to rejoin it's missing electron.

Static image on page 12:
http://www.ccrc.uga.edu/~rcarlson/bcmb3100/Chap21

Video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU-B7G6anqw[/youtube]

These power plants duplicate themselves as needed, recycle all their parts when they fail, and do not make waste of any type. They're being harnessed in our university labs to make hydrogen from cyanobacteria, and to make biologic solar panels.
If this gets your inner geek/nerd moving, grab a copy of Janine Benyus' book "Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature". From page 67:

A process like photosynthesis actually creates unequal gradients. It moves negative charges to the outside of the thylakoid membrane, leaving a buildup of positively charged ions inside. This polarizes the membrane, making the inside of the sac different from the outside. The charges on either side of the membrane want to recombine, to release their energy and relax; that would be a downhill reaction, the most natural thing in the world. But because the membrane is in the way, the tension remains high. Your car battery does the same thing - it separates charges as a way of storing energy. Living cells, like cars, can use that energy potential. They use it to import nutrients, to get neurons to spark, to get cells to talk to one another, or to get muscles to move.

Compared to nature's example, nuclear power is a 1930s science fiction B movie best left only for a 20th anniversary reunion of Mystery Science Theater 3000.

 

[Nubo]

...Learning what happens to spent nuclear fuel after millions of years is useful for the future, assuming we care about what we do with nuclear waste.

Not sure a million-year forecast is all that useful. Yes, most of the radioactivity goes away given enough time. Everything has a half-life, including protons in ordinary matter, given enough time.

But what are the odds of a civilization surviving a thousand years without upheaval or technological regressions, much less millions! And even in our current advanced state, storage of spent fuel is so problematic as to have paralyzed us into inaction.

 

[WetEV]

...Learning what happens to spent nuclear fuel after millions of years is useful for the future, assuming we care about what we do with nuclear waste.

Not sure a million-year forecast is all that useful. Yes, most of the radioactivity goes away given enough time. Everything has a half-life, including protons in ordinary matter, given enough time.

But what are the odds of a civilization surviving a thousand years without upheaval or technological regressions, much less millions! And even in our current advanced state, storage of spent fuel is so problematic as to have paralyzed us into inaction.

Yes, many millions of years of stable storage for nuclear waste is probably a little more than needed. Probably only about 10,000 years is needed, as that is about how long the waste needs before it is less hazardous than the original fuel.

Yes, civilization might not last thousands, much less millions. But again, it might. Hard to say. And even if civilization suffers from technological regression, passively safe nuclear waste storage doesn't need maintenance.

Politically, storage of nuclear waste is very problematic. The political problem isn't solvable, at least at the current time. The natural experiment shows that nuclear waste is a very solvable problem, as nature provided 1700 million years of storage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Nubo]

The natural experiment shows that nuclear waste is a very solvable problem, as nature provided 1700 million years of storage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Storage, yes. What standards of safety did it meet? Were isotopes released into groundwater, for example? And if not, what would be the protection against humans who wish to cause problems? Passive storage is not enough; the stuff has to be guarded. Successfully. For as long as it's dangerously radioactive.

 

[WetEV]

The natural experiment shows that nuclear waste is a very solvable problem, as nature provided 1700 million years of storage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if not, what would be the protection against humans who wish to cause problems? Passive storage is not enough; the stuff has to be guarded. Successfully. For as long as it's dangerously radioactive.

"As long as dangerously radioactive..." The original fuel isn't guarded, and is dangerously radioactive, and could cause far more problems than nuclear waste, and some of the fuel is right on the surface. Why does the waste get a different standard?

This sort of demand for long term active security is very illustrative of why nuclear waste isn't a politically solvable problem. Thanks. Great example.

 

[Nubo]

"As long as dangerously radioactive..." The original fuel isn't guarded, and is dangerously radioactive, and could cause far more problems than nuclear waste, and some of the fuel is right on the surface. Why does the waste get a different standard?

This sort of demand for long term active security is very illustrative of why nuclear waste isn't a politically solvable problem. Thanks. Great example.

Stop playing word games. After millions of years, your "natural pile" has become vastly less radioactive. You can't compare it to spent fuel rods!

 

[Petecomp1]

Good discussion! Here is the bottom line:
Winter is here now in Eastern Washington state. It's 34 degrees outside and heavy overcast. My 10KW solar array shows 213 watts right now. My heat pump is running, consuming ~3000 watts. The rivers are up, so the dams are cranking out the majority of my power. Also, the Hanford nuclear station is adding another 10-20%. I live about 35 miles from that station, which sits near the Columbia river. There is a dead calm, no wind for the massive array of turbines up in the Horse Heaven hills.
Billions are being spent to clean up the Hanford debacle right now. Millions more to try to identify the best way to dispose of the waste.
Most of the folks I know do not have siting or space for 10KW arrays, they live on a 1/4 acre lot in a house built to maximize profit, without regard to active or passive energy. Those are the facts.
My largest concern is for my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
Soylent Green is People!

 

[WetEV]

"As long as dangerously radioactive..." The original fuel isn't guarded, and is dangerously radioactive, and could cause far more problems than nuclear waste, and some of the fuel is right on the surface. Why does the waste get a different standard?

This sort of demand for long term active security is very illustrative of why nuclear waste isn't a politically solvable problem. Thanks. Great example.

Stop playing word games. After millions of years, your "natural pile" has become vastly less radioactive. You can't compare it to spent fuel rods!

I'm to point out how irrational the politics are. Thanks for the illustration.

Millions of years ago the natural reactor was the same as today's spent fuel rods. Define the fuel (uranium, thorium) as having a hazard of 1. The fuel does pose a radiation hazard even before it is mined. Is the fuel "dangerously radioactive"? If not, then low of radiation hazard does the spent fuel need to get to before it is not longer "dangerously radioactive" and needs active guarding?
Equal to the original fuel's hazard? Ten times? 100 times? 1000 times?

Do remember that there is a lot more fuel in the environment naturally than there will ever be radioactive waste.

 

[WetEV]

Oh, and if nuclear waste was causing this problem, people would be screaming.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5070462/climate-change-tropical-species" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice the silence.

 

[AndyH]

The natural experiment shows that nuclear waste is a very solvable problem, as nature provided 1700 million years of storage.

<snip>

Storage, yes. What standards of safety did it meet? Were isotopes released into groundwater, for example? And if not, what would be the protection against humans who wish to cause problems? Passive storage is not enough; the stuff has to be guarded. Successfully. For as long as it's dangerously radioactive.

Here's a quick look at mung beans. Three sets of seeds received a one-time dose of gamma radiation at 50K, 100K, and 150K rads; a fourth set were a non-irradiated control. All four photos were taken within minutes of each other as the 29 day experiment ended.

Control:

80% germination rate (1 of 5 died)

50K:

Reduced germination rate (60%) (2 of 5 died), malformed leaves; disrupted chlorophyll, dead leaf tissue.

100K:

Reduced germination rate (40%)(3 of 5 died); stunted growth; shorter leaves; all leaves had dead tissue.

150K:

Reduced germination rate (60%)(2 of 5 died), no development beyond initial shoot.

If you're dismissing this because humans aren't mung beans, you're absolutely correct. Humans are seriously more complex than mung beans - there's a LOT more that go wrong when something starts bouncing around damaging DNA. Also keep in mind the results of this experiment were from a one-time exposure. It's akin to walking past different areas of Wet's 'natural reactor' one time. Continuous exposure is much more damaging.

I agree completely with WetEV - as part of our civic duty the government should issue each citizen their share of our nuclear power and nuclear weapons work to date and require that it be buried in our back yards. Many people don't vote and then there's that 47% that don't even pay taxes. It's the least they can do to support their country. Sure, there's a chance of stunted growth, sterility, cancers, and miscarriages, but that's a small price to pay for being a citizen... :evil:

Clearly science and doctors had it wrong when they noted over the years that a single pelvic x-ray during pregnancy was enough to cause birth defects. It's probably fine...as long as it's not 'your' kid...


edit...spelling/typo
edit2...added experiment duration

 

[AndyH]

Oh, and if nuclear waste was causing this problem, people would be screaming.
<snip>
Notice the silence.

You'll have to remove your polonium earplugs and hope the nerve damage hasn't taken all of your hearing before you take another stab at the millions of people around the world that are screaming. :evil:

Your offensive suggestion is in stark contrast to the people getting arrested in the US and Canada as they fight the Keystone XL pipeline and expansion of tarsands extraction. It's an affront to the millions around the world that have fought for and won fracking bans in France, The Netherlands, South Africa, New York, parts of Pennsylvania including Pittsburgh, and now counties in Colorado. It's an affront to the 'Arctic 30' Greenpeace protesters charged with piracy and now sitting in a Russian jail. It's a slap in the face to the independent environmental scientists using their own money and time to take water and soil samples in South Texas to provide baseline data to track the shale oil boom going on here. In one fell swoop, Wet, you've maligned the members of 350.org, Food and Water watch, the NRDC, EarthJustice, Oil Change International, Repower America, the Union of Concerned Scientists and VoteVets among many, many others.

I'm sure you can find a proper place to keep your misinformation and to store your Faustian bargain...

 

[Nubo]

Thanks for the illustration.

You're welcome. I'm done here.

 

[WetEV]

Your offensive suggestion is in stark contrast to the people getting arrested in the US and Canada as they fight the Keystone XL pipeline and expansion of tarsands extraction. It's an affront to the millions around the world that have fought for and won fracking bans in France, The Netherlands, South Africa, New York, parts of Pennsylvania including Pittsburgh, and now counties in Colorado. It's an affront to the 'Arctic 30' Greenpeace protesters charged with piracy and now sitting in a Russian jail. It's a slap in the face to the independent environmental scientists using their own money and time to take water and soil samples in South Texas to provide baseline data to track the shale oil boom going on here. In one fell swoop, Wet, you've maligned the members of 350.org, Food and Water watch, the NRDC, EarthJustice, Oil Change International, Repower America, the Union of Concerned Scientists and VoteVets among many, many others.

AndyH, you are correct. I was being offensive.

 

[AndyH]

Polonium is one of the last 'daughter' products in a long chain of materials as Uranium-238 decays. Uranium-238 has a a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years. Half life means that if one has 1 kilo of U-238 today, in 4.5 billion years one would have 1/2 kilo of U-238 remaining. In another 4.5 billion years, we still have 1/4 kilo of U-238.

The U-238 doesn't transition from 'radioactive' to 'safe' instantly, though. The U-238 that decays transitions through a series of other unstable/radioactive elements - each with their own half-life - on the way to finally becoming the stable element called lead.

On the long road from uranium to lead, we get radium-226 (1602 years half life), then radon-222 (3.8 days), then polonium-210 (138 days). Each of these daughter products has other isotopes with varying half lives - longer and shorter than these common forms. Polonium, for example, has 33 known isotopes with half lives of up to 209 years.

After decaying almost to lead, polonium has to be pretty safe, right?

"A tiny amount of polonium the size of a flake of dandruff would be enough to kill 50 people if it was dissolved in water and they drank it," he added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/06/us-palestinians-arafat-idUSBRE9A50S520131106

edit...added U238 progression chart.

 

[WetEV]

Polonium is one of the last 'daughter' products in a long chain of materials as Uranium-238 decays.

100% natural.

 

[AndyH]

Polonium is one of the last 'daughter' products in a long chain of materials as Uranium-238 decays.

100% natural.

And 100% deadly to organic life.

I don't know, Wet - are you or your children some sort of non-organic life somehow recharged from gamma rays?

edit - this is an expression of incredulity and an attempt to eliminate a possibility from the conversation. There are extremophile organisms on this planet that can live in hazardous environments. Maybe Wet is writing from that point of view. Or maybe he's naturally radioresistant and thus has a different threshold than the rest of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioresistance

Otherwise, how can anyone really suggest that piles of radioactive material are somehow ok to have in the neighborhood?

edit...clarification of intent with background materials.

 

[WetEV]

Polonium is one of the last 'daughter' products in a long chain of materials as Uranium-238 decays.

100% natural.

And 100% deadly to organic life.

Puzzling, isn't it? How has life managed to live on a planet contaminated with 100% deadly polonium... For billions of years, no less.

 

[DaveEV]

AndyH, let's keep the arguments non-personal, eh? You have been ratcheting up the personal attacks lately on a number of threads. Not cool.

 

[TomT]

"The atomic bomb and accidents at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima bring to mind apocalyptic disasters, but the science and experience since suggest that long-held fears about nuclear power may be wrong. Academy Award®-nominated director Robert Stone examines how fears of “nukes” may have extended the era of fossil fuels, perilously accelerating the pace of climate change as the global demand for energy soars, particularly in the developing world. Stone takes his camera inside the exclusion zone around Fukushima, and even ventures inside the notorious Chernobyl nuclear power plant."

I saw a screening of it last month and it is very good. Let the snipping begin! :lol:

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/29/cnn-films-to-air-pandoras-promise-thursday-nov-7/?SR=PandoraMediaAd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;