Get all cars off the road because some leak oil

Everyone on the intertubes is whatever they want to be

 

According to the gov it's more than that just in the US:
OCRWM - How Much Nuclear Waste Is In The United States?

 

it depends on the type of radiation you're talking about. i work with beta emitters on a regular basis, and i'm not the least bit concerned about those. you get some of the more high intensity stuff and i become more concerned about the stuff coming into contact with living systems.

i don't know the logistics of a nuclear submarine propulsion system, could you discuss that in the context of what the coolant comes into contact with and whether it could contain higher concentrations of less common isotopes as a result?

human exposure isn't my only concern here, that's what i'm getting at.

 

It's your lucky day. It seems that PC is swarming with former Navy Nuclear types.

The primary loop is in contact with stainless steel and Zirconium. The only miniscule loss of coolant is what is removed occasionally to be sampled, and this is in the milliliters. Since extremely pure water is used, the only radioactive stuff of significance is what is leached out of the stainless steel and zirconium cladding.

All the water is continously filtered. It is this filter that eventually has all the bad stuff concentrated. Replacing this is a major shipyard operation and eventually ends up in a secure disposal site.

 

What I find interesting about the nuclear industry are all the Firsts from Canada: gasseous diffusion, fairly "safe" fast breeder (CANDU), and even "crud"

CRUD: Chalk River Unidentified Deposits

Apparently, CRUD can form in a nuclear submarine primary cooling loop. The British Navy submarine HMS Tireless appears cursed or haunted, if you judge the accident history.

 

and don't forget one of the first serious reactor accidents. (This is fun, not a dig.)

 

That's right, also at Chalk River.

In 1952 an early prototype NRX reactor went kaboom, due to a power surge that caused the fuel elements to rupture. Among the Canadian and American military personnel assigned to clean up the mini-Chernobyl was a young Jimmy Carter

The modern CANDU design appears quite safe from an operational standpoint. It uses natural uranium instead of enriched uranium, which means much less processing. That enrichment produces quite nasty effluent, check out the various Hanford site remediation documents

Since CANDU is a heavy water breeder, it also produces a lot of plutonium. A surprising amount of that plutonium went to weapons programs in the US, UK, and France

 

A person's true self is revealed eventually, as you've shown us.

 

oil leaks from cars are the most underrated threats to our environment.

a Puget Sound Pollution study completed last year concluded that ground pollution (of which 80% is either oil or antifreeze leaking from cars) entering Puget Sound dumps the equivalent amount of toxic waste as the Exxon Valdez spill EVERY 7 YEARS.

 

I suppose it depends on your perspective. A warehouse the size of a football field and only 5 and a half feet high is relatively small compared to really large warehouses. Further, the manner in which such waste will need to be stored to adequately (read legally and emotionally) meet standards (as developed by EPA and NRC) will take a great deal more space since the current proposals are for storage in transfer, age and disposal containers (TAD containers). Since disposal underground requires spacing for heat dissipation the waste can't be "stacked up" but will be spread out to maintain zones where groundwater will not turn into steam.

My point was to put the issue in perspective. It is estimated that by 2010 there will be as much as 120,000 metric tons of high level nuclear waste in the US. This is about a third of the weight of the structural steel in the debris that was removed from ground zero after the WTC collapse on 9/11. Further, since nuclear waste is significantly heavier, in terms of weight per unit of volume, it is far less in terms of volume. Further, there is also some research that indicates the reprocessing of waste is possible that could lead to reuse rather than disposal.

The underlying point is that the issues of nuclear plant environmental impacts, including waste disposal, are more emotional than scientific. The reality is that nuclear energy production does not produce carbon, can be focused to fit the existing grid, consumes much less land (even considering waste disposal) than either wind or solar, and is proven.

That said, I would like to see the use of wind expanded and research and development on solar continued to see if it can really be developed to produce power on a large scale. Avoiding expanding the use of nuclear power generation, like avoiding the exploitation of domestic oil reserves, as a "stick" to encourage development of renewable energy sources is simply irrational and unrealistic since it ignores the reality of the time and investment necessary to develop and implement such alternative sources. I would suggest; however, that there may well be significant environmental impacts associated with development of these renewable resources that haven't been really examined in the rush to find "clean" energy sources.

It is a bit like those who suggest that we remodel our cities to eliminate the need for individual cars. What do they suggest we do with the poor who are the primary inhabitants of such close in urban areas today? If the value of close in property and property close to transit increases dramatically in value we will end up displacing the very people it was constructed to serve and end up subsidizing those who can afford transportation without subsidy. Overlooking the complexity of an issue is a dangerous course that can lead into blind alleys from which recovery is very difficult. Likewise I was reading a current article concerning fuel cell cars where there was an estimate that there would be 2 million on the road by 2020. Well, that is just a bit over 1% of the cars on the road today in the US. It will take a while under the best of circumstances, not only due to manufacturing capacity, but to the capacity of the population at large to afford to acquire the new vehicles that may well be much more expensive in the early years and will remain expensive so long as demand is high.

 

The point that bothers me immensely is that what is actually happening is the opposite. The US stores all its waste locally, the planned date for Yucca storage stretches out by decades. The Russians let there waste get stored in rusting submarines and mothballed reactors (despite improvements in the Russian economy). And what North Korea, Iran, and whoever else wants to be in the nuclear club is probably even worse. I would have a lot less of a problem with the US building more reactors if the promises made decades ago were allowed to catch up. Would a requirement that Yucca be in full operation before allowing any new reactors to be started be a good idea?

The Kramers Junction plants have been in operation for decades. How many years of uninterrupted operation of 9 seperate solar power plants at rated capacity are needed before convincing someone that concentrated solar plants work as designed? If you do some homework and research this area, you will be stunned at how far along it is, and how fast it is expanding.

The real hangup with present nuclear power plants is not public resistance or regulations. It is getting financing. For example, A wind or solar plant can be built and generating a return in under a year. A nuclear plant has a 10-15 year gap. Guess who is getting the money. Guess who is not getting any money. Wind plant and solar plants are going up like mad since they have better economics for the investors.

Again, do at least a little homework on wind and solar plants under construction in the US of A. You will be very shocked.

 

First, my comment regarding additional R&D on solar is based on the fact that the plants you mention produce about 30 MW each and are supplemented with up to 25% natural gas. The largest solar plant I am aware of is around 80 MW, while most nuclear plants have two reactors that produce around 1,000 MW each, Each of those 30 MW solar plants requires 60 to 70 acres of collectors (not total area but simply collector area), meaning that to achieve the same output as a fairly typical nuclear plant more than 4,300 acres of collectors would be required, plus all of the support space, and would still require fossil fuel as a backup. Since most nuclear plants are less than 1,000 acres it becomes apparent that the land necessary to support large scale solar power stations is far greater than nuclear. It is one thing to build plants in the desert where there are no competing land uses, but quite another in other areas of the country where this amount of land is not likely to be available, or must be taken from natural forest stands or agricultural production. Further, most solar plants are peak demand plants, meaning they produce most of their output during the day when demand is high - meaning they need to be supplemented or some means of storage provided for supply during night or reduced light conditions. Finally, if you look at the financing of these plants all have been given significant tax incentives and/or governmental subsidies and have been given a relatively free ride on the environmental regulatory side as "clean energy" alternatives. Not a free pass perhaps, but certainly an E ticket.

Again, I'm not saying that we should not continue trying to improve the efficiency and the use of solar energy, particularly in those areas where the land is available without competing use and where development of the collectors will not remove existing stands of forest or remove land from agricultural production. I do believe; however, that there are many areas of the country where solar is simply not practical from the perspectives of land availability, percentage of sunny days, potential of major weather events (tornadoes, hail, hurricanes, etc). The Mohave Desert is a great place for solar stations, but Harrisburg, PA or Seattle, WA may not be as accommodating.

I agree with your concerns about Russian, North Korean and other nations that are producing nuclear waste, but in this country adequate long term storage/disposal is being held up by the environmental process. The FEIS for the Yucca Mountain site was issued in 2002, but court action and complaints by the State of Nevada have required the development of a Supplemental EIS that was just issued this summer. Now, if we have another round of litigation we are likely to see the development of an adequate storage facility delayed even longer. This is indicative of the severe restraints on doing anything meaningful because of the "environmental process" that has resulted from lawsuits and judicial interpretations of a law that simply says that an interdisciplinary study will be made of the social, economic and environmental effects of a proposed federal action that has the potential to do harm (all NEPA really says). The effect will be that by the time Yucca Mountain is developed the amount of waste that needs to be stored will be greater than its legislated capacity. I still don't think that is a major problem since most of our waste is current water stored at reactor sites and is very safe. If we clear out 70,000 metric tons we can go on for quite some time, but it does point out how environmental processes can block any action, no matter how much it is needed.

Finally, with respect to investment, why do we expect any utility to invest in attempting to develop a nuclear plant when the process of gaining initial approval has proven to be so onerous, expensive and time consuming that you can't get there from here? It isn't any wonder that investors would opt for small developments that don't require federal environmental processing (no federal action no NEPA requirement); however, if it takes 67 30 MW plants to provide the same supply as a single nuclear plant the results are good for the investors but leave the demand unsatisfied (also good for the investors but not good for consumers).

My objection, again, is not with the development of solar or wind energy. I do believe we need to exploit all forms of energy at our disposal with recognition that fossil fuels do have a limited life. Further, since petroleum has uses other than for fuels we are probably better off, as a society, finding replacements for petroleum in uses such as power generation and transportation so that it can be used where there are no good alternatives. This means that we need to use all of the sources in the toolbox, particularly those that have been proven to be effective and whose development requirements match land and infrastructure availability. Further, we need to recognize the time necessary to develop sources and infrastructure and simplify and streamline environmental process rather than increase the assessment burden.

 

How do the French deal with storage issues? They generate something like 75% of their power from nukes. Perhaps there are some lessons there.

Bob, one issue surrounding nuclear is water usage. Nuclear plants seem to use an awful lot of water for cooling. If I'm not mistaken, the SE there's been a lot of bickering about water use because of the extended drought. Nuclear power plants in AL have been at the center of it, I believe.

The land use issue is a bit of a straw man. CSP makes the most sense in the desert SW where there is a massive amount of land available. A 102 x 102 mi area in Nevada could meet current US demands with the solar PV we have now. Using CSP it would be considerably smaller as it's more efficient than PV. CSP plants firmed up by NG are going to get more popular. As the technology behind thermal storage is improved (it's already pretty good it seems) the case for CSP is improved further still.

I'm not opposed to nuclear power, I think that it may well be a good bridge whilst we mean ourselves off of coal. But it has to be done well and there a lot of issues surrounding it. There's obviously a lot of emotion.

Don't forget geothermal. This is the ginger stepchild of RE (or at least carbon free energy). It provides baseload power, which is important, and I expect to see more and more of it here in the West over the next decade or two.

Your absolutely right that we have to pursue a variety of options, including nuclear. It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

Bob47-First, thanks for a intelligent, well written reply. There are fine points of differences, but if there were not, then neither would bother posting anything.

Counter points - The 30 MW limit of the Kramers Junction plants were hard legal (PURPA) limits that drove Luz crazy since they lost a lot of money with such a small plant. With intense lobbying, they got the limit raised to 80 MW, but this was still a lot smaller than the most economical size. In fact during operation, the plants actually had to shut stuff down to stay under 30MW. Nutty isn't it. the following link: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/sand91_7014.pdf is quite detailed on the history and fate of the LUZ plants by a guy at the center of the company. Great reading for intelligent thinkers.

As far as environmental concerns, there are extremist on both sides of the debate...Those that consider most environmental requirements to be special interest obstructions and those that abuse them for personal agendas. Unfortunately for me, I have to research the details before I can figure it out. In the case of Yucca, I have done my homework and found out that the whole undertaking was based on the assumption that science would clearly lead to certainty about the approach being safe. When some actual evidence showed up that these assumptions had flaws, the original plan was derailed and alternatives are being worked out. Whose fault is that? Was it those who promised more than could be delivered or those who want the original promises to be met? I will agree that the legal standoffs and delays are destructive, but at the core are some actual issues that do need addressing. (If something bad happens, who pays?)

 

Get most cars off the road because:
1. Congestion and crowding
2. Individual vehicles not efficient or cost effective
3. Build robust walking & bicycle routes, light & highspeed rail, based on sustainable, renewable energy sources (small hydro, solar, wind, conservation, efficiency & geothermal).

Vehicles do leak, produce particulate matter (just from the tires rolling on pavement). There is no pure ZEV. All vehicles have emissions, either gaseous or particulate.

 

As do bicycles and walking. Your point is that nothing is perfect? I agree that congestion sucks, and that cars require way too much infrastructure as compared to other forms of transportation. I don't think we need to get absurd on the emissions stuff though. If you campare the gaseous and particulate matter emitted from a solar-powered ZEV and that emitted from a gasoline car, I think the difference is significant enough to want to avoid lumping them all together. We can easily determine the lessor of two evils, I think.

 

I think the nuclear industry is still in its infancy, and a lot of simplistic assumptions are made regarding "safe" disposal and reprocessing.

For example, the earliest generation nuclear reactors - primarily used for weapons production - were *not* closed loop systems. Whether Hanford in Washington, or Sellafield - formerely Windscale - in the Cumbrian coast area of the UK, the cooling was open and discharge was directly into the water body

In the case of Hanford, that discharge was back into the Columbia River. In the case of Sellafield, the discharge was an outfall pipe into the Irish Sea. Many official documents are now available that outline the level of contamination

Reprocessing is another area where an enormous amount of effluent is produced during the process steps. This is one site that clearly explains the level of waste produced

http://www.hanford.gov/?page=215&parent=0

Of course, at the time we were told it was "safe" and that the effluent and discharges met all applicable "standards." What was acceptible back then is now considered a CERCLA/SARA issue. For example, Hanford fiercely resisted using double-wall storage tanks for high level waste, even while their single wall tanks were leaking.

The study of what is actually hiding in the older tanks is fascinating

http://www.agls.uidaho.edu/etox/resources/case_studies/HANFORD.PDF

Hanford Watch -- photos -- Waste tanks

Hanford top of tank

The end result of casual attitudes towards serious waste issues now means billions PER YEAR just to keep up, not even to deal with it

We also have to deal with decades old promises of nuclear power being "too cheap" to meter. Yes, that was true, assuming massive taxpayer funded incentives

 

And assuming we don't include any costs for environmental damages.