Nuclear power is the most efficient, safest and most environment friendly source of energy.

Welcome

This blog compiles facts that make nuclear energy the clear choice for powering our future.


I have NO connection with the nuclear power industry and I have never had any connection with the nuclear power industry.


I have created this blog because I believe we are in dire need of drastically reducing our carbon emissions. Coal fired power plants are the single largest producer of CO2. Nuclear power is the most efficient, safest and most environmentally friendly source of energy available.


Coal Is Bad

Alex Gabbard makes it clear in this ORNL article. Coal fired power plants are a bigger danger to your health and the future of our planet than nuclear power plants. Coal fired power plants release more radiation and more CO2 into the atmosphere than a nuclear power plant. Yet 52% of our energy comes form coal fired power plants, while only 15% is created by nuclear energy.


The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the Department of Energy’s largest science and energy laboratory.

Books

  • "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. This book is very easy to read and understand.
  • ENVIRONMENTALISTS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY book: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm Fossil fuels such as coal oil, and gas, massively pollute the Earth's atmosphere (CO, CO2, SOX, NOX...), provoking acid rains and changeing the global climate by increasing the greenhouse effect, while nuclear energy does not participate in these pollutions and presents well-founded environmental benefits. Renewable energies (solar, wind) not being able to deliver the amount of energy required by populations in developing and developed countries, nuclear energy is in fact the only clean and safe energy available to protect the planet during the XXI st century. This book answers essential questions about nuclear safety, the Chernobyl accident, the public health problems our society has to face, viable solutions for nuclear waste, the benefits of clean nuclear energy for the environment, and important information about the future of our planet. Back cover - Table of contents - Introduction by James Lovelock - Review of this book by the American Health Physics Society http://www.comby.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm   Book Review   Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, by B. Comby English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France; ISBN 2-914190-02-6 www.ecolo.org
  • "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan
  • "Collapse" by Jared Diamond

Mass Extinction

The largest mass extinction of life occurred 251 million years ago when the atmospheric carbon levels rose to near 1000 parts per million, the ocean became anoxic (lacking oxygen). This allowed hydrogen sulfide gas to bubbled up from the bottom of the ocean and 95% of all life on earth died.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Background Radiation

Often people who oppose Nuclear energy are afraid of radiation. Radiation is a natural part of life. Its everywhere from the ground under you feet to chemo therapy to microwave ovens.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.
Contents

1 Natural background radiation
1.1 Cosmic radiation
1.2 Terrestrial sources
1.3 Radon


2 Artificial "background" radiation
3 Artificial radiation sources
4 Other usage
5 References

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation, terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 mSv per year [1] (pdf). This exposure is mostly from cosmic radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei. This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil, rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth. Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes, such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

Artificial "background" radiation

Every above-ground nuclear detonation scatters a certain amount of radioactive contamination. Some of this contamination is local, rendering the immediate surroundings highly radioactive, while some of it is carried longer distances as nuclear fallout; some of this material is dispersed worldwide. Nuclear reactors may also release a certain amount of radioactive contamination. Under normal circumstances, a modern nuclear reactor releases minuscule amounts of radioactive contamination. However, reprocessing plants released waste, including plutonium, directly into the ocean. Major accidents, which have fortunately been relatively rare, have also released some radioactive contamination into the environment; this is the case, for example, with the Windscale fire (Sellafield accident) and the Chernobyl accident.

The amount of radioactive contamination released by human activity is rather small, in global terms, but the radiation background is also rather low. Some sources claim that the Earth's background radiation level has tripled since the beginning of the twentieth century. In fact, the total amount of radioactivity released by man is inconsequential to the large quantities of radioactivity in the natural environment [2] (pdf).

Artificial radiation sources

The radiation from natural and artificial radiation sources are identical in their nature and their effects. These materials are distributed in the environment, and in our bodies, according to the chemical properties of the elements. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other U.S. and international agencies, require that licensees limit radiation exposure to individual members of the public to 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year, and limit occupational radiation exposure to adults working with radioactive material to 5 rem (50 mSv) per year, and 10 rem (100 mSv) in 5 years.

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

Other usage

In other contexts, background radiation may simply be any radiation that is pervasive. A particular example of this is the cosmic microwave background radiation, a nearly uniform glow that fills the sky in the microwave part of the spectrum; stars, galaxies and other objects of interest in radio astronomy stand out against this background.

In a laboratory, background radiation refers to the measured value from any sources that affect an instrument when a radiation source sample is not being measured. This background rate, which must be established as a stable value by multiple measurements, usually before and after sample measurement, is subtracted from the rate measured when the sample is being measured.

Background radiation for occupational doses measured for workers is all radiation dose that is not measured by radiation dose measurement instruments in potential occupational exposure conditions. This includes both "natural background radiation" and any medical radiation doses. This value is not typically measured or known from surveys, such that variations in the total dose to individual workers is not known. This can be a significant confounding factor in assessing radiation exposure effects in a population of workers who may have significantly different natural background and medical radiation doses. This is most significant when the occupational doses are very low.

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
[United Nations] UNSCEAR 2000 REPORT Vol. I

SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly,with scientific annexes

Volume I: SOURCES

CONTENTS:

Report to the General Assembly
(without scientific annexes;17 pages)
Includes short overviews of the materials and conclusions contained in the scientific annexes

Scientific Annexes:

* Annex A: Dose assessment methodologies (63 pages)
* Annex B: Exposures from natural radiation sources (74 pages)
* Annex C: Exposures from man-made sources of radiation (134 pages)
* Annex D: Medical radiation exposures (203 pages)
* Annex E: Occupational radiation exposures (158 pages)

Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger By Alex Gabbard


Over the past few decades, the American public has become increasingly wary of nuclear power because of concern about radiation releases from normal plant operations, plant accidents, and nuclear waste. Except for Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents, releases have been found to be almost undetectable in comparison with natural background radiation. Another concern has been the cost of producing electricity at nuclear plants. It has increased largely for two reasons: compliance with stringent government regulations that restrict releases of radioactive substances from nuclear facilities into the environment and construction delays as a result of public opposition.


Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred coal combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons. First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials--mainly, uranium and thorium.


Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article. The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive. Finally, radioactive elements released in coal ash and exhaust produced by coal combustion contain fissionable fuels and much larger quantities of fertile materials that can be bred into fuels by absorption of neutrons, including those generated in the air by bombardment of oxygen, nitrogen, and other nuclei with cosmic rays; such fissionable and fertile materials can be recovered from coal ash using known technologies. These nuclear materials have growing value to private concerns and governments that may want to market them for fueling nuclear power plants. However, they are also available to those interested in accumulating material for nuclear weapons. A solution to this potential problem may be to encourage electric utilities to process coal ash and use new trapping technologies on coal combustion exhaust to isolate and collect valuable metals, such as iron and aluminum, and available nuclear fuels.


Makeup of Coal and Ash


Coal is one of the most impure of fuels. Its impurities range from trace quantities of many metals, including uranium and thorium, to much larger quantities of aluminum and iron to still larger quantities of impurities such as sulfur. Products of coal combustion include the oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur; carcinogenic and mutagenic substances; and recoverable minerals of commercial value, including nuclear fuels naturally occurring in coal.


Coal ash is composed primarily of oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, arsenic, mercury, and sulfur plus small quantities of uranium and thorium. Fly ash is primarily composed of non-combustible silicon compounds (glass) melted during combustion. Tiny glass spheres form the bulk of the fly ash. Since the 1960s particulate precipitators have been used by U.S. coal-fired power plants to retain significant amounts of fly ash rather than letting it escape to the atmosphere. When functioning properly, these precipitators are approximately 99.5% efficient. Utilities also collect furnace ash, cinders, and slag, which are kept in cinder piles or deposited in ash ponds on coal-plant sites along with the captured fly ash. Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million (ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium. For a large number of coal samples, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Using these values along with reported consumption and projected consumption of coal by utilities provides a means of calculating the amounts of potentially recoverable breedable and fissionable elements (see sidebar). The concentration of fissionable uranium-235 (the current fuel for nuclear power plants) has been established to be 0.71% of uranium content.


Uranium and Thorium in Coal and Coal Ash As population increases worldwide, coal combustion continues to be the dominant fuel source for electricity. Fossil fuels' share has decreased from 76.5% in 1970 to 66.3% in 1990, while nuclear energy's share in the worldwide electricity pie has climbed from 1.6% in 1970 to 17.4% in 1990. Although U.S. population growth is slower than worldwide growth, per capita consumption of energy in this country is among the world's highest. To meet the growing demand for electricity, the U.S. utility industry has continually expanded generating capacity. Thirty years ago, nuclear power appeared to be a viable replacement for fossil power, but today it represents less than 15% of U.S. generating capacity. However, as a result of low public support during recent decades and a reduction in the rate of expected power demand, no increase in nuclear power generation is expected in the foreseeable future. As current nuclear power plants age, many plants may be retired during the first quarter of the 21st century, although some may have their operation extended through license renewal. As a result, many nuclear plants are likely to be replaced with coal-fired plants unless it is considered feasible to replace them with fuel sources such as natural gas and solar energy.


As the world's population increases, the demands for all resources, particularly fuel for electricity, is expected to increase. To meet the demand for electric power, the world population is expected to rely increasingly on combustion of fossil fuels, primarily coal. The world has about 1500 years of known coal resources at the current use rate. The graph above shows the growth in U.S. and world coal combustion for the 50 years preceding 1988, along with projections beyond the year 2040. Using the concentration of uranium and thorium indicated above, the graph below illustrates the historical release quantities of these elements and the releases that can be expected during the first half of the next century, given the predicted growth trends. Using these data, both U.S. and worldwide fissionable uranium-235 and fertile nuclear material releases from coal combustion can be calculated.


Because existing coal-fired power plants vary in size and electrical output, to calculate the annual coal consumption of these facilities, assume that the typical plant has an electrical output of 1000 megawatts. Existing coal-fired plants of this capacity annually burn about 4 million tons of coal each year. Further, considering that in 1982 about 616 million short tons (2000 pounds per ton) of coal was burned in the United States (from 833 million short tons mined, or 74%), the number of typical coal-fired plants necessary to consume this quantity of coal is 154. Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium. Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:


U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons [of COAL]): Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235) Thorium: 357,491 tons Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons): Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235) Thorium: 2,039,709 tons


Radioactivity from Coal Combustion


The main sources of radiation released from coal combustion include not only uranium and thorium but also daughter products produced by the decay of these isotopes, such as radium, radon, polonium, bismuth, and lead. Although not a decay product, naturally occurring radioactive potassium-40 is also a significant contributor.


According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons, or 0.00427 millicuries/ton. This figure can be used to calculate the average expected radioactivity release from coal combustion. For 1982 the total release of radioactivity from 154 typical coal plants in the United States was, therefore, 2,630,230 millicuries.


Thus, by combining U.S. coal combustion from 1937 (440 million tons) through 1987 (661 million tons) with an estimated total in the year 2040 (2516 million tons), the total expected U.S. radioactivity release to the environment by 2040 can be determined. That total comes from the expected combustion of 111,716 million tons of coal with the release of 477,027,320 millicuries in the United States. Global releases of radioactivity from the predicted combustion of 637,409 million tons of coal would be 2,721,736,430 millicuries. For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year; the equivalent dose for coal use, from mining to power plant operation to waste disposal, is not listed in this report and is probably unknown. During combustion, the volume of coal is reduced by over 85%, which increases the concentration of the metals originally in the coal. Although significant quantities of ash are retained by precipitators, heavy metals such as uranium tend to concentrate on the tiny glass spheres that make up the bulk of fly ash. This uranium is released to the atmosphere with the escaping fly ash, at about 1.0% of the original amount, according to NCRP data. The retained ash is enriched in uranium several times over the original uranium concentration in the coal because the uranium, and thorium, content is not decreased as the volume of coal is reduced. All studies of potential health hazards associated with the release of radioactive elements from coal combustion conclude that the perturbation of natural background dose levels is almost negligible. However, because the half-lives of radioactive potassium-40, uranium, and thorium are practically infinite in terms of human lifetimes, the accumulation of these species in the biosphere is directly proportional to the length of time that a quantity of coal is burned. Although trace quantities of radioactive heavy metals are not nearly as likely to produce adverse health effects as the vast array of chemical by-products from coal combustion, the accumulated quantities of these isotopes over 150 or 250 years could pose a significant future ecological burden and potentially produce adverse health effects, especially if they are locally accumulated. Because coal is predicted to be the primary energy source for electric power production in the foreseeable future, the potential impact of long-term accumulation of by-products in the biosphere should be considered.


Energy Content: Coal vs Nuclear An average value for the thermal energy of coal is approximately 6150 kilowatt-hours(kWh)/ton. Thus, the expected cumulative thermal energy release from U.S. coal combustion over this period totals about 6.87 x 10E14 kilowatt-hours. The thermal energy released in nuclear fission produces about 2 109 kWh/ton. Consequently, the thermal energy from fission of uranium-235 released in coal combustion amounts to 2.1 x 10E12 kWh. If uranium-238 is bred to plutonium-239, using these data, the thermal energy from fission of this isotope alone constitutes about 2.9 x 10E14 kWh, or about half the anticipated energy of all the utility coal burned in this country through the year 2040. If the thorium-232 is bred to uranium-233 and fissioned, the thermal energy capacity of this isotope is approximately 7.2 x 10E14 kWh, or 105% of the thermal energy released from U.S. coal combustion for a century. The total of the thermal energy capacities from each of these three fissionable isotopes is about 10.1 x 10E14 kWh, 1.5 times more than the total from coal. World combustion of coal has the

same ratio, similarly indicating that coal combustion wastes more energy than it produces.


Consequently, the energy content of nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is more than that of the coal consumed! Clearly, coal-fired power plants are not only generating electricity but are also releasing nuclear fuels whose commercial value for electricity production by nuclear power plants is over $7 trillion, more than the U.S. national debt. This figure is based on current nuclear utility fuel costs of 7 mils per kWh, which is about half the cost for coal. Consequently, significant quantities of nuclear materials are being treated as coal waste, which might become the cleanup nightmare of the future, and their value is hardly recognized at all. How does the amount of nuclear material released by coal combustion compare to the amount consumed as fuel by the U.S. nuclear power industry? According to 1982 figures, 111 American nuclear plants consumed about 540 tons of nuclear fuel, generating almost 1.1 x 10E12 kWh of electricity. During the same year,

about 801 tons of uranium alone were released from American coal-fired plants. Add 1971 tons of thorium, and the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels. The same conclusion applies for worldwide nuclear fuel and coal combustion. Another unrecognized problem is the gradual production of plutonium-239 through the exposure of uranium-238 in coal waste to neutrons from the air. These neutrons are produced primarily by bombardment of oxygen and nitrogen nuclei in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and from spontaneous fission of natural isotopes in soil. Because plutonium-239 is reportedly toxic in minute quantities, this process, however slow, is potentially worrisome. The radiotoxicity of plutonium-239 is 3.4 x 10E11 times that of uranium-238. Consequently, for 801 tons of uranium released in 1982, only 2.2 milligrams of plutonium-239 bred by natural processes, if those processes exist, is necessary to double the radiotoxicity estimated to be released into the biosphere that year. Only 0.075 times that amount in plutonium-240 doubles the radiotoxicity. Natural processes to produce both plutonium-239 and plutonium-240 appear to exist. Conclusions For the 100 years following 1937, U.S. and world use of coal as a heat source for electric power generation will result in the distribution of a variety of radioactive elements into the environment. This prospect raises several questions about the risks and benefits of coal combustion, the leading source of electricity production. First, the potential health effects of released naturally occurring radioactive elements are a long-term issue that has not been fully addressed. Even with improved efficiency in retaining stack emissions, the removal of coal from its shielding overburden in the earth and subsequent combustion releases large quantities of radioactive materials to the surface of the earth. The emissions by coal-fired power plants of greenhouse gases, a vast array of chemical by-products, and naturally occurring radioactive elements make coal much less desirable as an energy source than is generally accepted. Second, coal ash is rich in minerals, including large quantities of aluminum and iron. These and other products of commercial value have not been exploited. Third, large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities. Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner. Collected nuclear wastes that accumulate on electric utility sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain. Fourth, by collecting the uranium residue from coal combustion, significant quantities of fissionable material can be accumulated. In a few year's time, the recovery of the uranium-235 released by coal combustion from a typical utility anywhere in the world could provide the equivalent of several World War II-type uranium-fueled weapons. Consequently, fissionable nuclear fuel is available to any country that either buys coal from outside sources or has its own reserves. The material is potentially employable as weapon fuel by any organization so inclined. Although technically complex, purification and enrichment technologies can provide high-purity, weapons-grade uranium-235. Fortunately, even though the technology is well known, the enrichment of uranium is an expensive and time-consuming process. Because electric utilities are not high-profile facilities, collection and processing of coal ash for recovery of minerals, including uranium for weapons or reactor fuel, can proceed without attracting outside attention, concern, or intervention. Any country with coal-fired plants could collect combustion by-products and amass sufficient nuclear weapons material to build up a very powerful arsenal, if it has or develops the technology to do so. Of far greater potential are the much larger quantities of thorium-232 and uranium-238 from coal combustion that can be used to breed fissionable isotopes. Chemical separation and purification of uranium-233 from thorium and plutonium-239 from uranium require far less effort than enrichment of isotopes. Only small fractions of these fertile elements in coal combustion residue are needed for clandestine breeding of fissionable fuels and weapons material by those nations that have nuclear reactor technology and the inclination to carry out this difficult task. Fifth, the fact that large quantities of uranium and thorium are released from coal-fired plants without restriction raises a paradoxical question. Considering that the U.S. nuclear power industry has been required to invest in expensive measures to greatly reduce releases of radioactivity from nuclear fuel and fission products to the environment, should coal-fired power plants be allowed to do so without constraints?


This question has significant economic repercussions. Today nuclear power plants are not as economical to construct as coal-fired plants, largely because of the high cost of complying with regulations to restrict emissions of radioactivity. If coal-fired power plants were regulated in a similar manner, the added cost of handling nuclear waste from coal combustion would be significant and would, perhaps, make it difficult for coal-burning plants to compete economically with nuclear power. Because of increasing public concern about nuclear power and radioactivity in the environment, reduction of releases of nuclear materials from all sources has become a national priority known as "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA). If increased regulation of nuclear power plants is demanded, can we expect a significant redirection of national policy so that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are also regulated? Although adverse health effects from increased natural background radioactivity may seem unlikely for the near term, long-term accumulation of radioactive materials from continued worldwide combustion of coal could pose serious health hazards. Because coal combustion is projected to increase throughout the world during the next century, the increasing accumulation of coal combustion by-products, including radioactive components, should be discussed in the formulation of energy policy and plans for future energy use. One potential solution is improved technology for trapping the exhaust (gaseous emissions up the stack) from coal combustion. If and when such technology is developed, electric utilities may then be able both to recover useful elements, such as nuclear fuels, iron, and aluminum, and to trap greenhouse gas emissions. Encouraging utilities to enter mineral markets that have been previously unavailable may or may not be desirable, but doing so appears to have the potential of expanding their economic base, thus offsetting some portion of their operating costs, which ultimately could reduce consumer costs for electricity. Both the benefits and hazards of coal combustion are more far-reaching than are generally recognized. Technologies exist to remove, store, and generate energy from the radioactive isotopes released to the environment by coal combustion. When considering the nuclear consequences of coal combustion, policymakers should look at the data and recognize that the amount of uranium-235 alone dispersed by coal combustion is the equivalent of dozens of nuclear reactor fuel loadings. They should also recognize that the nuclear fuel potential of the fertile isotopes of thorium-232 and uranium-238, which can be converted in reactors to fissionable elements by breeding, yields a virtually unlimited source of nuclear energy that is frequently overlooked as a natural resource.


In short, naturally occurring radioactive species released by coal combustion are accumulating in the environment along with minerals such as mercury, arsenic, silicon, calcium, chlorine, and lead, sodium, as well as metals such as aluminum, iron, lead, magnesium, titanium, boron, chromium, and others that are continually dispersed in millions of tons of coal combustion by-products. The potential benefits and threats of these released materials will someday be of such significance that they should not now be ignored.--Alex Gabbard of the Metals and Ceramics Division References and Suggested Reading J. F. Ahearne, "The Future of Nuclear Power," American Scientist, Jan.-Feb 1993: 24-35. E. Brown and R. B. Firestone, Table of Radioactive Isotopes, Wiley Interscience, 1986. J. O. Corbett, "The Radiation Dose From Coal Burning: A Review of Pathways and Data," Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 4 (1): 5-19. R. R. Judkins and W. Fulkerson, "The Dilemma of Fossil Fuel Use and Global Climate Change," Energy & Fuels, 7 (1993) 14-22. National Council on Radiation Protection, Public Radiation Exposure From Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S., Report No. 92, 1987, 72-112. National Council on Radiation Protection, Exposure of the Population in the United States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation, Report No. 94, 1987, 90-128. National Council on Radiation Protection, Radiation Exposure of the U.S. Population from Consumer Products and Miscellaneous Sources, Report No. 95, 1987, 32-36 and 62-64. Serge A. Korff, "Fast Cosmic Ray Neutrons in the Atmosphere," Proceedings of International Conference on Cosmic Rays, Volume 5: High Energy Interactions, Jaipur, December 1963. C. B. A. McCusker, "Extensive Air Shower Studies in Australia," Proceedings of International Conference on Cosmic Rays, Volume 4: Extensive Air Showers, Jaipur, December 1963. T. L. Thoem, et al., Coal Fired Power Plant Trace Element Study, Volume 1: A Three Station Comparison, Radian Corp. for USEPA, Sept. 1975. W. Torrey, "Coal Ash Utilization: Fly Ash, Bottom Ash and Slag," Pollution Technology Review, 48 (1978) 136.


Downloaded from Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tennesee: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Impact From The Deep

"Impact from the Deep"

By Peter D. Ward

Scientific American October 2006


"Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again? "


The last paragraph of the article says:


"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find out."


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322

The Great Dying

Rotten Sulfur Brew, The Great Dying?


While most scientists agree that a meteor strike killed the dinosaurs, the cause of the largest mass extinction in Earth's history, 251 million years ago, is still unknown, according to geologists. This event is one of the most catastrophic in

life's history: the P/T extinction (or the Permian/Triassic boundary).


"During the end-Permian (P/T) extinction 95 percent of all species on Earth became extinct, compared to only 75 percent during [the better-known Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) extinction], when the dinosaurs disappeared [65 million years ago]," says Dr. Lee R. Kump, Penn State Professor of Geosciences. "The end-Permian is puzzling. There is no convincing smoking gun, no compelling evidence of an asteroid impact."


Scientists have suggested many possible causes for this "Great Dying": severe volcanism, a nearby supernova, environmental changes wrought by the formation of a super-continent, the devastating impact of a large asteroid -- or some

combination of these. Whatever happened during this period left no form of life undisturbed: No class or species was spared from devastation. Trees, plants, lizards, proto-mammals, insects, fish, mollusks, and microbes -- all were nearly

wiped out. More than 9 in 10 marine species and 7 in 10 land species vanished. Life on our planet almost came to an end.


Researchers have shown that the deep oceans were anoxic, lacking oxygen, in the late Permian and research shows that the continental shelf areas in the end-Permian were also anoxic. One explanation is that sea level rose so that the anoxic deep water was covering the shelf. Another possibility is that the surface ocean and deep ocean mixed, bringing anoxic waters to the surface. Decomposition of organisms in the deep ocean could have caused an overabundance of carbon dioxide, which is lethal to many oceanic organisms and land-based animals.


"However, we find mass extinction on land to be an unlikely consequence of carbon dioxide levels of only seven times the preindustrial level," Kump told attendees at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Seattle. "Plants, in general, love carbon dioxide, so it is difficult to think of carbon dioxide as a good kill mechanism."


On the other hand, hydrogen sulfide gas, produced in the oceans through sulfate decomposition by sulfur bacteria, can easily kill both terrestrial and oceanic plants and animals.


Humans can smell hydrogen sulfide gas, the smell of rotten cabbage, in the parts per trillion range. In the deeps of the Black Sea today, hydrogen sulfide exists at about 34 part per million. This is a toxic brew in which any aerobic, oxygen-needing, organism would die. For the Black Sea, the hydrogen sulfide stays in the depths because our rich oxygen atmosphere mixes in the top layer of water and controls the diffusion of hydrogen sulfide upwards. In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would kill most terrestrial life.So, what of the 5 percent of the species on Earth that survived?Kump suggests that the mixing of the deep ocean layers and the upper layer was not uniform and that refugia, places where oxygen still existed, remained, both in the oceans and on land.


What's Next


Kump and colleagues, Alexander Pavlov, University of Colorado; Michael Arthur, professor of geosciences, Penn State; Anthony Riccardi, graduate student, Penn State; and Yashuhiro Kato, University of Tokyo, are looking at sediments from the end-Permian found in Japan. "We are looking for biomarkers, indications of photosynthetic sulfur bacteria," says Kump. "These photo autotrophic organisms live in places where there is no oxygen, but still some sunlight. They would have been in their hay day in the end-Permian." Finding biomarkers of green sulfur bacteria would provide evidence for hydrogen sulfide as the cause of the mass extinctions. Studying biological catastrophes like the P/T extinction can help astrobiologists understand the close connection between life, geology, chemistry - and how such events may disrupt this sometimes delicate relationship.


Based on a Penn State report


http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Significant Nuclear Events

1. Nuclear fission discoverd (1939)


2. The first chain reaction (Fermi's atomic pile, 1943)


3. First fission power, Oak Ridge Graphite Reactor (1944)


4. First atomic bomb (1945)


5. Large scale electric power produced from atomic energy (1951, Aeron, Idaho)


6. Plutonium discovered (Edward McMillian and Glenn Seaborg, Nobel Prize, 1951)


7. First hydrogen device test, (Eniwetok Atoll, 1952)


8. First nuclear powered submarine (Nautilus, converted to N-power 1954)


9. First civilian nuclear power elelectricity (Schenectady, NY 1955)


10. First nuclear powered civilian merchant ship (Savannah 1959)


11. First circumnavigation of the globe under water (nuclear powered sub Triton 1960)


12. The U.S. has 200 commercial N-power reactors in operation (1962), Britain 39, USSR 39


13. Last US nuclear power plant brought on line (1978)


Nuclear Power Is Safe

A Nuclear Power plant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear Bomb:
Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is
nothing similar about them except that they both need fissile
materials. But they need DIFFERENT fissile materials and
they use them very differently.

A nuclear bomb "compresses" pure or nearly pure fissile
material into a small space. There is no other material in
the volume containing the nuclear explosive. The fissile
material is either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium. If
it is uranium, it is at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less
uranium 238. There is no isotope separation problem if the
fissile material is plutonium. These fissile materials are
metals and very difficult to compress. Because they are
difficult to compress, a high explosive [high speed
explosive] is required to compress them. Pieces of the
fissile material have to slam into each other hard for the
nuclear reactions to take place.

A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power
generation, does not have any pure fissile material. The
fuel may be 2% to 8% uranium 235 mixed with uranium
238. A mixture of 2% or 8% uranium 235 mixed with
uranium 238 cannot be made to explode no matter how
hard you try. A small amount of plutonium mixed in with
the uranium can not change this. Reactor fuel still cannot
be made to explode like a nuclear bomb no matter how
hard you try. There has never been a nuclear explosion in
a reactor and there never will be. [Uranium and plutonium
are flammable, but a fire isn't an explosion.] The fuel is
further diluted by being divided and sealed into many small
steel capsules. The fuel is further diluted by the need for
coolant to flow around the capsules and through the core so
that heat can be transported to a place where heat energy
can be converted to electrical energy. A reactor does not
contain any high speed [or any other speed] chemical
explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not have
any explosive materials at all.

As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no
possible way that a reactor could ever explode like a
nuclear bomb. Reactors and bombs are very different.
Reactors and bombs are really not even related to each
other.