Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Giving thanks for both actinides and hydrocarbons

By 17 Comments

Neutrons are key provided to unlock energy stored in actinides
Credit: UVA Nuclear Reactions

There is a pervasive myth claiming that energy is difficult to store. The objective fact is that our creator – or nature if you prefer – figured out how to store massive quantities of useable energy at the very beginning.

Aside: Refined electricity storage doesn’t appear to be difficult from a consumer’s point of view. Charging small batteries seems like such a simple task. The parts of the system that are hidden from users, however, is material intensive, consumes energy, and costs a lot of money compared to simply using electricity as soon it is generated. End Aside.

At the time of the Big Bang – the cause of which can be debated forever – a spectrum of elements formed.

Some of those elements – collectively known as actinides – were formed by pushing a large quantity of protons and neutrons tightly together. The process created atoms that were almost stable because they were held together with an almost unimaginable amount of binding energy.

Forming those actinide elements, the longest lived of which were isotopes of uranium and thorium, “consumed” a portion of the vast quantity of energy released by the Bang.

Actually, “consumed” isn’t the right word because the energy did not disappear.

For several billion years, the binding energy remained securely locked in the nuclei of nearly stable isotopes. The creator – again, nature if you prefer – gifted the key to that massive stockpile of the capacity to do work. The key was well-hidden; only creatures with curiosity, ability to document and communicate discoveries, motivation for the search, and sufficient provisions for basic survival to invest in the search would be able to discover it.

In 1932, humans found the key. James Chadwick was the person credited with taking the conclusive step in a multi-decade search when he designed and conducted a replicable experiment showing that there were particles inside nuclei that were as heavy as protons, but carried no electrical charge. Those particles, named neutrons, almost immediately became a tool of intense interest among the scientists who specialized in uncovering and describing atomic structure.

Once the key was located, it opened up an immense treasure trove whose contents are still being cataloged. We have no way of knowing how many new sections remain to be found. The trove includes rare or previously non-existent materials with unique physical properties and it included an effectively unlimited source of power to perform both constructive and destructive work.

For many good reasons – and some nefarious, selfish reasons – humans have been alternatively excited, cautious, methodical and halting during the lengthy and ongoing discovery process. We’ve learned a great deal and continue to make progress. At the same time, we’ve collectively forgotten many early lessons, ignored some useful discoveries, misused some of the knowledge, and misled even ourselves about the potential value of the information we’ve uncovered.

Fortunately, we’ve managed to avoid most potentially catastrophic results even while we have so far failed to take full advantage of the stockpile of value we’ve inherited.

It’s time to give thanks for both the gift and the progress that has been made so far in developing effective uses for the gift. It’s also time to dedicate ourselves to continued efforts to take better advantage of the gift in service to mankind.

But Don’t Forget The Value Of Stored Hydrocarbons

Nature – or our creator, if you will – provided plenty of alternative sources of power to enable the development of creatures capable of unlocking and understanding the energy stored inside atomic nuclei. Like other stars, our nearby sun used another type of power made available by the Big Bang. It was a massive enough gathering of lighter elements to enable them to be pushed together at extremely high temperatures and pressures.

When two light elements have nuclei that are mashed together, a tiny amount of their mass turns into released energy in the form of heat and a spectrum of waves ranging from low frequency thermal energy to ultra high frequency x- and gamma rays. At its distance of 93 million miles from our Earth, the portion of the Sun’s energy bathing our planet acted as a gentle stimulant for life to develop and flourish.

Some forms of life could directly convert the sun’s energy into nourishment, other forms of life developed to obtain their energy indirectly by consuming parts of the life that directly used the sun. Bits and pieces of both forms were left over and ended up being stored for future use.

There is even a reasonable theoretical probability that some forms of hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon precursors were deposited in the primordial materials that compose our home planet.

Over time, the creatures that eventually became homo sapiens learned to take advantage of chemical reactions that released heat and light from a wide variety of natural materials. They began to understand the advantages and limitations of various potential sources of combustion fuel and gradually improved the safety and utility of those forms of stored energy.

Energy stored in material gradually enabled humans to spend less time in scratching out subsistence. it enabled travel, discovery, a move away from human bondage, less dependence on animal muscle, greater comforts, improvements in heath and sanitation, better ability to store food safely and countless other components of modern living that are often taken for granted.

Even though there are some known downsides to the ways that we currently consume hydrocarbons, we should remember and give thanks for their existence and their utility. We can continue improving our methods of putting their value to work in service of mankind and we can gradually incorporate replacements in situations where those replacements provide better overall value.

It is entirely feasible to move towards a world where there is less pressure to open up new stores of hydrocarbons, but it is needlessly polarizing to talk of eliminating their use by fiat or even by propagandistic campaigns designed to use fear, guilt and demonization as tools of persuasion.

While it would be good to properly price the damage that can be done by hydrocarbon byproducts, attempting to achieve zero use is about as illogical and counterproductive as seeking to ban fire.

Aside: It’s become clear to me that coal has been demonized by people interested in seeking to capture a larger market share for methane (aka natural gas). There are benefits and disadvantages of each of those closely related fuels, but methane speculators and producers know they’ll make more money if a growing share of customers can be turned away from coal. Despite the pervasive propaganda to the contrary coal can be the best fuel choice in a given situation. End Aside.

If we are really and truly focused on quickly reducing mankind’s contribution to the ever-increasing quantity of CO2 in our atmosphere, effective action needs to include the willing participation of people that are unlikely to be convinced by fear, uncertainty and doubt. If we want major sources of capital to invest a growing share of their resources into developing and deploying fission power systems, we need them to see beneficial results from revising their investment habits.

We need to convincingly prove that fission can be even more profitable than combustion, even if the profits must be more evenly distributed to make the transition work. Though we have good reasons to be thankful for the opportunities that dense stores of energy provide, we must accept responsibility for turning potential into reality.

1000 Times Too Large – Evacuation Assumption at Indian Point

By 4 Comments

by M. Herschel Specter, former AEC Licensing Manager for Indian Point 3

On November 16, 2015 Jim Malatras, New York State’s Director of Operations, wrote to the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners arguing that the applications for extending the licenses of the two operating nuclear plants at Indian Point should be denied. His central reasoning was “Indian Point’s proximity to a major population center in New York City and surrounding areas-make it absolutely impossible to have an effective safety and evacuation plan”. This is just not so.

Indian Point 25% of NYC's electricity on small footprint with no smokestacks

Indian Point: Producing 25% of NYC’s electricity on small footprint with no smokestacks

Malatras repeated an often used straw man that since it would be impossible to evacuate the 20 million people who lived within 50 miles of these plants, the plants should be shut down. There is no basis found in science or found in the reviews of actual nuclear accidents for evacuating out to 50 miles. Such a massive evacuation itself would likely be more dangerous than the near term radiological health effects of any nuclear accident.

Only the 20,000 or so people who live within two miles of the Indian Point plants need be evacuated, a number a thousand times smaller than the one Malatras used. This much smaller group would be evacuated prior to the release of any radioactive material. Other people, downwind from the damaged nuclear plant, would be advised to take shelter and some, if they were in a “hot spot”, would be relocated, even if this hot spot was beyond the present ten mile emergency planning zone (EPZ). Food and water would be monitored to prevent improper ingestion. There would be ample time to take all of these simple protective actions.

Such a simple emergency response would be highly effective. Zero near term radiological health effects, such as injuries or fatalities, would be expected because the range of such hazards is very short, between zero and two miles from the site. This is the basis of a two mile pre-emptive evacuation. Long term radiological health effects beyond two miles, if any, would be too small to be detectable, statistically. Sheltering beyond two miles is the preferred emergency response.

How do we know that there would be such limited radiological effects if a meltdown at Indian Point occurred? First, modern computer analyses developed at our national laboratories give a very different picture of what nuclear accidents might look like compared to severe accident estimates generated years ago. Today we know that nuclear accidents would release far less radioactive material into the environment, that many hours would pass before this radioactive material entered the environment, and that the release would occur more slowly, i.e., radioactive releases would be smaller, later, and more gradual than what old technology indicated. These accident characteristics greatly simplify emergency planning for all nuclear power plant sites.

Second, we have the lessons learned from the three simultaneous reactor meltdowns five years ago at Fukushima. The emergency situation at Fukushima was extreme: the most powerful earthquake ever to hit Japan, a tsunami much higher than what was planned for, a complete loss of electric power at the three nuclear plants, flooding in the lower areas in the plants, most instrumentation inoperable, a significant loss of communications, and hydrogen explosions.

Emergency workers outside of the power plants had to simultaneously deal with the earthquake, the tsunami, and three simultaneous reactor meltdowns. Yet the World Health Organization has concluded that there were no near term radiological health effects and that long term radiological health effects would be too small to be detectable. Since the emergency response at Fukushima was highly effective even under such extreme conditions, a similar emergency response would also be highly effective at Indian Point.

The releases of radioactive material at Fukushima were smaller, later, and more gradual than what would have been predicted years before the accident, i.e., they showed the same general characteristics as the computer analyses generated by our national laboratories. Additionally, the Japanese used an emergency response where the inner two miles were pre-emptively evacuated, there was downwind sheltering and, later, relocation of people from hot spots, some of which were beyond their EPZ.

Although the radiological effects of the accident were near zero, there was a large over-evacuation and to date 1600 fatalities have occurred from this over-evacuation. Over-evacuation, such as attempting some huge 50 mile evacuation, must be avoided. Even just evacuating the whole Indian Point ten mile Emergency Planning Zone is far too much. The emergency plan for Indian Point described above uses lessons learned from Fukushima and modern science. It minimizes both the radiological and non-radiological hazards.

Two upstate nuclear power plants may shut down because of financial reasons. The Governor is rightly concerned that if these two sources of carbon-free electricity do close, the state’s climate change program would be eviscerated. However, the two Indian Point plants produce about 65% more carbon-free electricity than the two upstate plants. Shut down Indian Point and the state’s climate change program would also be eviscerated, even if the upstate nuclear plants continued to operate.

With nuclear power risks now known to be far smaller than thought before and with climate change effects getting ever more serious, it is time to make some important adjustments: keep all of the state’s nuclear plants operating, even if this calls for some kind of temporary financial support for the upstate plants, extend the licenses of the IndianPoint plants, and update the Indian Point emergency plan. This would be a win-win result for all. Let us focus on dealing with climate change, a far more serious challenge than Indian Point.

Editor’s Note: M. H. Specter also provided a copy of briefing slides used when he spoke on the topic at the Advanced Energy Conference held in NYC April 20-22.

Commentary: Mr. Specter’s evacuation planning recommendation does not apply just to Indian Point. When combined with a biological science-based definition of hot spots intense enough to present any risk at all to humans, plants or animals, it offers an important step in gaining both government and public acceptance of nuclear energy.

Contrary to what we’ve been told over the years, not only is the probability of major accidents at nuclear power facilities incredibly low–not zero–but the potential consequences of those accidents are manageable without significant impact on human health or property.

Cheap, emission-free way to boil water

By

For the majority of human history, people used their own muscles to provide almost all of the work required for survival and development. A thin slice of humanity achieved a moderate amount of personal comfort and leisure because they were able, often through an accident of birth, to control a portion of the daily work […]

99% of mankind should love nuclear energy

By

Please be patient with me on this post – it might take a while before I clearly demonstrate why it belongs on Atomic Insights. First I want to share a couple of entertaining, but informative videos that you’ll probably never see in the commercial media. This is another version of the same song, performed with […]

Deadliest adversary of antinuclear movement – guiltless men and women proudly sharing nuclear knowledge

By

For the past few months, I have been rereading Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Though the book was first published more than 50 years ago, it is remarkably prescient about some of the risks that society can face when too many people forget how to produce items of real value and quality. It is a book […]

Flush With Cash – Where Did Climate Activists Get So Much Money?

By

The Economist recently published a column titled Climate politics: Flush with cash. So what? that described the results of a recent study by Matthew Nisbet, an researcher at American University in Washington, DC. According to Nisbet, groups classified in the environmental category spent almost $400 million on climate change and energy issues in 2009. The […]

Fear of Radiation is Killing People and Endangering the Planet Too

By

This is a guest post by Ted Rockwell. He wrote it in 1998, but the information and opinions remain valid today. The words between the lines below are Ted’s. Begin guest post   FEAR OF RADIATION IS KILLING PEOPLE AND ENDANGERING THE PLANET TOO Theodore Rockwell MPR Associates, Inc., U.S.A. ABSTRACT   We are permitting […]