In two previous posts, I wrote about the path I had gotten on, back in 1995, to shut down a research reactor at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island. The reactor, called a High Flux Beam Reactor, or HFBR, had its operations suspended and was eventually shut down, in 1999, after an investigation established that tritium had leaked from spent fuel pools and had contaminated ground water within and beyond the Brookhaven Lab site.
I met many people while working on the BNL issue, as well as other battles involving nuclear power. One of them was Randy Snell, a Long Island resident who raised his family near Brookhaven. Snell's daughter developed a rare form of cancer, rhabdomyosarcoma, which was found in several other children living near BNL. The total number of cases was fifteen times the national average. Snell, and others who were struggling with "rhabdo" (and other soft tissue cancers) near reactors or enrichment facilities, told me that exposure to low-level radiation is a factor in the disease.
Many activists working on the issue at the time referred to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, and its discussion of "bioaccumulation." Carson stated that chemical contamination, both alone and in conjunction with radiological contamination, would lead to extraordinary health hazards for human and animal populations. Long Island, particularly the Eastern region (Suffolk County) has been bombarded with applications of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides for many decades. Chemicals applied in farming (particularly potato farming), home lawn care, ball parks and golf courses have been driven down through a rather shallow "lense" of soil and have contaminated groundwater on Long Island with impunity. Breast cancer rates in Suffolk County are among the highest in the US.
After BNL was shut down, the group I was working with at the time, Standing for Truth About Radiation (STAR) Foundation folded. Contacts I had made while with STAR led me to the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) and my association with Dr. Jay Gould, Dr. Ernest Sternglass and Joe Mangano, who is the current Executive Director of RPHP. While RPHP introduced me to debates regarding alternative energy and the dangers posed by utility reactors all over the US, RPHP's focus was on Millstone in Connecticut, on Indian Point in Buchanan, New York and, most intently, on the Oyster Creek Reactor in Tom's River, New Jersey.
RPHP's assertion is clear and is not new information. There are no safe levels of exposure to the byproducts created by the generation of reactors currently in use. RPHP has dedicated much of their work to promulgating the research of Dr. Ernest Sternglass, whose seemingly innocuously titled research into strontium 90 deposits in children's primary teeth actually helped influence John F. Kennedy's test ban decision in 1963. The "Tooth Fairy Project" supports a simple idea. Strontium 90, emitted by conventional utility reactors, mimics calcium in the body and is termed "bone-seeking." It deposits itself in the bones and marrow, after the larger amount of food-ingested strontium 90 is excreted by the body. In the developing fetuses of pregnant women, strontium 90 (again, mimicking calcium) is deposited in the teeth. Once in the teeth, it decays into a "daughter element", yttrium, the element that researchers like Stenglass look for as the marker for elevated exposure to radiation.
Sternglass came to this research after he familiarized himself with the work of Dr. Alice Stewart, a British epidemiologist who had studied the effects of radiation on children from X-rays. Later in her career, Stewart worked on a study of the Hanford plutonium production site in Washington state. Some of the original and most significant work in this field was done by Dr. Louise Z. Reiss, who oversaw the 1958 study, The St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey. The St. Louis survey found that traces of radioactive elements in new born children had risen 100 fold during the 1950's, which coincided with the most active period of above ground testing of atomic weapons. When the testing either ceased or was curtailed, levels of radioactive material in the primary teeth of children were found to have fallen.
Levels of radiation, as detected in children's teeth, fell after above ground testing ended. Then, according to Sternglass, they spiked again in direct relation to the growth of nuclear reactors as increased sources of power at public utilities.
In my next posts, I will address the work by Sternglass and others to apply strontium 90 research to the advent of utility reactors. Also, I will cover criticism of Sternglass' work, discussion on this site of "new generation" thorium reactors, the travails of workers at enrichment plants like Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Piketon, Ohio, the political legacy of certain New Jersey officials (Democrat and Republican) as pertains to the Oyster Creek reactor, and the great, looming issue of nuclear waste management as symbolized by the heartbreaking tragedy of Hanford.
Nuke = proliferation = million year deadly waste for which there is solution = city killing terrorist targets = dirty bombs = 52 cents expensive elasticity with a 50% default rate.
"Clean" and too cheap to meter. we remember your nukes industry lies.
The nukes power industry grow out of the bomb industry. That's why the Uranium once through cycle was adopted: it makes the best bomb material.
Nuke power industry has inherited all of the bad habits of the nuclear bomb projects: secrecy, deception, disregard for the safety of civilians, and a war desperation mentality that will risk the Apocalypse to keep their program running.
There are no Thorium reactors, it's another bait and switch.
Theoretical Thorium reactors will produce radioactive waste that is 1000 times MORE INTENSE than today's reactors.
Nuke power is insane.
Readers reviewing this topic will find the above unsubstantiated claims repeated often throughout this topic. Readers will also find detailed, substantiated, and indisputable refutations to the above clumsy attempts at deception.
Tooth Fairy Project has no scientific value. Nuclear power plants do not emit detectable amounts of strontium-90, because it cannot penetrate fuel cladding. The rest of the flimsy argument collapses after you realize that.
He buries himself further with tritium leaks which the Green clowns make a big fuss about, but never realize how trivial they are when put in perspective. You could drink the "contaminated" water for an entire year and you wouldn't receive more radiation than from a single X-ray.
For years his finding have been repudiated as being "invalid, irresponsible and without merit."
Official and Prestigious Refutations of Sternglass up to time he left
Pittsburgh about 1980
Pennsylvania Governor's Fact Finding Committee (1974)
--made up of 8 distinguished scientists (including K.Z. Morgan)
Statement by all past presidents of Health Physics Society
National Academy of Sciences BEIR Committee
State officials (in public statements) in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Illinois, New York, and Michigan
National Cancer Institute
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Public Health Service
U.S. Bureau of Radiological Health
American Academy of Pediatrics
Am. Journal of Public Health Editorial
NATURE editorial
Statements by anti-nuclear scientists -- Tamplin, Stewart, Morgan
Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu
http://www.ntanet.net/threemile.html
Labeling these substanceless comments from little research "green spam" is an insult to the valid features of green energy technology.
However, little research is no knowledgeable spokesperson for green technology. His repetitious spam comments are a grave disservice to the industry.
"Green spam" fits.
I want you to take the existing nuclear waste. No? why not?
wind is cheaper than nukes and completely clean.
Let's all pray that Mr. Baldwin stays in acting where he clearly knows what he is doing.
This topic contains many cogent comments about how to frame a coherent energy policy that includes solar, wind, wave, geothermal, biofuels, and nuclear power for the next 5 decades. I suggest that you read them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-cost_photovoltaic_cell
for potential future developments. It's possible that PV will drop to competitive pricing levels this decade. Then again, maybe not. Too many unknowns left to tell.
Meanwhile, (and I've been watching this now for 40 years) the consensus on "Peak Oil" seems to have dropped to 10 years or less. So, even if syn and biofuels become vogue, the price curves may eventually intersect.
BTW, I don't believe the real-life version of Peak Oil will be left/right symmetric like the old Hubbert Curve. But the environmental degradation involved in tar sands and shale conversions is enormous. And for production scale algae-derived biofuel, you need cheap and enormous sources of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon. Sewage treatment plants provide 3 of the 4. But getting carbon from petroleum is obviously self-defeating. Getting it from coal-fired plants perpetuates them. Moreover, co-located sewage/power plants are anomalies. So, you must factor in CO2 filtering, liquefaction and transport into your costs. Not saying unworkable. But production scale plants will still be costly,despite algae's exponential growth rates.
The cleaner sensical option is natural gas conversion, at least for our trucking fleet. But at 1/2 the carbon footprint, this is still at best a stop gap technology.
So, either PV gets really cheap, FAST, or it's onto thorium.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100310134255.htm
seekingalpha.com/article/194251-inside-the-peak-oil-demand-model
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Prediction
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report ,
www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf
www.mnforsustain.org/oil_peaking_of_world_oil_production_study_hirsch.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_curve
dieoff.org/page191.htm
www.peakoil.net/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicting_the_timing_of_peak_oil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rainwater#Betting_on_peak_oil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession#Oil_prices
So there is no logical prospect for photovoltaic technology getting "real cheap FAST." The technology needs a lot more time to get more than a slightly less than 10% trickle. Plus installations all need to have peak power tracking and microinverters.
So our only viable option for a bridge to green energy technologies is nuclear power. For that, we need the federal government to step in and sweep away frivolous contrived regulatory opposition.
Fanned in return.
So instead I will fave you.
Alec Baldwin should stick to acting. It's what he knows. Research, reputable sources, forming a logical (versus emotional) theses, he doesn't know.
This topic contains ample references to refute Mr. Baldwin's claims several times over.
The most concerning part of this topic is that Mr. Baldwin may actually believe his writing. That is a reflection of American culture's rejection of science and mathematics.
I think he is smart enough to get it, but first he has to get over his ego long enough to accept teaching, and then he needs to have good teacher(s) on the topics of logic, rhetoric, stats, and risk management.
Agreed that he is not anywhere near where he needs to be on this.
http://www.puc.state.pa.us/electric/pdf/NMIC_SunEdison_Comments_Att3.pdf
"Insurance requirements cause two types of problems for selfgenerating customers. First, the cost of complying with utility requirements for liability insurance can offset much or all of the energy benefits the customers expected to capture from their renewable generating facilities.
A customer in the Northeast U.S. wished to install a 3 kW PV system and was told the utility required $250,000 of commercial-class coverage, referred to as .comprehensive general liability. (CGL) insurance.
A customer in the Southeast U.S. installed a 9.3 kW PV system and was required by the utility to carry a $1 million liability insurance policy. The premium for this policy was $6,252 per year, more than four times the value of the energy produced annually by the system.
When a Pacific Northwest state implemented its net metering law, one of the utilities proposed that net metering customers maintain $2 million in liability insurance.
Insurance costs can be a substantial economic burden even for larger residential-scale facilities. For example, a 4 kW PV system may produce 7,200 kWh/year, with a value of approximately $580 per year. A $200 increase in the homeowner.s insurance premium is equivalent to 34% of the annual energy savings from the PV system and increases the simple payback period for the system by nearly 40 years."
Thanks for the tip. This is something we need to look into.
This is very similar to what most railroads now do if your property is on the other side of the tracks, and your driveway needs to cross their tracks for access to that property.
First, they grandfather everyone in so there won't be massive class action complaints, and then when you try and sell your property, they hit the new prospective owner up with a 5 million dollar comercial liability insurance requirement, and demand to be made the benificiary. Of course, this makes it pretty hard to sell that piece of property.
who would have ever thought that fossil fuel utility companies might actually act to greedily protect their pig troughs by actively discouraging competitive alternatives?
Thorium is touted as the new, clean, unleaded version of nuclear power, and there is some evidence to suggest it could be. Back when I was in grade school, there was a guy whose mother always packed him awful healthy lunches. Now I eat multi-grain bread all the time. Studies show that multi-grain bread is good for you, or so I am told - I haven't really read the science - but really all you need to know is that a friend of mine starting eating multi-grain and he says he has never felt healthier. In fact, some doctors of my acquaintance believe that multi-grain bread can give you super powers.
In other words, he will rely on an appeal to misplaced authority (his own) to string together lots of logically inconsistent arguments and arguments by anecdote which never really amount to any kind of proof but are, for some reason, taken as such.
This forum shows that most people are reasonable and educated. They know how to look behind the curtain and see the pull rods, buttons, smoke, and mirrors.
So, I just went to that solarinc site and tried their leasing costs widgit, based on my old house and neighborhood in Los Angeles. It said I'd be paying $72/month to replace electricity with a PV system on my old 1 bedroom apt. with their prorated lease program. That doesn't equate to anything close to $1.30 per peak watt. At a retail 12 cents per kwh and 350 kwh/month, that'd be $42/month. So, their lease figure works out to about 21 cents/kwh, which is significantly higher than Southern California Edison's rate, but also cheaper than the average cost usually quoted for an installed PV system.
We have not found a leasing option that makes any sense. Accepting a lease agreement means letting the system provider use your roof to collect all the revenue from state and federal subsidies and charge you for the pleasure. So you get no revenue and a net electricity savings half of what you would get by buying the system.
Just curious... looked into it a bit here(NY), but last time I did it was far from cost effective. Also in a bit of a snowbelt in upstate so can't really see myself dragging my butt up onto the roof a dozen times a winter to clear off the panels.
FANNED!
Global Solar-Panel Demand May Double on Above-Market Rates: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aW1qaLgVgtrQ
"The company’s thin-film modules use cadmium telluride to convert sunlight into electricity instead of the higher cost polysilicon used in most solar panels. That allows them to install solar plants for about $1.30 per watt, compared with an industry average of about $1.75, according to Hardy." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=a7K1FZoNgJ0w
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/selenium/mcs-2008-tellu.pdf
1gW worth of thin solar PV uses a bit over 93 metric tons of Tellurium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_telluride
"The disposal and long term safety of cadmium telluride is a known issue in the large scale commercialization of cadmium telluride solar panels.
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are nominating Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) for inclusion in the National Toxicology Program (NTP). This nomination is strongly supported by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and First Solar Inc. The material has the potential for widespread applications in photovoltaic energy generation that will involve extensive human interfaces. Hence, we consider that a definitive toxicological study of the effects of long-term exposure to CdTe is a necessity.
The toxicity is not solely due to the cadmium content. One study found that the highly reactive surface of cadmium telluride quantum dots triggers extensive reactive oxygen damage to the cell membrane, mitochondria, and cell nucleus.[5]. Many nanoparticle chemicals have safety issues. "
http://www.itwire.com/science-news/energy/36779-ibm-overcomes-costly-hurdles-in-thin-film-solar-cells
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-104/pdfs/2005-104.pdf linear ERR correct. that is, there IS NO SAFE DOSE.
page 45
Thus if we were stupid enough to get all our electricity from nukes,
we can expect 20,000 TMI/Chernobyl's over the million years it will take for the radiation from the first accident to subside.
Solar Wind and Waste Bio fuels are cleaner, safer, ready, cheaper and forever.
Nuke won't fly airplanes, or long haul trucks. But waste bio Fuels already have.
Nukes have lead to several new members of the nuke clubs, bringing a nuclear exchange all that much closer, and a resultant nuclear holocaust close too.
Nukes are a death wish.
You are only 3 orders of magnitude off. Have you ever thought of checking more than one source for confirmation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisievert (mSv) per year.[1] This exposure is mostly from cosmic radiation and natural radionuclide in the environment. This is far greater than human-caused background radiation exposure, which in the year 2000 amounted to an average of about 5 μSv per year from historical nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power accidents and nuclear industry operation combined,[2] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
"The highest levels of natural background radiation recorded in the world till date is from areas around Ramsar, particularly at Talesh-Mahalleh which is a very high background radiation area (VHBRA) having an effective dose equivalent several times in excess of ICRP-recommended radiation dose limits for radiation workers and up to 200 times greater than normal background levels. Most of the radiation in the area is due to dissolved Radium-226 in water of hot springs along with smaller amounts of Uranium and Thorium due to travertine deposits. There are more than nine hot springs in the area with different concentrations of radioisotopes, and these are used as spas by locals and tourists.[8] This high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area and even possibly has made them slightly more radioresistant, which is puzzling and has been called "radiation paradox". It has also been reported that residents have healthier and longer lives.[9]
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7460-large-study-links-power-lines-to-childhood-cancer.html
"Children living near overhead power lines may have an increased risk of leukemia but the association may not be causal, UK researchers say.
Comparing the children who had cancer with a control group of 29,000 children without cancer but who lived in comparable districts, found that children whose birth address was within 200 metres of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia. Children living 200 to 600 m away from power lines had a 20% increased risk.
"To put these results in perspective, our study shows that about five of the 400 cases of childhood leukemia every year may be linked to power lines - which is about 1% of cases"
Nuclear power will always be controlled by government. No private industry has yet, or ever will develop anything nuclear power without close partership with government. Very distasteful to the anti-socialist "each to his own, everybody for themselves" crowd, it's true.
Solar PV fits in better with the tea party everybody for themselves attitude, yet it is still not truely distributed, and the centralized utility is still there.
Hasn't anyone got a comment on you the homeowner assuming the quite substantial weather risk, capital costs, insurance, and maintenence, while the utility gets most of the benifits?
Anyone care to make their case for why distribution of power is "better" for America than the centralized power we already have?
20k Is a big purchase, though, so do your homework.
right now the grid connects laws regulation and rules , the insurance cots, etc... all vary tremendously based on where you live.
try this search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=VEu&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=best+solar+states&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Most of the anti-nuclear crowd seems to prefer repetitive reposting of their catchy slogans, and urban legends, over any substantive response or rebuttal to the questions that have been raised. I guess I will have to revise my former opinion about liberals being any more open minded toward facts than conservatives, as I have seen little evidence of that here. -in the anti-nuke crowd, anyway.
Why did I expect that anyone would actually notice the vast improvements that could be made to make up some of the shortcomings of today's nuclear power, that could be brought to the table by the LFTR?
Perhaps, because I recognize the many shortcomings found with today's very inefficient uranium burning antiques and how the LFTR technology, could make quite a difference in the safety of nuclear power.
Certainly, I did not expect the constant red herring diversions toward tiny increases in the probability of nuclear cancers or nuclear war. Diversions, that merely focus attention away from the great leapfrog in nuclear technology possible here. Diversions, that totally ignore the far greater dangers from continuing to burn coal and other carbon based fossil or biological fuels. Diversions that ignore the toxicities and dangers present in all the alternative sources, whether it be dioxins from waste-to-energy, or dangers from nanomaterials found in solar panels.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/introducing-huffpost-badg_b_557168.html
If you haven't already done so.
Nobody, has posted a single response as to what they think the energy source will be in the next century, or anytime after fossil sources actually run out. If not nuclear, what will it be?
Nobody has yet posted a single response with any realistic plan to add 1 Gigawatt per day can be added to our grid, for the next 30 years, as will be required to keep up with population growth.
I don't say solar won't be needed, or that biochar won't be needed, or that wind won't be used. I am just saying that nuclear power's great power density will be needed as well for baseload, if we are to have any chance at replacing coal.
It is only the anti-nuke crowd that says they can do it alone without nuclear power, while telling us to nevermind the details as to how they will actually do it, as if it were obvious.
Only thing I can say is don't give up hope. There are many reasonable people here... even among the anti-nuke crowd, though I suspect their voices are often lost among the ranters.
Af far as future power sources go LFTR certainly has a ton of potential, as do many other forms of nuclear, gas cooled pebble bed reactors(PBR) come to mind and Germany had a small(15mw) test reactor in operation for over 21 years( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor ). I suspect if we could get past the 1970's propaganda we could easily cover 30-40% of our need with nuclear by 2030, though I suspect the reality will be closer to 20%.
Renewables certainly have a place, especially as technology improves and costs come down. If the technology continues at current rates I suspect we could cover another 20-30% of our needs using a combination of solar, wind, geothermal. Unfortunately I've never seen a reputable study that even suggested that renewables could handle more than 30% in the next few decades. Of course hydro will always have a place.
And of course whatever remains will have to be covered by Coal/Gas and biofuels... not that I like the idea.
The next century... Fusion(hopefully) and renewables as they become efficient, reliable, and affordable.
Dr. Chu, Dr, Peterson, and others have formed some kind of panel to decide this policy as we speak.
Of all the panel members, Dr. Peterson is the only one I know of for sure, that has even heard of the LFTR. Berkley is home to the Pebble Bed design, possibly giving it the leg up with Dr. Chu.
Interestingly, the Pebble Bed design is actually a Molten Salt Reactor. It just uses solid uranium/graphite balls(pebbles) as it's fuel source, instead of going ahead and making the leap to the greater benifits of liquid fuel. It is a liquid core, with solid fuel floating around in it. It retains the once-through concept of fuel burning, however.
As an interium design, I consider it a step forward, but not as far forward as could be possible here. Is the Pebble Bed design safer than today's reactors? Can it recycle some of our existing wastes? Yes. Does it get us to 99% or better fuel burnup? No.
Will it probably be Dr. Chu's choice? The jury is out.
Would you prefer the Pebble Bed, or the LFTR? Why?
Do you consider the Pebble Bed, more shovel ready? Why?
Thanks for the encouragement, Steve.
Gas wells here in the Barnett Shale (only 8000ft deep) are now being implicated in small earthquakes in Texas. Drilling into fault zones, is more of an unquantified danger, than nuclear.
But, how about we only deploy "sealed" LFTR units to other countries? It gives us 30 more years to figure something better out.
http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/multiMissionMSR.html
"There are no technical obstacles for the deployment of a 'sealed' MSR that operates with no chemical processing. Such a reactor could operate for ~30 years with no processing other than allowing the noble gases to naturally bubble out of the salt and periodic additions of fissile material."
"If this strategy of attempting to remove very long term fission product buildups in the salt is pursued, the salt can continue service in another reactor after the first MSR has reached the end of its life. This would not only greatly reduce decommisioning costs and difficulties (as the vast majority of the radioactivities go with the salt and removed fission products), but allow the expense of the salt to be amortized over >100 year periods!"
It will create a new 1000 times deadly radioactive waste problem.
You already promised "Clean" and safe,
and we have several new nuclear bomb club members,
history's deadliest waste problem,
And handy city kill terrorist targets.
Green energy is cheaper faster, safer, cleaner and forever.
Couldn't agree more. I remember what that felt like. (It was recent.)
I was shocked at the level of discourse that some employ to make their points, both because they were illogical and because they were laced with personal invective.
American capacity for civility, research, logic, and pride in excellence have all plunged into an abyss of indifference in the last 40 years - two generations after the end of the '60s.
The evils of 1950s conformity are clearly displayed in the movie "Dead Poets' Society." But America has gone far to the opposite extreme - an absorbed selfishness and laziness too squalid to even describe.
We are rotting from within.
There is a post in this topic that states the Nuclear Regulatory Commission exposure limits for non-nuclear workers:
Envrionmental: .... 300 mrem per year
Medical: ................60 mrem per year.