Nobody is going to have to "maintain" nuclear used fuel for hundreds of thousands of years. We are already developing molten salt fast reactors which will be able to consume everything except the fission products, Curio would like to mine the fission products for usable isotopes, and the fission products we choose to discard can go down a Deep Isolation-style borehole, where they won't need any further attention from anybody, ever. If you multiply the per-capita electricity consumption for the U.S. (including electricity for business, government, industry, etc) by the average life span of a U.S. citizen, a lifetime supply of electricity for 1 person works out to be roughly 1 gigawatt hour. Generating that much electricity by nuclear power produces about 120 grams of fission products, and 98 grams of that will not be radioactive after 10 years. And most of the active remainder is cesium 137 and strontium 90, which will lose 99.9% of their radioactivity each 300 years (though we actually have uses for those two isotopes). That is an incredibly tiny waste profile for a lifetime supply of 100% nuclear-generated electricity, and it will be even less if we also use wind and solar and hydro.
Nuclear energy does indeed produce heat, so it has to be converted into electricity if that's what we want to do with that heat. But there are a lot of other things you can do with heat... like industrial materials processing, pyrolysis for plastics recycling, hydrogen production, chemical refining, synthetic fuels and fertilizer production, ship propulsion, direct-air CO2 removal, and much more. High heat is also a great way to store energy so that it can be used when it is most needed--much easier and cheaper than storing energy in the form of electrons.
Nuclear engineers and scientists, like Alvin Weinberg, tried to warn Rickover he had chosen the wrong kind of reactor for civilian nuclear power. He dismissed their warnings because he felt he knew better. And then when it all went wrong in exactly the ways they warned him it would, he found it easier and more comfortable to condemn nuclear power than to accept responsibility for his own arrogance and poor judgment. And Rickover was wrong, life on Earth began at least 3.7 billion years ago (that we have direct evidence for) and possibly more than 4 billion years ago--back when the Earth was far more radioactive than it is now.
Regarding the discharge of tritium-contaminated water from Fukushima, the needed context is the amount. Atomic bomb testing released between 500 and 700 kg. of tritium. We literally don't know to the nearest 100 kg. how much was released, and it might have been the largest tritium pulse in Earth history. Even so, no effect on marine life or human health was detected. Today, there is still around 8 kg. of bomb tritium still in the Pacific. Normal creation of natural tritium is around 0.4 kilograms per year (this varies with solar activity). So how much will be released from Fukushima? The release rate is capped at 0.06 grams per year. But in the first year of release, roughly 435 grams of Pacific bomb tritium will decay away, so tritium will be decreasing in the Pacific about 7000 times faster than the Fukushima discharge will be adding to it.
The Fukushima discharge will also contain some carbon 14. Total C-14 inventory in the storage tanks right now--about 0.336 grams. Pacific natural C-14 inventory: roughly 18 metric tonnes.Nobody is going to have to "maintain" nuclear used fuel for hundreds of thousands of years. We are already developing molten salt fast reactors which will be able to consume everything except the fission products, Curio would like to mine the fission products for usable isotopes, and the fission products we choose to discard can go down a Deep Isolation-style borehole, where they won't need any further attention from anybody, ever. If you multiply the per-capita electricity consumption for the U.S. (including electricity for business, government, industry, etc) by the average life span of a U.S. citizen, a lifetime supply of electricity for 1 person works out to be roughly 1 gigawatt hour. Generating that much electricity by nuclear power produces about 120 grams of fission products, and 98 grams of that will not be radioactive after 10 years. And most of the active remainder is cesium 137 and strontium 90, which will lose 99.9% of their radioactivity each 300 years (though we actually have uses for those two isotopes). That is an incredibly tiny waste profile for a lifetime supply of 100% nuclear-generated electricity, and it will be even less if we also use wind and solar and hydro.
Nuclear energy does indeed produce heat, so it has to be converted into electricity if that's what we want to do with that heat. But there are a lot of other things you can do with heat... like industrial materials processing, pyrolysis for plastics recycling, hydrogen production, chemical refining, synthetic fuels and fertilizer production, ship propulsion, direct-air CO2 removal, and much more. High heat is also a great way to store energy so that it can be used when it is most needed--much easier and cheaper than storing energy in the form of electrons.
Nuclear engineers and scientists, like Alvin Weinberg, tried to warn Rickover he had chosen the wrong kind of reactor for civilian nuclear power. He dismissed their warnings because he felt he knew better. And then when it all went wrong in exactly the ways they warned him it would, he found it easier and more comfortable to condemn nuclear power than to accept responsibility for his own arrogance and poor judgment. And Rickover was wrong, life on Earth began at least 3.7 billion years ago (that we have direct evidence for) and possibly more than 4 billion years ago--back when the Earth was far more radioactive than it is now.
Regarding the discharge of tritium-contaminated water from Fukushima, the needed context is the amount. Atomic bomb testing released between 500 and 700 kg. of tritium. We literally don't know to the nearest 100 kg. how much was released, and it might have been the largest tritium pulse in Earth history. Even so, no effect on marine life or human health was detected. Today, there is still around 8 kg. of bomb tritium still in the Pacific. Normal creation of natural tritium is around 0.4 kilograms per year (this varies with solar activity). So how much will be released from Fukushima? The release rate is capped at 0.06 grams per year. But in the first year of release, roughly 435 grams of Pacific bomb tritium will decay away, so tritium will be decreasing in the Pacific about 7000 times faster than the Fukushima discharge will be adding to it.
The Fukushima discharge will also contain some carbon 14. Total C-14 inventory in the storage tanks right now--about 0.336 grams. Pacific natural C-14 inventory: roughly 18 metric tonnes.
All of it is repeated. I apparently had keyboard switch-bounce when I pasted it into the comment field so it pasted twice, and then I couldn't figure out how to edit the posted comment after I realized what had happened.
Yes, there doesn't seem to be a way to fix that, a little substack system error. If this was really an actual web sub-domain, which it theoretically is, I could edit it in HTML and repost, but substack does not allow direct access to our own subdomains. i would like to write directly in HTML, and you would have a better-looking web page, but they have this scheme to make all writing look the same.
Yeah, this is not a great venue. The upside to that is that it also seems to be a low traffic backwater. Back when I was opposed to all forms of fission power, I managed to get a few of my writings into some high profile areas, and in retrospect I wish I had not succeeded. I was too uncritical in accepting the claims of leading anti-nukes, like Caldicott, Gundersen, Busby, Mangano, Sherman, etc. and I failed in my due-diligence responsibility to check those claims for accuracy, context, and fairness. So I wound up helping to spread a lot of bad information as a result. I have since found that this issue is not the simple case of good vs. evil that I thought it was, and it turned out to be far more complex, nuanced, surprising, and interesting than I ever suspected. And from the way you appear to value science and reason, I think there may be a similar evolution ahead for you. So, while I do hope you find a better venue, I'm also thinking it might be better if that happens when you are further along in your journey.
Thank you Nicholas, but my journey is not going anywhere. No form of nuclear fits in with the goal of learning to live in harmony with this planet; it is too disruptive on many fronts; it is an unnecessary extension of "Progress." We need to get by with less energy inputs, not ever-increasing per-capita and overall increases in energy usage. It simply isn't necessary. Maybe you could help out the Japanese with their plutonium-reprocessing issues. And no, "molten salt" reactors are not a solution to anything, just another step of progress too far. Stay on the ground, stay out of space, stay off the Moon.
And it's back to the articles of faith. So much for the appearance of valuing science and reason. I take it you also reject Hansen's conclusions about global warming (or you actually want the Earth to heat up faster). Oh well, that's fine. I'm only looking to skim off rational people from your side of the debate. It's better for my side if the rest of you remain where you are.
Nobody is going to have to "maintain" nuclear used fuel for hundreds of thousands of years. We are already developing molten salt fast reactors which will be able to consume everything except the fission products, Curio would like to mine the fission products for usable isotopes, and the fission products we choose to discard can go down a Deep Isolation-style borehole, where they won't need any further attention from anybody, ever. If you multiply the per-capita electricity consumption for the U.S. (including electricity for business, government, industry, etc) by the average life span of a U.S. citizen, a lifetime supply of electricity for 1 person works out to be roughly 1 gigawatt hour. Generating that much electricity by nuclear power produces about 120 grams of fission products, and 98 grams of that will not be radioactive after 10 years. And most of the active remainder is cesium 137 and strontium 90, which will lose 99.9% of their radioactivity each 300 years (though we actually have uses for those two isotopes). That is an incredibly tiny waste profile for a lifetime supply of 100% nuclear-generated electricity, and it will be even less if we also use wind and solar and hydro.
Nuclear energy does indeed produce heat, so it has to be converted into electricity if that's what we want to do with that heat. But there are a lot of other things you can do with heat... like industrial materials processing, pyrolysis for plastics recycling, hydrogen production, chemical refining, synthetic fuels and fertilizer production, ship propulsion, direct-air CO2 removal, and much more. High heat is also a great way to store energy so that it can be used when it is most needed--much easier and cheaper than storing energy in the form of electrons.
Nuclear engineers and scientists, like Alvin Weinberg, tried to warn Rickover he had chosen the wrong kind of reactor for civilian nuclear power. He dismissed their warnings because he felt he knew better. And then when it all went wrong in exactly the ways they warned him it would, he found it easier and more comfortable to condemn nuclear power than to accept responsibility for his own arrogance and poor judgment. And Rickover was wrong, life on Earth began at least 3.7 billion years ago (that we have direct evidence for) and possibly more than 4 billion years ago--back when the Earth was far more radioactive than it is now.
Regarding the discharge of tritium-contaminated water from Fukushima, the needed context is the amount. Atomic bomb testing released between 500 and 700 kg. of tritium. We literally don't know to the nearest 100 kg. how much was released, and it might have been the largest tritium pulse in Earth history. Even so, no effect on marine life or human health was detected. Today, there is still around 8 kg. of bomb tritium still in the Pacific. Normal creation of natural tritium is around 0.4 kilograms per year (this varies with solar activity). So how much will be released from Fukushima? The release rate is capped at 0.06 grams per year. But in the first year of release, roughly 435 grams of Pacific bomb tritium will decay away, so tritium will be decreasing in the Pacific about 7000 times faster than the Fukushima discharge will be adding to it.
The Fukushima discharge will also contain some carbon 14. Total C-14 inventory in the storage tanks right now--about 0.336 grams. Pacific natural C-14 inventory: roughly 18 metric tonnes.Nobody is going to have to "maintain" nuclear used fuel for hundreds of thousands of years. We are already developing molten salt fast reactors which will be able to consume everything except the fission products, Curio would like to mine the fission products for usable isotopes, and the fission products we choose to discard can go down a Deep Isolation-style borehole, where they won't need any further attention from anybody, ever. If you multiply the per-capita electricity consumption for the U.S. (including electricity for business, government, industry, etc) by the average life span of a U.S. citizen, a lifetime supply of electricity for 1 person works out to be roughly 1 gigawatt hour. Generating that much electricity by nuclear power produces about 120 grams of fission products, and 98 grams of that will not be radioactive after 10 years. And most of the active remainder is cesium 137 and strontium 90, which will lose 99.9% of their radioactivity each 300 years (though we actually have uses for those two isotopes). That is an incredibly tiny waste profile for a lifetime supply of 100% nuclear-generated electricity, and it will be even less if we also use wind and solar and hydro.
Nuclear energy does indeed produce heat, so it has to be converted into electricity if that's what we want to do with that heat. But there are a lot of other things you can do with heat... like industrial materials processing, pyrolysis for plastics recycling, hydrogen production, chemical refining, synthetic fuels and fertilizer production, ship propulsion, direct-air CO2 removal, and much more. High heat is also a great way to store energy so that it can be used when it is most needed--much easier and cheaper than storing energy in the form of electrons.
Nuclear engineers and scientists, like Alvin Weinberg, tried to warn Rickover he had chosen the wrong kind of reactor for civilian nuclear power. He dismissed their warnings because he felt he knew better. And then when it all went wrong in exactly the ways they warned him it would, he found it easier and more comfortable to condemn nuclear power than to accept responsibility for his own arrogance and poor judgment. And Rickover was wrong, life on Earth began at least 3.7 billion years ago (that we have direct evidence for) and possibly more than 4 billion years ago--back when the Earth was far more radioactive than it is now.
Regarding the discharge of tritium-contaminated water from Fukushima, the needed context is the amount. Atomic bomb testing released between 500 and 700 kg. of tritium. We literally don't know to the nearest 100 kg. how much was released, and it might have been the largest tritium pulse in Earth history. Even so, no effect on marine life or human health was detected. Today, there is still around 8 kg. of bomb tritium still in the Pacific. Normal creation of natural tritium is around 0.4 kilograms per year (this varies with solar activity). So how much will be released from Fukushima? The release rate is capped at 0.06 grams per year. But in the first year of release, roughly 435 grams of Pacific bomb tritium will decay away, so tritium will be decreasing in the Pacific about 7000 times faster than the Fukushima discharge will be adding to it.
The Fukushima discharge will also contain some carbon 14. Total C-14 inventory in the storage tanks right now--about 0.336 grams. Pacific natural C-14 inventory: roughly 18 metric tonnes.
Thank you, many excellent points, but some of it is repeated twice.
All of it is repeated. I apparently had keyboard switch-bounce when I pasted it into the comment field so it pasted twice, and then I couldn't figure out how to edit the posted comment after I realized what had happened.
Yes, there doesn't seem to be a way to fix that, a little substack system error. If this was really an actual web sub-domain, which it theoretically is, I could edit it in HTML and repost, but substack does not allow direct access to our own subdomains. i would like to write directly in HTML, and you would have a better-looking web page, but they have this scheme to make all writing look the same.
Yeah, this is not a great venue. The upside to that is that it also seems to be a low traffic backwater. Back when I was opposed to all forms of fission power, I managed to get a few of my writings into some high profile areas, and in retrospect I wish I had not succeeded. I was too uncritical in accepting the claims of leading anti-nukes, like Caldicott, Gundersen, Busby, Mangano, Sherman, etc. and I failed in my due-diligence responsibility to check those claims for accuracy, context, and fairness. So I wound up helping to spread a lot of bad information as a result. I have since found that this issue is not the simple case of good vs. evil that I thought it was, and it turned out to be far more complex, nuanced, surprising, and interesting than I ever suspected. And from the way you appear to value science and reason, I think there may be a similar evolution ahead for you. So, while I do hope you find a better venue, I'm also thinking it might be better if that happens when you are further along in your journey.
Thank you Nicholas, but my journey is not going anywhere. No form of nuclear fits in with the goal of learning to live in harmony with this planet; it is too disruptive on many fronts; it is an unnecessary extension of "Progress." We need to get by with less energy inputs, not ever-increasing per-capita and overall increases in energy usage. It simply isn't necessary. Maybe you could help out the Japanese with their plutonium-reprocessing issues. And no, "molten salt" reactors are not a solution to anything, just another step of progress too far. Stay on the ground, stay out of space, stay off the Moon.
And it's back to the articles of faith. So much for the appearance of valuing science and reason. I take it you also reject Hansen's conclusions about global warming (or you actually want the Earth to heat up faster). Oh well, that's fine. I'm only looking to skim off rational people from your side of the debate. It's better for my side if the rest of you remain where you are.