Learning About Energy

Get the Latest Nuclear Energy Facts Report - Jan 15 Now Available

Download NuclearEnergyFactsReport-2010Jan22

This is a new kind of report, on generating electricity from nuclear power compared with wind, solar or burning biofuels.  The thing that's new about it is that it doesn't have any conclusions, summary, opinions or attempts at consensus-building.  Just the facts, M'am, as that old Dagnet detective, Friday, used to say.

It's not a public relations report.  It's for science writers, staff people of all kinds, policy makers and policy interpreters. I've received a lot of positive, enthusiastic feedback on it, and almost no static. I think it will have a long, useful life in this format.   Feel free to share it with whomever you think should have it.

You are welcome to comment on it, and after we've incorporated enough new material, we'll issue an updated Report, with a revision sheet to show what's been changed.  If every fact in this report gets replaced by better information, I will not feel upset; I will feel vindicated.  That is the purpose of this Report: to get talking about the facts.

It's the Dose that Makes the Poison: The Importance of Numbers

Sometimes people claim that nuclear radiation is uniquely scary because you can't see it, or smell it, or detect it with any of the human senses, implying that "ordinary hazards" are not so sneaky.  We're even told that a single gamma ray can kill us--a statement that affronts both science and common sense.  Like all such claims, we need to examine this one in light of real-world experience, not by the exchange of uncheckable rumors.

Let's look first at other, non-nuclear, hazards that surround us daily.  How about germs that fill the air when people around us sneeze, cough, or just breathe?  How good are we at detecting germs?  From birth to death, we are continuously immersed in germs, but healthy bodies protect us from harm.  We don't need to see them.  Similarly, we are continuously irradiated by cosmic rays and the natural radiation of the soil, water, air, and the flesh of our bodies.  Life first arose in a prehistoric earth many times more radioactive than today's. 

We minimize our chances of getting disease, not by trying to develop germ-free bodies (not compatible with life), but by trying to maintain a healthy immune system.  Similarly, the natural radiation levels we encounter just by living, are not a danger, and that presumably is why humans have developed no organs to detect radiation.  It is not a danger.    Of course, there are levels of germs, and levels of radiation, that are harmful, but we don't normally encounter them in the natural world.

(Aha!  But how about the unnatural world of nuclear reactors?)  I won't tackle the theological issue of whether we can properly exclude humankind and its products from the natural world.  Let's just look at the numbers.  The proto-scientist, Paracelsus, said in 1540 that nothing is poison but the DOSE makes it so.  That is the basis for vaccination.  That is why ancient king-poisoners knew they could safely swallow a small mouthful of poisoned food, which in larger amounts could kill.  It's a fundamental principle of biology that assaults that don't kill you make you stronger.  

So the relevant numbers here are that the average natural radiation level where people live is hundreds of times the radiation levels permitted for exposure to the public from nuclear reactors and other sources of human-made radiation.  Natural radiation levels on this radioactive earth vary hundreds-fold from one place to another.   And the measured fact is, the higher the background radiation, the LOWER the cancer rate.  So if we had no radiation whatsoever from nuclear power plants, we could hardly measure the difference in human exposure, because the nuclear contribution to our total radiation dose is trivial.

A further irony is that our dose from increased use of medical irradiation in life-saving procedures is now commensurate with high natural backgrounds, further invalidating concern over the negligible doses from nuclear facilities.

The facts just stated show how we should respond to occasional reports of leakage or other incidental exposure of radioactivity.  The phrase "exposed to radiation" tells us nothing about hazard.  It's the dose that makes the hazard (if any).  The anti-nuclear activist, Sheldon Novick, correctly noted that "nuclear waste" is no more hazardous than many other industrial wastes, so if we hear of a spill of radioactivity, we should judge its hazard as we would a spill of oil or any other biologically harmful chemical:  What's the toxic dose?

While we're talking numbers, let me divert for a moment to talk units.  The unit of radioactivity used to be the Curie, which was about one gram of radium.  A gram is one-twenty-eighth of an ounce, so that's a reasonable unit.  When the metric system came in, the unit of radioactivity became the Becquerel, named after another radiation research pioneer.  The Becquerel (Bq) is a single atomic disintegration per second.  There are 37,000,000,000 Bq in a curie.  So levels of radioactivity that are entirely harmless are now measured in millions or billions of Bq, instead of a few milliCuries.

What does all this mean in the real world?  One example is the case of tritium, which is an isotope of hydrogen that usually shows up as water. It is used widely to light exit signs without electricity.  It doesn't stay in the body long, and its radiation is low-energy.  So its biological impact if ingested is low, and the US permissible limit in drinking water is 20,000 picoCuries (millionths of a millionth of a Curie) per liter, which is estimated to give the body a 4 mrem dose.  This is about 1% of the average dose we receive from natural  radiation background. 

Recently, some tritium was detected in the soil near the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, leading quickly to demands that the nuclear industry be shut down.  Previous minor leaks elsewhere led to industry promises to make all plants "zero leakage."  I've always avoided, as a matter of principle, promising there will be no more accidents. One cannot be sure to deliver on such promises.  What we should promise, is that we will ensure that accidents will not cause significant harm to people or the environment.  And that is the situation here.  If we look at the potential dose (i.e. toxicity) from such a leak, we find that it is considerably LESS than from numerous small leaks of oil and other chemicals that occur from time to time.  

In these more hazardous cases of non-radioactive spills, we devote a modest effort to cleaning up the area, leaving earth or concrete permanently stained and contaminated to the degree that, if you tried to eat it, you might suffer some deleterious effects.  And we rightly conclude, that's a reasonable course.  (Maybe we should post OSHA warning signs: DO NOT EAT THE DIRT.)  There is no realistic justification for requiring that the ground be decontaminated to hospital or "clean room" standards.  

Radioactivity is not unnatural, nor uniquely hazardous per se.  Many of the new chemicals we use in abundance, such as pesticides and other organics designed to interfere with natural functions, more nearly fit that characterization.  Radioactivity does not multiply, like germs; instead it decreases in toxicity.  We should stop viewing radiation as demonic and recognize its place in the natural world, and its special role in healing.  Even after large spills of oil (and there are many), we don't demand that the oil industry be shut down.  Let us base our judgments of danger on measured toxicity, not some panic-driven demand for a radiation-free planet.

How to Avoid Haggling

A Great Truth just dawned on me, and I can't wait to pass it on.  I hate haggling, especially over something as important as energy policy.  When you're trying to convince someone, you're supposed to start by giving a little, to show you're reasonable and not dogmatic.  But I would not feel honest, starting a conversation by trying to say something nice about windmills.  I hate the damn things!

(Oh, now you're showing that you're biased.  Gotcha!)  No, I never claimed that I could look at all those facts and not come to a conclusion.  I'm  not a zombie.  But here's the Great Truth (and I've just recently come to see this.):  Suppose the next time a guy comes up and wants to argue about energy sources, you say something like this:  "Aw, I'm too tired to argue right now.  I'm working on a Facts Report.  Not worrying about convincing anybody about anything.  Just trying to identify all the relevant facts.  You have a different view of these things.  Maybe you could help.  If we could agree on what the relevant facts are, it ought to help make a better argument later, no?  Take a look at what I've got, and see if you see any facts I've left out.  Or maybe you don't agree with some I've got.  If you've got better, or later, info, we'll put it in."

Now, I expect few people will argue against trying to line up relevant facts.  And, freed of the obligation to half-heartedly "agree" to something you don't really believe, discussing facts is less apt to get heated.  In that situation, your "opponent" is more likely to learn a thing or two that you could never beat into him in an argument.  And YOU might even learn something yourself.  What a concept!

Try it.  You'll like it!

       

How to deal with "Perceived Dangers"

In talking about the Nuclear Facts Report, I'm sometimes told: "But it's not the scientific facts that count; it's the perceived facts as seen by a nervous public."  My answer is: that's a perfect situation to use the Facts Report.

If we confine our discussions to working within the context of the Facts Report, we encounter the following facts:  The public has been more fearful than the facts seem to justify.  So the policy-makers have responded by "appeasing the public" by providing much more “protection” than otherwise necessary.  Next fact: The public has not been appeased.  Instead, looking at the immensity of the “solution,” the public has (reasonably, in my opinion) concluded that the problem must actually be must worse than they had perceived, to require such a response.  This course of history has continued until we have policy-makers claiming that if we can just complete the extreme “solution” of Yucca Mountain, the public will conclude that their previous concerns have now been met.  I see no factual basis in science or history to support that hope, and much historical data to deny it.

We also have the Fact that a large majority of the people tell pollsters they favor building more nuclear power plants.  Why don’t we base our measure of the public attitude on that, instead of reinforcing unreasonable fears by acting as if they were real?   As long as we treat those fears as if they were realistically justified, why should the public see them any less so?   The experts should provide the protection they considered needed, and then explain to the public why that policy is appropriate.  At that time, reasonable questions, getting reasonable answers, should provide the best way to build public confidence. 

Of course, the persons profiting from this outlay of money have a strong incentive to maintain it.  That's another fact to be dealt with.

Ted Rockwell

Back in business--again!

I owe all you patient participants a heartfelt apology.  I've been working full time on my Nuclear Energy Facts Report, and all you've seen here is some fallout from that, not all of it intelligible.  But Tuesday December 15, SuperBlogger Denise Wakeman will be here to get everything straightened out.  She'll show me how to clean up some of the detritus that my fumbling has created, and you all will be among the first to see the first public edition of the Facts Report.  (I'm going to try to load it before then--it's dated Dec 13.)

You're all welcome to download it, print it ouit, or circulate it on-line.  Share it with friends or foes.  And, if you feel so moved, send me suggested addtions or revisions.  I think you'll find it quite useful; just facts, without any conclusions, opinions, or attempted consensus-building.  You may find that refreshing  The latest edition of the Report will continue to be posted right here, on this Blogspot.  You'll know by the date, whether you have the latest version.  And there will be a running revision sheet, to show you where we've been.

I'll sign off now, and try to post the Report.  But you can't be certain of anything posted before Tuesday eve. After that,, you'll be in good hands.  And if you  need help with your own blogging activities, get hold of Denise Wakeman.

Ted Rockwell

The Role of Virtual Reality in Education and Promoting Real World Activities

Something new for today!  Everyone ought to know about the burgeoning role of virtual reality sites.  They are a free playground for some, but a growing new opportunity for many universities, and a new way for progressive businesses to carry out expositions, conferences, seminars and trade shows.

Gwyneth Cravens, well-known author of the popular nuclear power book, "Power to Save the World," has been urging me to tell my blog colleagues about this exciting new opportunity.  I didn't really need any urging.  I used the virtual world "Second Life" to promote my recent sci-fi book, "The Virtual Librarian."  I described that experience in a news release.  (I haven't figured out yet how to link to that text.  It's just a one-pager, so I'll just make a separate blog of it.)

I'll just pass Gwyneth's words to you directly:

 "As you may know, Second Life just keeps growing and so does academic and business interest in it.  It occurred to me that you might be moved to comment on this nuclear/Second Life angle on your blog.  Many businesses have created a presence in Second Life, roughly 20% of the
Fortune 1000s are working in Second Life Today: Second Life is not a game.
Large, multi-national organizations such as IBM, Manpower, Microsoft,
Amazon, and many others, are all working in Second Life right now—holding
meetings or events, conducting training, creating simulations and
prototypes, recruiting, marketing, and selling products or services.  And
numerous non-profits. There are hundreds of Colleges and Universities using
this virtual 3D platform.

"Connecticut-based Information and technology research and advisory firm Gartner predicted that "80% of active Internet users will be in non-gaming virtual worlds like Second Life by the end of 2011"  SciLands a virtual continent dedicated to Science, now consists of approximately 70 “islands” in Second Life, including NOAA, NASA, San Francisco Exploratorium, the Tech Museum,  several Universities, the National Physical Laboratory and Imperial College in the U.K., and so on. Many government agencies use SL for training.  The University of Texas system has purchased land in SL, betting the investment will improve teaching and research at all of its institutions.  They will be adjacent  to SciLands, with 50 islands planned.  90% of UK universities have a presence according to recent surveys funded by Eduserv. We have created a virtual Areva EPR Nuclear Power Plant, with some virtual radiation experiments. This site can demonstrate how a plant is laid out, and functions, and can be used for training and meetings. This can be an excellent supplement for educating the public on the proven benefits on nuclear energy.  This island is located in the center of SciLands. (Jeff Corbin co-founded SciLands).  Jeff's email:  jcorbin@du.edu

"Connecticut-based Information and technology research and advisory firm Gartner predicted that "80% of active Internet users will be in non-gaming virtual worlds like Second Life by the end of 2011"  SciLands a virtual continent dedicated to Science, now consists of approximately 70 “islands” in Second Life, including NOAA, NASA, San Francisco Exploratorium, the Tech Museum,  several Universities, the National Physical Laboratory and Imperial College in the U.K., and so on. Many government agencies use SL for training.  The University of Texas system has purchased land in SL, betting the investment will improve teaching and research at all of its institutions.  They will be adjacent  to SciLands, with 50 islands planned.  90% of UK universities have a presence according to recent surveys funded by Eduserv. We have created a virtual Areva EPR Nuclear Power Plant, with some virtual radiation experiments. This site can demonstrate how a plant is laid out, and functions, and can be used for training and meetings. This can be an excellent supplement for educating the public on the proven benefits on nuclear energy.  This island is located in the center of SciLands. (Jeff Corbin co-founded SciLands).  Jeff's email:  jcorbin@du.edu

[I've apparently upset some delicate ecological balance among type-fonts here.  I'll try to get that straightened out by my next blog.  Sorry!]

  I'll just add that my own university, Princeton, has some gorgeous sites in Second Life, including a wonderful replica of the Faculty Room in Nassau Hall, which for a while was the headquarters of the Continental Congress--effectively the Capital of the emerging United States.  I could sit in the chair formerly occupied by Thomas Jefferson, and deliver my pitch from there.  How can you beat such a venue?!

It's located at:  http://secondlife.com  Membership and use of the site is free.  Give it a try.

And do go and buy Gwyneth Cravens' wonderful book, "Power to Save the World."

Ted Rockwell

Back in business!

To those of you who have been checking in on this site over the past few weeks and finding nothing new,
your patience is about to be rewarded.  I'm just about finished with my massive Energy Facts Report, which will be out next week, and I'm now back in business, with material for lots of new blogs.  We'll talk about nuclear action on virtual reality sites, and super flywheels to smooth out bumps on the big electric grid(s).

So look for lots of new material, and be prepared to interact!

If you're planning to be in Washington, DC, during  the American Nuclear Society (ANS) Winter Meeting in Washington, November 15-18, 2009, whether or not you attend the ANS meeting, if you're interested in talking about the use of blogging in promoting nuclear power, here's a chance to meet and talk with some of the people who are in the forefront of such activity.  For further info on this matter, check: http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/10/nuclear-bloggers-at-ans-winter-meeting.html

Dan Yurman says: 

ANS winter mtg, OMNI Sheraton, 2500 Calvert St., NW, meet in lobby Tues eve Nov 17 at 6 PM - We'll walk to nearby restaurant for drinks and dinner.

You do not have to register at the conference to attend this informal session.

See you there!

Ted Rockwell

The Uniqueness of Nuclear and Why it Makes All the Difference

Few people fully appreciate the uniqueness of nuclear fission as an energy source, and why this uniqueness makes all the difference in establishing an energy policy.  Oh sure, many people have been scared into believing that nuclear power is uniquely dangerous, although we’ve long-since shown that nuclear power stations are safer than any of their competitors.  For its workers and for the public.  Literally.  Decades of safe, reliable operation are available, plus a billion dollars of testing and analysis .  But that’s another post.

The uniqueness of nuclear power is that it outperforms its competitors by orders of magnitude. We’re used to choosing among options that vary a few percent, or maybe a factor of two or four. A nuclear fission fuel is more than seven orders of magnitude more efficient than any non-nuclear process.  That’s seven multiples of ten, or ten million times more efficient.  That number cannot be changed significantly by more research. It involves the fundamental difference between the binding energies of atoms and of molecules. (In real examples, the difference is usually several tens of millions.  I usually use 50 million as the ratio between nuclear and non-nuclear fuels.)

Let’s look at how orders-of-magnitude differences play out in the work-a-day world.

For example, commercial aircraft travel about 500 miles per hour (mph).  That’s an order of magnitude faster than cars or trains, whose cruising speed is about 50 mph.  And nearly two orders of magnitude faster than bicycles at 5-10 mph.  An airline might consider buying aircraft that are, say 20% (100mph) faster or slower.  But not a whole factor of ten. Someone taking a business trip to Los Angeles from New York would have to have a good reason not to fly.  And it’s is even unlikelier s/he’d choose the bike.

In the energy field, this means that any non-nuclear fuel—coal, ethanol, corn-stalks, algae—requires fifty million times as much material to be gathered up, transported, processed, and ultimately to be disposed of, than if nuclear fuel were used to make the same amount of electricity.  (Wind or sunshine are even more dilute, and also unreliable. )

Again, to understand what this means, we have to get actual numbers.  Let’s look at just part of the energy problem, replacing the coal used to make electricity in America.  Coal is mostly all carbon, and therefore is the cheapest, most efficient way to ship carbon.  Yet it still requires half the capacity of our entire national freight rail system to handle it.  How will we transport the same amount of carbon in the form of sugar-cane or switch-grass?  Paul Willems (“The Biofuels Landscape Through the Lens  of Industrial Chemistry,” Science 325, 707, 7 Aug 2009) writes: “Biomass is a bulky solid with relatively high water content. The range over which it can be economically transported to a manufacturing facility is on the order of 40 to 80 km.”

Do we really plan to set up biomass processing plants every 25-50 miles across America’s agricultural heartland?  It seems to me this is a show-stopper.  If we can’t answer this mundane question, then we shouldn’t be making grandiose plans for a 500 million tons per year biomass program.  We could support quite a crowd of researchers for decades that way, but if it’s never going to lead to a practical energy program, we should drop it.  Or if it’s to be justified as a biological research program, then it should be so designed, and not hidden under a false promise.

Recognizing the Absurd: A New Series of Blog Posts

 

Reductio Ad Absurdum is a basic tool of logic, first brought to our attention by the ancient Greeks.  It refutes a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd consequences.  To use it effectively, one must be able to assemble relevant facts that can be agreed to by the parties.  And one must be able to recognize absurdity.

 

In this day of Internet information systems, abundant facts are readily available.  But, incredibly, we seem to be losing our ability to recognize the absurd.  I will suggest some examples in which the facts seem to clearly indicate absurd consequences, but that fact is ignored, and research and development continue in the hopes of somehow finding a treasure at the end of this fundamentally unpromising road.

 

This brings up a secondary issue.  One can always keep a number of scientists employed researching an objective that is not worth achieving.  It’s like writing a novel that does not use the letter “e.”  This meets some basic characteristics that define a research project:  It is challenging, it can employ a number of people for a considerable time.  And it does seem reasonably likely to be achievable in the end.  But one wishes the effort had been put into another project, perhaps even more difficult, but with a goal well worth achieving.

 

There was a physicist named Lewi Tonks at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory who suggested to Admiral Rickover in the early 1950s that Rickover and his Naval Reactors program could build up a lot of respect in the broader scientific community by devoting at least one or two scientists to some project that was “completely useless, but challenging.”  I assumed he was only half serious, but this reflects part of the problem I’m addressing.  There is certainly need in the world for “pure research,” but it does not follow that every unanswered question is, ipso facto, worth pursuing.

 

And one more part of the problem-solving process must be in working order:  For a problem to be real, it must manifest in the real world: people or the environment must be harmed—or potentially harmed—in some significant way, so that the effectiveness of a solution can be defined and measured.

 

These points will become clearer in the forthcoming messages, as the examples are spelled out.

Applying the Reality Test

I've been off-line for a while, doing some heavy background reading.  And I find several disturbing situations.  First, there seems to be an unstated premise that the whole energy/climate question just arose, and the new people just getting into it are expressing some of the first thoughts on the subject.  Little recognition is given to the fact that 36 years (so far) of heavily subsidized R & D on this topic followed the world crisis posed by the OPEC oil embargo of 1973.  Careful evaluation of the experience and lessons of those decades, should proceed drawing any conclusions from the situation of 2009.

Second, nuclear seems to have become a dirty word.  It is seldom mentioned any more in discussions of "how to get away from dependence on fossil fuels."

Third, an unquestioned goal seems to be to use many different types of energy sources, although the facts seem to indicate otherwise.

Although there is emphasis on new and exotic sciences throughout, the paleo-technologies wind and sunshine  are increasingly emphasized as the probable energy sources of choice.

Some of the detailed reports mention "show-stoppers" that bring into question the basic feasibility of using the energy source in question. They involve mundane subjects, like transporting biofuels from the field to the customer, or transmitting solar electricity from the western deserts to the New England power plants.  But the questions they raise must not be glossed over. They must be capable of being answered realistically in the commercial world, or the large-scale use of those energy sources are nothing but expensive pipe-dreams.

So, my next few posts will consider these topics, one at a time, and look for your input.  I will word the questions provocatively, but the discussions will be on a factual basis, not on unsubstantiated opinions.  I will introduce some interesting papers and sites, and will try hard to keep the discussion to factual matters that can be answered factually.

It is, you know, possible to agree on facts and still differ as to their implications.  But it is much more useful to clarify the facts than yell about differences of opinions.

First post of this series coming up soon.  Please join us.

A Case Where Size Really Matters

The key to making this point is to stress the incredible volume of biofuels required.  Coal currently ties up the lion’s share of our transportation capacity.  And biofuels are just VERY low-grade coal (as a fuel).  “American Scientist” and “Science” both ran articles on this point in the current issue.  But they didn’t mention nuclear.  

I don’t think we’ve pushed that point hard enough.  The fact that ANY non-nuclear plant requires many millions of times more material than any nuclear plant.  That fact alone gives nuclear a huge ecological advantage.  When you see the big trucks full of sugar-cane and realize how many trucks it takes to equal one rail car full of coal—and we know how many rail cars it takes to keep a single power plant going.