The Next Four Years

[Shapley]

Thank goodness our side had Rickover with his common sense - his reactors don't have that quirk.

I believe SL1 at Idaho Falls went Prompt Critical. I'm not sure what the core composition was, but I seem to recall that it had only three control rods, and core configuration was such that the withdrawal of any one rod was sufficient to cause prompt criticality. A worker was on top of the reactor, and withdrew the control rod by hand. The resultant steam explosion impaled him to the roof with the rod.

If I recall correctly, part of the design of modern reactors is such that the withdrawal of any one or perhaps any two or three rods, will not produce that result. It's been a few years since I was in the industry, but that sticks in my mind as being part of the design basis.

Wikipedia's entry on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical]'Prompt Critical' includes of list of 'prompt critical excursions'. SL1 is in the list.

[Shapley]

One of the later James Bond Movies, I don't recall which one, had the villains inserting weapons-grade uranium into a Russian submarine reactor core, in an effort to produce a nuclear incident. I believe the idea was to use the reactor core as a 'dirty bomb' to permanently contaminate the Bosporus Strait.

[OperaTenor]

SL-1 did indeed go prompt critical. the center rod was yanked way past the point of criticality by the worker standing on top of the vessel. BTW, it had more than three, I believe it was nine rods.

Yes, A, that's what we do with spent cores. What percentage of radiological waste consists of spent fuel? What is done with the non-fuel rad waste?

I'm sure you know what was done with SL-1.....

SL-1 Phases 1 and 2

I have a DVD with this film and the film covering Phase III. In Phase III, they show how they simply dug big trenches in the desert, cut the reactor building and associated machinery up, and buried it all in the trenches. Oh yeah, they covered the stuff with plastic sheets before they buried it.

If I could post a photo here without going through massive contortions, I'd show you what is being done with decommissioned USN reactor compartments. They're being put in a giant hole in the ground in Washington state, I believe.

Here's a link to the photo: http://www.guardfish.org/deceased/images/gffinalrest.jpg

[Haggis@wk]

GM CEO Fritz Henderson said today that the Obama Treasury will not allow GM to offer its bondholders more than 10 percent of the company.

The administration's thuggish and illegal behavior toward Chrysler's creditors now looks calculated to intimidate GM bondholders as well.

If Bush had tried something this illegal the articles of impeachment would have already worked their way through Congress.

The Democrats and a fair number of Republicans have shown they are little more than opportunists and hypocrites.

Obama's distain for the rule of law is frightening away potential purchasers of commercial and governmental bonds, making an already bad situation worse.

[Shapley]

There's no question the current administration and the Congress act as though the Constitution has been run through the shredder. They accused the previous administration of doing so, and act as if it is certainly shredded, but the previous administration was a model of libertarianism when compared with the actions of the current occupant of the White House. Most amazing to me is the silence of those previously stalwart defenders of that document, when they thought President Bush was ignoring the limitations it imposes.

I honestly cannot recall the last time I've heard the Constitution mentioned by the President or the Congress. It was probably when they took the hollow oath to uphold and defend it.

[analog]

OT: SL1 had , like your Navy cores, a lot of "worth" in its control rods. As you know they're real hot-rod reactors (no pun intended) compared to civilian plants.
The reactor had no way of knowing that rod was being pulled by a workman utterly unaware of what he was doing. Had it been at power an overpower trip would've dropped the other rods and temperature coefficient would've completed the shutdown.
my point was there's not an inherent mechanism in a PWR that'll put it into that state, void coeffficient is negative not positive.
That big Russian graphite reactor had a large void coefficient that was positive, like 4X enough to drive it prompt.
US has a few graphite jobs leftover from Manhattan project of which i know little.

I had not known of the Russians' myriad troubles.
Found an interesting link:
http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl8.htm
They wrecked a couple by lifting the heads with rods still attached.

from paragraph '8.4 Causes of Accident [606]'

The administrative body of the military industrial complex, led by the vice-chairman of the council of ministers, itself issued the documents that established the norms, and it was this same body that monitored and enforced the norms that it had itself created. The practice of merging the functions of public agencies contributed to the fact that the Navy itself did not take part in working out quality control and safety requirements for nuclear submarines. Even if the Navy politely refused to receive equipment that they knew in advance to be defective, it could nonetheless be forced to accept it through a common resolution issued by the authorities.

They too stumbled acrosstwo of Parkinson's Laws, 'Bureaucracy expands to occupy the available resources...' and "Bureaucrats want subordinates not peers".

You are right about low level waste we're not doing the right thing there either.
Here's Barnwell's link:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:GZppei_sjhAJ:www.scdhec.net/environment/lwm/pubs/barnwell_llwdf_status.pdf+barnwell+cu+ft&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Table II
Annual Volumes & Activities of Waste at the Barnwell Facility, one of several around country.

Year National Volume(cubic feet) South Carolina Volume (cubic feet) Total Activity (curies)
2000 *..........117,965.54......................5,081.97.................................701,590.37
2001............109,591.83 .....................5,073.30.................................482,590.37
2002.............52,163.23......................4,380.04 ................................134,996.88
2003.............71,416.22......................3,093.35.................................608,147.43
2004.............57,241.56......................3,813.21.................................336,221.29
2005.............42,784.9........................4,089.44.................................517,638.39
2006.............38,465.53.......................2,557.72................................321,998.01
Total............489,628.89.....................28,089.03..............................3,103,182.59

lots more cubic feet of low level than high.

utilities are getting better at using common sense to minimize how much low level waste we generate - eg wipe up a small spill with a paper towel instead of a big mop-head.


sorry for the hijack, guys. methinks this horse is in its last throes.......
we can decide either to give up or to get better.

a.

[Shapley]

We've always buried our heads, and waste, in the sands when it comes to nuclear power. I've never understood why.

Among the buried materials in this country are several tons of Spanish topsoil from when we dropped a couple of a-bombs there.

[analog]

the practical Canadians are waking up.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jB7BjNzG4NK08_uORf6xV8PJreWA

Canadians barely support carbon tax; don't like B.C. carbon tax, poll finds

2 days ago

VICTORIA, B.C. — Canadians are willing to flirt with a nationwide carbon tax to fight climate change, but bets are off when it comes to paying the bill, a new poll has found.

A Harris-Decima telephone poll conducted exclusively for The Canadian Press found 49 per cent of respondents said they supported bringing in a carbon tax.

But when asked specifically if they'd support a carbon tax like British Columbia's which would incrementally hike the cost of gas and home heating oil, support dropped to 42 per cent.

popular support of a Carbon Tax amounts to sheep fleecing themselves.

[Haggis@wk]

the practical Canadians are waking up.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jB7BjNzG4NK08_uORf6xV8PJreWA

Canadians barely support carbon tax; don't like B.C. carbon tax, poll finds

2 days ago

VICTORIA, B.C. — Canadians are willing to flirt with a nationwide carbon tax to fight climate change, but bets are off when it comes to paying the bill, a new poll has found.

A Harris-Decima telephone poll conducted exclusively for The Canadian Press found 49 per cent of respondents said they supported bringing in a carbon tax.

But when asked specifically if they'd support a carbon tax like British Columbia's which would incrementally hike the cost of gas and home heating oil, support dropped to 42 per cent.

popular support of a Carbon Tax amounts to sheep fleecing themselves.

Good for them! I suspect some senators and congressmen here are starting to feel pressured as well, especially in light of an EPA Memo on greenhouse gases issued yesterday.

The Hill reports that the EPA memo issued yesterday challenged the notion that the EPA or anyone else had proven CO2 or other greenhouse gases to be harmful to humans:

An EPA finding last month that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health rests on dubious assumptions and could have negative economic impacts, a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned.

The memo has no listed author but is marked “Deliberative–Attorney Client Privilege.” A spokesman for OMB told Dow Jones Newswires that the brief is a “conglomeration of counsel we’ve received from various agencies” about the EPA finding, the conclusions of which would trigger regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.

“In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…’harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects,” the memo says, adding that the “scientific data that purports to conclusively establish” that link was from outside EPA.

The memo then borders on heresy by suggesting that if warming was indeed the result of man’s activity, it may have beneficial effects rather than being a net negative:

Finally, in language sure to anger climate change activists, the memo questions whether climate change might bring benefits that would mitigate the costs.

“To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages,” the memo reads. “The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.] … It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons,” the authors note.

Will this kneecap the Obama administration’s efforts to get Congress to impose a cap-and-trade system? I think it will and I think that Obama will have to order the EPA to to enforce regulatorily what he can't get from Congress. Ensuring that he won't have Congress to blame when the effect of this cap and trade - which I posted elsewhere will take the U.S. back to emissions levels not seen in the U.S. since 1875...or, about the same as Hati's is today - becomes apparent.

Republicans and Rust Belt Democrats will jump to embrace an EPA report that casts doubt on global warming science.

[OperaTenor]

A, thanks for your detailed replies.

That's my whole point about nuclear power. Until we figure out how to deal with waste so it doesn't leave a legacy(and no, the French aren't enough better), it is not a viable option. When it comes to radiation, concrete and steel aren't forever.

[piqaboo]

Time to call my realtor in Siberia. Must remember to get mining and air rights too.
With a warmer climate, Siberia and Northern Canada are the outstanding candidates for a chunk of realestate better blessed than the amazing blessings of the physical USA.

Gonna get nasty living in Texas, tho.

[Shapley]

Go South, young lady, go South. Antactica is calling.

[Haggis@wk]

Heh — Cheney Drives Them Nuts

Maureen Dowd declares Dick Cheney responsible for any future terror attack in her column today.

She begins with the story about how ex-president Carter wrote to members of the U.N. Security Council, as Bush 41 was trying to assemble a coalition against Saddam Hussein. Carter wanted them to resist the administration’s efforts.

A detail not included in the Dowd column is that Carter did not inform the administration that he was writing these governments, urging them to resist the American president. The administration learned about it when Canada’s prime minister, Brian Mulroney, called the secretary of defense — Dick Cheney.

Just a detail, but kind of interesting. And Cheney’s criticisms of the Obama administration now? Entirely in public.

[analog]

A, thanks for your detailed replies.

That's my whole point about nuclear power. Until we figure out how to deal with waste so it doesn't leave a legacy(and no, the French aren't enough better), it is not a viable option. When it comes to radiation, concrete and steel aren't forever.

thank you OT for opening the door.

i think i said a year or two ago i see nuclear as necessary if modern civilization is to get past the energy hump we're beginning to feel now.
We are like Hamlet the irresolute prince debating the wrong question - 'to be or not to be' has already been decided, the transuranic genie is out of the bottle..
'What are we gonna do with it' is the question.
get our head out of the sand and start doing it well should be the answer.


i'm at the age it doesn't matter much to my selfish side, but my grandkids are same age as your Altoid and i'd like them all to live in not much less comfort than i enjoyed.

That'll take a lot of BTU's and e=mc^2.

golly - i've mixed units and metaphors both.

a.

[Haggis@wk]

Bloomberg

The current deal “can be seen as one that serves up bondholders on the altar of political self-interest,” CreditSights Inc. analyst Glenn Reynolds wrote in a report last week titled, in part, “Waterboarding Bondholders.” “The powers that be will not face any major constituency risks by screwing some mutual funds, insurance companies, pension managers, and hedge funds (who often manage pension and endowment money etc.) out of their fair and equitable treatment,” Reynolds wrote.

Not that you’ll hear much about the rights of these investors if and when the fur starts flying over a GM bankruptcy filing. Instead, we’ll again hear talk about the “money people” — the label President Barack Obama pinned on debt investors at Chrysler LLC who refused to swallow the terms foisted on them by the company and government officials.

Expect the fight at GM to be cast in similarly expedient terms of “working man vs. evil money people,” Reynolds’s report noted. And those who raise objections to the government’s plans “will be dubbed Wall Street holdouts and obstructionists.”

Hardly ‘Money People’

Yet the “money people” label will be particularly unfair at GM. Unlike Chrysler, whose debt was concentrated in the hands of a small group of institutions, GM’s bonds are held far and wide. The holders include Fidelity Management and Research, Franklin Advisers Inc., and Pacific Investment Management Co., which manage the retirement savings of millions of Americans.

The Polish Beneficial Association, the Knights of Columbus, and the Grand Lodge Sons of Hermann in Texas were also recent owners of GM bonds. Not your typical Masters of the Universe. Then there are mom-and-pop investors, who may not be happy with the terms on offer. Some of them have gone so far as to create a Web site to air their grievances.

Read the whole thing.

Shamefully, Obama has steamrolled most of the the Chrysler bondholders to accept the hindest part of all but “Government Motors” will be, I think a horse of a different color. I’ve no doubt he’ll attempt the same threats as he did in Chrysler and the media will slavishly follow his script but these bondholders are among his most ardent supporters, retirees, blue collar, blue state dwellers. I’ve said several times that even though he doesn’t believe it there is a tipping point beyond which Americans will push back. We are already seeing it in the tea parties (A massive one is scheduled for Dallas on July 4th) and I think we will see it in the not so distant future. It will be interesting to watch what happens.

[BigJon@Work]

When it comes to radiation, concrete and steel aren't forever.

What about ceramic and glass? Layer upon layer. What fraction of forever will you accept as permanent?

[Shapley]

Radiation itself is not 'permanent', but some elements remain radioactive long enough to count that way, for practical purposes.

Of course, we could 'deep drill' it, pumping the waste into the Mohorovicic layer, or at least deep enough to put it below water resources and other dangers of contamination. There are places in the earth where such deep drilling could be conducted. Then again, we have the problem that no one wants the stuff shipped through their communities to get it to such places.

France, if I recall correctly, has concentrated much of its nuclear generating in a somewhat remote part of country, sort a 'nuclear enterprise zone'. This has advantages and disadvantages, distribution distances being chief among them. For a nation the size of France, distribution distances are probably not so big a deal and the advantages of concentration probably exceed the other disadvantages. As a nation, we would need several such concentration sites to be practical. Then again, we worry about the dangers of attack on our facilities, so we would need them spaced far enough apart that an attack on one would not cripple either the nearby facilities or their power-distribution capabilities. The same would be true of a plant incident not involving hostilities. This would mean that our concentration sites would need to be quite large, as we wouldn't want them too concentrated. One of the biggest problems, I suppose, is that the best sites geographically lack the necessary resources required for such installations. Where resources are readily available, the sites would be in someone's 'backyard', triggering a NIMBY response.

[analog]

Radwaste :

Thanks OT, Shap, B'jon, et al for your interest. It is a subject dear to my heart.

The idea of leaving a mess for future generations does not set well. It goes against the notion of responsibility. I understand that. I dislike deep well injection of municipal sewage, too.


we ought to invest more effort in reducing radwaste to manageable volume and either making a neat long term repository for it, or shuttling it into the sun where it'd get incinerated back down to elemental hydrogen(or whatever old Sol's nuclear furnace is making these days perhaps carbon.)

It would be a way better investment of energy manpower and money than compressing CO2 and hiding it. That's just crazy..

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas!

In a very rough approximation the following trace gases contribute to the greenhouse effect:
60% water vapor
20% carbon dioxide (CO2)
The rest (~20%) is caused by ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and several other species.

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/wat ... apour.html

a.

[Shapley]

I've advocated all along that nuclear waste should be recycled. I've noted two major problems we face in doing so:

1) We have to transport the waste to the recycling facility, and no one seems to want nuclear wastes traveling through their neighborhood.

2) Recycling nuclear waste is not financially competitive with other sources of the materials recovered.

I could add that some of the products recoverable have little or no commercial value, and thus we still have waste, just less of it.

Deep drilling was a proposed alternative to recycling, but it still poses the transportation problem, unless we want to deep drill a hole next to every nuclear plant. Deep drilling, as I propose it, is quite different from deep-well injection of liquid wastes. Deep-well injection only drills down to about 4500 ft. That is not really sufficient to get below recoverable groundwater or to prevent leaching upward to the surface. My suggestion was to go much deeper, to the underside of the crust, where they will most likely be ground to fine powder under the intense pressure, or melted in the fires of Mt. Doom. To the best of my knowledge, we have drilled to such depths on land only twice, at the Bertha Rogers Hole in Oklahoma and the Kola Borehole on Kamchatka Penninsula, both at great cost. The Moho (Molehole) project in the 60s, and its offspring, the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, have drilled less, but with a starting point on the ocean floor, they were able to achieve similar depths. The deepest drilling is in the nature of 40,000 ft., or about 10 times the depth of deep-injection wells. How to use those to dispose of waste would have to be resolved, but I believe that is not an insurmountable task.

Perhaps when we build the space elevator, we can use the deep hole to track the counterweight, and the nuclear waste can go along for the ride.

[Shapley]

... or shuttling it into the sun where it'd get incinerated back down to elemental hydrogen(or whatever old Sol's nuclear furnace is making these days perhaps carbon.)

Shuttling it into the Sun has been proposed as a solution, but it would be expensive and runs the risk of a rocket full of the stuff crashing in a major city. Even if we 'self destruct' the rocket at the first sign of trouble, we would essentially be exploding a 'dirty bomb' in the air above Cape Canaveral. Not a good idea.

We can achieve high enough temperatures at or near the Earth's core to get rid of the stuff, and it just meld with its brethren in the molten mass that is found there.

Of course we could just let it 'melt down' and start working its way down there, ala the "China Syndrome". It wouldn't really go to China, not just because the other side of the globe from the U.S. is in the Southern Hemispheric Indian Ocean, but because gravity would compel it to remain at the center of the Earth, if it made it that far, and not continue on to the opposite surface. The only problem, of course, is all the groundwater it may contaminate on the way there, as well as the underground steam explosions (and resultant radioactive cloud release) such molten core/groundwater contact could produce. Krakatoa is probably a pretty good 'worst-case scenario' for that. Better, perhaps, to send it down there in a sub-critical mass, properly encased in a water-tight disposable container until it reaches Middle Earth.