Dear readers,
A kind reader who studied nuclear engineering, has sent me a series of reflections and critiques on the last post . As interesting as the arguments presented and their general interest, which coincide with many of which employ the advocates of nuclear energy when I recall the risk list nuclear energy was the main content previous post, I thought it was worth writing a post Mail readers, in order to advance this debate before the increased current state of unrest of war and prewar the world engulfs the possibility of finishing. Here is the letter of the reader
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
I found very interesting all the comments, and much to consider with what is happening now and that nuclear energy brings to the forefront of public attention, mainly for two reasons:
1) Accident FUKUSHIMA, which makes us think about the issue of security and the extent to which nuclear energy has a ratio benefit / risk acceptable.
2) symptoms, such as Antonio said in a thread from one of his posts, the blog, that INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATION MAY BE THREATENING undone ... I think nuclear energy is by a known technology, the only way we have to escape this dangerous bottleneck, "not only, of course, that our civilization is the progressive exhaustion of oil reserves (first) and other fossil fuels later. And this without going to touch on global warming.
In any case, in relation to last post Antonio on Nuclear Energy and its risks, comment the following (obviously susceptible of doubt, discussion, improvement, clarification, correction or as appropriate):
In what lies behind this paragraph, each block of 3 asterisks (***) is followed by an excerpt from the blog of Antonio later, after each arrow (->) and in case, my comments. I know online capitalization equivalent to scream, but I used here for clarity, so it would look good which is the original post and the considerations which I could SUPPLEMENT these ideas or give extra context.
: o ----------------------------------------
--------------------------------- ***
MINING: The natural uranium extraction activities have significant environmental impact. Most of the uranium mineral deposits in the world have a very low concentration, since the distribution of the wealth of ore (usable mineral percentage in relation to the rock where it is) follows a log-normal distribution, thus most uranium stocks have a low concentration (estimated to the concentration limit to be cost-effective energy extract the uranium is 0.02% for hard rock and soft 0.01%;
-> THAT I KNOW, AND AS IMPORTANT GEOLOGISTS, whether we settle for 10 times less uranium GANGA RICA , MULTIPLY THE BOOK AVAILABLE FOR 300, AND AFTER THAT SCALE AND SCALE. URANIUM IN ROCKS THERE FOR A WHILE BEFORE YOU GET A 'precipice' ENERGY.
AND SEA WATER MORE URANIUM WHICH WE NEVER EAT. Is removable, even now, at reasonable cost. REPEAT: WE NEVER EAT even 1% of uranium in the oceans.
. ***
ENRICHMENT: To use natural uranium at a nuclear plant, it is necessary to increase the relative concentration of the isotope of atomic mass 235 (U-235), more rarely, for the dominant atomic mass 238 (U-238). To do so is subjected to a repeated series of processes that will increase the proportion of U-235 from the 0.7% found in nature to the 4-5% that is used in reactors.
-> ENRICH is expensive, complex and dangerous. NOT A SINE QUA NON, HOWEVER: CANADA, WITH THEIR ORIGINAL CANDU REACTORS, GET USE NATURAL URANIUM.
DUE TO ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED, CANADA HAS NOT been able to acquire INFRASTRUCTURE TO ENRICH, SO THAT INVENTED ingenious design, which also is tremendously INSURANCE: IF Venting 'CONTAINER' SALE OF FUEL AND HEAVY WATER, NO MODERATION AND STOP AND REACTIONS. That yes, the heavy water is a great loss MISS economic (CARA), BUT THIS TYPE OF ACCIDENT IS NOT DANGEROUS.
NUCLEAR ***: This is the only issue that was discussed during these days, which has focused all discussions. According to nuclear engineers, the risks are minimal because of the low probability of catastrophic events ... Ficosa, and when they occur is by the negligence of those operating these plants.
• Impact: Very high, with damage that takes thousands of years removed and unprecedented lethality.
• Probability: the words of the proponents of this energy, very low. If I judge by my own life (40 years) have lived three: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, although the impact of the first was small, the second was high and the third has yet to determined.
-> CHERNOBYL SPOKEN TO MORE OF THE SOVIET NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY. THE UNSTABLE PLUTONÍGENO REACTOR BASED MEGA-BLOCK GRAPHITE (Fire, as in fact happened) OPERATING POPULATED AREA TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY, OR CONTAINMENT VESSEL AND WITHOUT FURTHER WITH EXPERIMENT Bold and NOT PLACE ANNEX ... HOW WAS AN ATOMIC BOMB DROP OVER BET. MADE IN USSR, ALL. IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IMPOSSIBLE IN THE USSR MALIGNANT YES THAT COULD HAPPEN.
THREE MILE ISLAND It was perfectly acceptable, and STILL IMPOSSIBLE IN THE FUTURE. FUKUSHIMA
IS YET TO BE EVALUATED. REACTOR DESIGNS NOT EVEN NEED THE FUTURE COOLING (fast neutron reactors, POSSIBLY IN A SOURCE OF PARTICLE ACCELERATOR TO GENERATE THE EXTERNAL Spallation).
AND ALL THIS DOES NOT FIT A CERTAIN COMMENT 'DETAILS' OF WHAT WERE THE JAPANESE IN FUKUSHIMA AND OTHER SITES.
. ***
PROLIFERATION: (...) The enrichment devices can be used to enrich the material to the concentration of U-235 atomic bomb itself (80%)
• A different thing is that extremist and radical groups decide to use material they can get on the black market, or even nuclear waste from a cemetery to make a dirty bomb, even home.
• Impact: Very high.
• Probability: Very high, I see it: we are in a world that walks into the Oil Crash preparation and energy descent, where the many injustices foster the desire for revenge of the disinherited of the earth.
-> NO NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE RESISTANT weapons proliferation. EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO USE A CYCLE OF THE PERMIT ENRICHMENT could be centralized.
BUT WILL NOT NEED: FOR CERTAIN FUEL CYCLE AND CLOSED AND REPROCESSING ADDITION, WE WOULD NOT NEED MORE URANIUM MINING IN CENTURIES (official with the current stock), PLUS THE REPROCESSING MATERIAL WOULD NOT Employable MAKING BOMBS: before or after the reprocessing.
.
WASTE STORAGE ***: This item was discussed in a previous post, "Cemeteries nuclear and others."
• Impact: Very high. Some authors argue that the inability of management of cemeteries nuclear exterminate life on Earth in the coming centuries.
• Likelihood: 100%. There are many cemeteries and countless nuclear waste stored at nuclear power facilities, and at least some will end up being exposed, especially if one considers that maintenance energy require and expertise and both are scarce.
-> THE REPROCESSING eliminate the need to store waste LONG LIFE, THAT WOULD BE 'BURNING' (FISSION NEUTRON NO COMBUSTION CHEMISTRY, OBVIOUSLY) TO GET RID OF THEM AND AT THE SAME TIME TO GET EVEN MORE POWER. This is technically feasible (4rta generation of nuclear reactors), AND SOON, AS NO MERGER.
.
uranium depletion ***: We have already discussed in a previous post, "The peak of uranium." In the coming years (25 at most, and 5 in the worst case) peaked extraction of uranium, and from that moment miss uranium for power plants, and growing.
• Impact: High. What about plants? Decommissioning costs are prohibitive, and our confidence in this source of energy puts us in a situation of social and economic vulnerability (though not noticeably different from our dependence on oil, gas and coal).
• Likelihood: 100%.
- Suppose that 'DEPLETION' IS AN Anglican / Latin for "out" (depletion).
THE URANIUM WILL NOT END. And so plentiful I'M NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ENERGY RETURN CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED TO FREQUENTLY-PRACTICAL PURPOSES IS A RESOURCE 'RENEWABLE', OR EVEN MORE THAN RENEWABLE. ALSO IS THE THORIUM, abounding 3 TO 5 TIMES MORE AND COULD USE IN breeder reactors. ***
REPROCESSING:
...
I have not discussed here other risky activity, the reprocessing, because I have almost no data on it, but all indications are that it is very dangerous.
-> VARIOUS SCHEMES OF REPROCESSING IS KNOWN.
REPROCESSING + Actinide Incineration FAST NEUTRON REACTORS IN THE KEY FOR FUTURE NUCLEAR POWER THAT IS SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE SURELY BE THE MOST PROMISING THE REPROCESSING pyrometallurgical.
THE KEY IS THAT IDEA WASTE normally produced by a nuclear plant (COFRENTES FOR EXAMPLE) THE LION PART OF THE DANGER IS THE ONLY MEANT SOMETHING THAT TAKES THE 1% OF THE MASS OF FUEL USED THAT: ARE WASTE OF LONG LIFE, THAT REQUIRE FOR YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS DECAYESE A REASONABLE OR LESS, PERIODS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OR EVEN MILLIONS OF YEARS. Clearly such temporary lapse NOT COMPATIBLE WITH LOGISTICS / MANAGEMENT HUMAN SCALE, IS SAY, NOT AS WE MAY BE TAKING WHAT WE ARE NOW.
1% SO THAT HAZARDOUS WASTE IS is is ALL OVER PLUTONIUM (9 tenth) AND OTHER actin (MOSTLY transuranic ie, elements with atomic number greater than 92, which is that of uranium), WITH IMPORTANT TRACE americium.
THE REPROCESSING pyrometallurgical achieved by chemical and physical (metallurgical techniques, electrolysis, sedimentation, ...) actin SEPARATE THE ONE HAND AND FISSION PRODUCTS (GENUINE "ASH" of nuclear reactions) ON THE OTHER HAND .
FISSION PRODUCTS (IE, BUT INITIAL WASTE REMOVED Actinides) RADIOACTIVITY THAT HAVE A VERY STRONG START TO FALLEN BUT VERY QUICKLY: AFTER A STAY IN A POOL OF COOLING, STORAGE CAN BE NO MORE THAN YOU KNOW LONGER LIFE HAS THERE ARE SOME ISOTOPES OF CESIUM AND STRONTIUM (LIFE MEANS A LITTLE LESS THAN 30 YEARS). IN 3 century, these 'TOPS' of radioactivity in the fission products would have decayed by a factor of APROX. 2 ^ 10 = (approx.) 1000 TIMES AND WOULD BE VERY LITTLE DANGER. AND IN 200 YEARS (TOTE AS 500) NOW WOULD BE A LEVEL OF RADIATION BACKGROUND / ENVIRONMENT. THAT IS perfectly acceptable.
AFTER REPROCESSING IN ANY CASE, WE WOULD BE STILL ON THE ORIGINAL FUEL 97% (URANIUM NOW 'DEPLETED'), which would add NEW Actinides OBTAINED FROM REPROCESSING TO RETURN TO PUT EVERYTHING IN THE REACTOR ...
OF THIS FORM, we would recirculated to the reactor (FUEL CYCLE * CLOSED *) SAME ORIGINAL FUEL MASS, until exhaustion.
SE would use the uranium 80 times more than now (almost 2 orders of magnitude).
ONE THING ... But I'm still writing letters, to make this more readable, because it is already clear that this is "comment" and do not extract the blog post ...
As I was saying, he would use the uranium almost 100 times. What is said (incorrectly in my view, since it does not take into account different levels of uranium available in nature, nor the ocean uranium, thorium, etc.). That there is uranium for 40-60 years should corrected "for 4000-6000 years." No need in fact not even uranium mining for centuries, will serve as the current stocks to last for many generations to the current rate of consumption.
is interesting to see this also from the other side: the current way of working is a tremendous waste, a sign of capitalism's 'throwaway' so popular: it takes the natural uranium ore is enriched at a tremendous cost, and then, after removing only 1% of the energy content, discard the rest as "waste." I think some inefficiency indecent. U.S. operate the same way, as evidence clearly the waste repository were digging at Yucca Mountain, to which Obama gave shelved by simple electoral reasons (underhand deal with one of their feudal lords).
Certainly I think Spain should accumulate uranium (stockaje or whatever you call it), rework and change to "nuclear progress." However, a U.S. president and said we do 30 years and something we could not reprocess (allegedly linked technology weapons capabilities), and since this is a colony, they obeyed.
The future outlook for nuclear energy should be to fast neutron reactors plus nuclear fuel reprocessing. With that and developing an electric car (based on fuel cells electrically charged and / or hydrogen obtained in nuclear power plants) could have a truly green and sustainable mix. In addition, the nuclear material from * all * the steps of pyrometallurgical reprocessing (fuel before reprocessing, at intermediate stages in the end, etc..) Is absolutely unsuitable for making bombs (not dirty, of course), so a cycle would also proliferation resistant.
I am optimistic that a "nuclear path" out of the crisis (of the least energy, and also thanks to that part of the economy).
To be all that and not be accused of pulling the ember in my sardine can also say that I studied industrial engineering in college, specializing at first in Industrial Organization and Management (with what I know about from within how are the Carthaginians / bankers who have brought us to the current situation) and then also studying the art (more in tune with my likes / inclination) of Nuclear Engineering.
I then point out that not all of the above it is saying because in the future (when I finish the PhD 'nuclear' in which I am involved) will probably work in that field, but between in that field because I think there is a crucial task to perform = save humanity from the quagmire and ultimately economic power towards which (with the threat of civilizational collapse), and local level, helping Europe to have a policy not conditioned by the petro-monarchies in the Middle East and other foreign powers.
Thanks. ----------------------------------------------
------------------------------
First, thank you to the reader who has contacted me by unusual channel, and in particular its provision for permission to republish these comments, I had come first in a semi. I have found particularly interesting and instructive their details on a subject which, as I said, I am not an expert. On the other hand, I think it is important to emphasize that the purpose of this reader is essentially the same as we move to discuss here, which is finding a way out of this impasse, and therefore his position is worthy of utmost respect.
Going to the substance of his comments, I see three main problems difficult to resolve, namely: the availability of natural resources, reprocessing capacity and limits of technological development.
- Availability of resources: Before going into detail, a general observation. The reader focuses on the uranium reserves (not entirely true: part of what it evokes, as we shall see, are actually resources) and to identify which are large thinks that the problem of uranium supply will not be a problem. This is an error conceptual often, that reminds me of discussions about Peak Oil in the last ten years, until the recognition by the International Energy Agency last November to the arrival of Peak Oil crude oil has settled in well as the debate. Returning to insist on it, the key point is not how much uranium on the planet Earth (resources), but how much can be extracted so that it is profitable - and energy-economic (reserves) and, more importantly, that pace can be removed (production). The serious problem of uranium, like oil, is not that small reserves, but production of uranium will peak sometime between 2015 and 2035, and judging by history extractive U.S. and France is more likely that the final date of peak production is closer to the lower end of the superior. Thus, there is no uranium for 40, 60, 4,000 or 6,000 years, uranium will be provided, only that more will come out more slowly. This topic was discussed in some depth in a previous post I do not think it worthwhile to stress. The effects of declining uranium mining will be similar to those of oil, more and more scarce, fewer plants operating, withering and decline of the nuclear industry ...
Going a little further detail, a rule of thumb I've seen mentioned by others geologist Kenneth Deffeyes and The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy is that the current limit for the uranium mining activity is profitable wealth of ore is 0.02% for hard rock and 0.01% for the soft. Therefore, there is a limit to what we can exploit. Improved technology would extend these limits, but the current values \u200b\u200band involves a great achievement and improvements tend to be marginal. Important thing to add is that the production rate drops rapidly with the poverty of the ore, the leaching of which we spoke in post this requires between 3 and 25 years to start working acid rock, and the flow of uranium is very slow.
The possibility of exploiting the sea water to extract the uranium in an economic and energy cost is ridiculous. Sea water contains 30 parts per billion (by weight) of uranium, which is a very low concentration. Some Japanese scientists have raised the Kuroshio Current take to filter networks that uranium giant. On page 27 of The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy is given a very generous estimate of the energy balance of this operation, every tonne of natural uranium would produce net energy of 120 Terajoules, but produce it in this way involves the expenditure of between 195-250 Terajoules. And that if you deploy a network of several kilometers in the middle of an ocean current western border of the most intense of the planet and in the path of typhoons from the Pacific is a company reasonably practicable.
Although the reader does not mention a source of uranium would be more reasonable to phosphates, the phosphate rock is a soft stone and the concentration of uranium in it is on average 0.01%, within the limits of what operates today. Apart from the problems of the extraction process itself is the issue of demand to produce phosphate fertilizer and today is insufficient diverted to other use may cause more instability in the food riots and create a new non-linear effect to accelerate our down the right side of the Hubbert curve .
- reprocessing capacity: Today there are only a handful of reprocessing plants worldwide , the most important in France and Russia, and France is considering quitting due to lack of economic interest, as it is dangerous, dirty and expensive . In this sense it can not be fooled: it decades that nuclear fuel is reprocessed, and a time when the ores are getting poorer (there are still those in Australia, but little by little they are running) and forecasts a shortage of uranium before 2013 (according to repeated statements International Agency of Atomic Energy and Nuclear Energy Agency) would not have felt the loss of importance of reprocessing, if it was not actually uneconomical. This limits some of the prospects targeted by the reader, particularly in regard to the availability of resources and resolution of the problem of waste.
- Development Limits Technology: Some time ago I encounter the same attitude when we begin to discuss in detail the risks and viability of this energy option. This attitude is to describe existing technical solutions to solve the central problems of course, but sometimes these solutions are neither new nor have they gone from the prototype stage, and can be applied to nuclear fleet already operating. This is particularly true of fast breeder reactors (fast breeders ), which could run up to plutonium and thorium, to which refers the reader; a quick look at the list that includes reactors in this category shows us two things. First, we're not talking about a newcomer technology: more than 50 years experimenting with it, although some media reports sell it as the latest panacea . The second is that these reactors have been modest powers and have never gone from the prototype stage, so they have had many problems with corrosion and instability, to be moderated by molten sodium. Michael Dittmar has an analysis on the subject published in pretty good The Oil Drum. In any case, it will have to agree that it makes little sense to propose as an alternative to overcome the energy crisis is upon us already and that not allow us out of economic , technologies that are still being tested and which therefore does not know his true potential. In fact, when we know their problems, and these are not very encouraging.
That's the gist of what I wanted to respond. Now they can start the debate, but without me, I'm going to Rome. Remember that the spam filter is unfortunately making mischief, be patient.
Salu2, AMT
0 comments:
Post a Comment