The End has Come

Hey everyone. So tomorrow is the last day of class and so this blog must come to an end. I hope everyone enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed writing it. This blog has not only enabled me to learn about a ton of things I had never heard of but it also educated me on how others view nuclear energy.

Although this blog is ending, the story of nuclear energy will never end. And, you the public should remember to always arm yourselves with facts about any and everything so when the time comes...you know what's going on. There are many more sites out there that can help you in your quest for nuclear knowledge:


NEI Nuclear Notes
This Week in Nuclear
and as always Google News

I never thought this blog would become so popular with audience coming from so many different places in the world. Makes me sad to end it...but all good things must come to an end. As for me, I was recently accepted into the Nuclear Engineering Graduate Program at CSM and so nuclear energy is definitely in my future and I hope it will also be in everyone else's.

Thanks guys.

"Not every end is the goal. The end of a melody is not its goal, and yet if a melody has not reached its end, it has not reached its goal. A parable." Friedrich Nietzsche

Tiny Science...Big Potential

Just a quick post on something I found really cool. I recently had to give a presentation in my Extraction of Rare Earth Metals class about the rare earth promethium. One of the few applications of promethium is for the use in nuclear batteries. So this got me wondering about just that...nuclear batteries.

Credit: University of Missouri

So I went into researching them and came across a really neat story from CNET. The story is about scientists at the University of Missouri who are developing a nuclear battery...or as they call it "radioisotope battery", that is about the size of a dime but holds over a million times the charge as a normal battery. The developer Jae Kwon even states that with the right materials it may be possible to make the battery the thickness of a human hair.

Just so everyone knows...the basic concept behind a nuclear battery is that energy from released particles due to radioactive decay is transformed into a current and thus power can be produced. Nuclear batteries are already used to power many things from pacemakers to space satellites. Who knows where else these awesome little buggers could be used!

The Answer is with ITER

As I mentioned in my last blog post, the problem with fusion reactors (and therefore the reason they are not commercially used) is that you must put more energy into the fusion process than there is energy that you get out. Until this critical problem is solved, all nuclear plants will remain fission reactors.

Many of you have probably heard of ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. ITER was designed to end fusion's "less energy out" problem. Idealized in 1985, at the Geneva Summit, ITER was a project aimed at using fusion energy for peaceful purposes. By the end 2005, the USA, Russia, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and India had all signed up (today also includes China). Site preparation for ITER began in 2007 in Cadarache, France.

So what exactly is ITER? Once completed, ITER will be the world's largest tokamak (Russian word for the "doughnut" shape) nuclear fusion reactor. Tokamak refers to the shape of the actual reactor which can be seen below. The tokamak shape is necessary for aiding the shape of the magnetic fields needed in the reactor.

JET, located in the UK notice "doughnut" shape.

The reactor hopes to achieve an output of about 500 MW with an input of only 50 MW. Therefore solving the fusion problem. One of the most difficult requirements of a fusion reactor is the high temperature, up to 150 million degrees Celsius. ITER uses several engineering feats in order to achieve such a temperature however, due to its complexity the details of ITER's design will not be discussed, but do not fret HERE is a cool link that will let you explore all of the different parts of the reactor. The ITER's tokamak hopes to be completed by 2018.

ITER is important in many ways. If ITER could prove successful... and we could finally be productive in the fusion process...the Earth's energy problems would be forever solved (oh wow big statement). No more radioactive by-products as with fission reactors!

Making a Star

"Fuel" used at NIF, the tiny capsule is filled with deuterium-tritium.

The last few weeks in my Nuclear Energy class, we have been discussing the possibilities of fusion energy. Fusion energy is a lot different than the current fission reactors the world uses today because no radioactive by-products are formed. However, as of right now there is no method for producing energy from fusion that generates more money than is put in to the reaction. This is because fusion occurs at extremely high temperatures.

So this morning, my professor who has dedicated his life to the research of fusion energy was discussing some of the places he had previously worked. He showed us this slide show of which some of it pertained to NIF, the National Ignition Facility in Livermore, California. And then he talked about what goes on in this place...wow. As mentioned earlier, one of the problems with fusion energy is actually getting the reaction to reach temperatures higher than that of the interior of our sun. So the goal of NIF was to work on just that..."igniting" the reaction.

Although, this is somewhat "old" news...I myself  (not coming from a physics background) did not know much about it. I don't want to spoil what goes on at NIF because I know that this video will explain it much better than I can. Short and simple: A lot of big lasers shoot at a tiny, tiny sphere of fuel...thus concentrating their energy on one spot and igniting the fuel. Please check out the video (look past the corny 3rd grade science class feel)...it's really amazing.

Come on Nevada...be more like Osthammar

Storage of spent nuclear fuel in facility at Oskarshamn, Sweden

I read the most interesting article today containing information that I never thought I would ever read. A town in Sweden, a country that receives over 50% of its electricity from nuclear energy, claims that it will gladly take the nuclear waste from Sweden's reactors. What?!?! Is this for real?

Osthammar, residents were recently polled and the results were amazing. Over 88% of the residents said that they were in favor of allowing thousands of tons of nuclear waste to be stored under their town.

So now the plan is to bury some 12,000 tons of nuclear waste in copper containers 500 meters underground for over 100,000 years. Osthammar, was chosen for this task because the town sits a top billion year old bedrock. Apparently, the locals are in favor of such an act because they grew up next to the nuclear plant in Forsmark. Their family and friends work there and they have become accustomed to nuclear.

Currently, Sweden has 5,000 tons of nuclear waste stored at a facility in Oskarshamn. It's stored in an eight meter deep water tank approximately forty meters underground. However, even with all the safety precautions (water shielding and underground) the plant is still monitored 24-7-365. Sweden wants to find another way, and with more nuclear waste being made all the time something more efficient has to be done.

Makes you wonder if we could ever see something like this happening in the USA...

"Individual commitment to a group effort-that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work." Vince Lombardi

Beryllium + Uranium = Awesome

"This seven gram sample is $70,000..." What? Yes that's right. Last Wednesday in my Processing of Rare Earth Metals class we had a guest speaker from a beryllium processing company. The lecture blew me away! Beryllium is such an amazing element with many uses in the modern world ranging from nuclear reactors to satellites.

After that class got me so interested in the many uses of beryllium (and also talks from my nuclear energy class on beryllium for fusion reactors) I began to do a little research on the element. My research led me to an article from World Nuclear News about an ongoing research project between Canadian company IBC Advanced Alloys, Purdue University, and Texas Engineering Experiment Station. The project is a study of the possibility of using beryllium oxide fuels for both current and future nuclear reactors.

I'd like to discuss some of the findings from their research, but remember this is research and not commercially applied technology. According to IBC, the use of beryllium oxides with uranium oxide as fuel for nuclear reactors improves the longevity, efficiency, and how safe the actual process is. These benefits are most likely due to the increase in thermal conductivity of the fuel by the addition of the beryllium oxide (uranium dioxide has a very low thermal conductivity). Turns out beryllium oxide does not react with uranium dioxide until temperatures of about 21,000 degrees Celsius.

So they have made a great discovery, but their challenge now lies in coming up with an economically viable method for combining the two oxides to produce fuel. They are currently working on a co-sintering method that would result in a granules of uranium dioxide completely surround by beryllium oxide, which would result in production of the fuel by means of small pellets.

If this proves to be as good as it sounds it could be great news for the nuclear industry. If we could come up with a way to make the same fuel we already use last a little longer...that would mean less radioactive waste. And less radioactive waste is what everyone has been asking for.

Chernobyl's Future

On April 29th, 1986 the worst nuclear power accident ever witnessed occurred in the Ukraine. Today, Chernobyl sits alone in what some refer to as the "Zone of Alienation". It is a 30 kilometer zone surrounding the once nuclear reactor site which was initiated in order to prevent people from entering the heavily radiated zone. All types of activities  in the "zone" not related to the scientific study of nuclear reactor safety or pertaining to work at the nuclear site are illegal.

So what is going on there today. Well...first some history...less than a year after the accident, the nuclear plant was encased in a concrete "sarcophagus" in order to shield the still radiating nuclear fuel. However, because the concrete wall has begun to crack...safety precautions must be taken and a new encasing must be constructed. Ukraine has been trying to come up with the money to build a 20,000 metric ton steel arch that would replace the current concrete "box". The steel shell is said to prevent any radiation leakage from the plant for over 100 years. So after years of persuasive talks from the Ukraine, governments all over the world have pledged money to the construction of the steel arch. And now ten days away from the 25th anniversary of the accident, it seems that they have met their financial goal.

Below I've provided a short video that describes all of the details...check it out...it displays some great engineering!

Cassini: In-Depth Look

Recently, I published a post on the Cassini spacecraft that currently orbits Saturn. I received a comment from a reader stating that they wanted to know more about the process of actually using the alpha decay process of the plutonium for power.

I will apologize ahead of time but to have answered the question I had to use some technical/science terms.

A definition you will need:
Thermocouple: a kind of thermometer consisting of two wires of different metals that are joined at both ends; one junction is at the temperature to be measured and the other is held at a fixed lower temperature; the current generated in the circuit is proportional to the temperature difference.

This is a great question and I have to admit that I had to do some research in order to answer it because it is different from how nuclear power plants work (which makes total sense). Turns out that Cassini is powered by three...wait for it...radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Big word but here is a simple explanation of what it does: an RTG uses heat from radioactive decay in order to generate electricity by use of thermocouples. In Cassini's case the heat was from the energy coming from the radioactive decay of plutonium. The explanation of the process can get quite technical but I will simply put it that an RTG relies on temperature differences in order to create a voltage.

An RTG consists of the fuel, plutonium, which is kept in some sort of container. Thermocouples are hooked up to the container and the heat produced from the radioactive decay allows for electricity to be generated. You can see the RTGs at the bottom of the Cassini spacecraft on the image below.

  

RTG's can use fuel other than plutonium (i.e. strontium, polonium, curium, etc.) however, plutonium requires the least amount of lead shielding (2.5mm) in order to contain the radiation. And when you are designing a spacecraft, the weight of everything on board is extremely important. Plutonium also had an optimal half-life (87 years)  for the mission...meaning that it should have a continuous release rate of energy for an optimal amount of time (in Cassini's case it needed to power for at least 11 years).

I hope this helps!

NASA's Cassini...Thank You Plutonium

In an attempt to cure my terrible case of writer's block, I have decided to possibly go into a series concerning "other benefits of nuclear energy/radioactive materials". For my first attempt I would like to discuss something historical...and one of my favorite subjects.

I love anything and everything to do with space. Planets, stars, spacecrafts, shuttle missions, space stations, galaxies, and my favorite: planetary dust aggregation...you name it...I'm interested. So you could have imagined how shocked I was in nuclear energy class this week when my fellow students discovered for the first time that the successful Cassini mission (all the way to Saturn) was powered by plutonium 238.

Most spacecraft missions are powered by solar rays but because of Saturn's distance...Cassini was going to need something different. Therefore the idea was to use approximately 72 pounds of 238Pl. The heat given off by the alpha decay process of plutonium would fuel Cassini for the entire 11 year trip (awesome). Of course, nuclear energy has had enemies throughout all of history, and at one point the mission was almost canceled due to a high turnout of protesters. Many claimed that if the Cassini exploded as the Challenger did in 1986, it would spread high amounts of plutonium all over Florida. But NASA prevailed and went on with the project and launched Cassini in 1997. Loaded up with its 72 lbs of plutonium it was on its way...and to gain momentum throughout the flight all the way to Saturn, it performed several gravitational slingshot procedures when within distance of other planets (this actually means that it went the wrong way first-towards Venus- in order to gain momentum from Venus twice and then Earth before starting its real trip).

At this very moment Cassini orbits Saturn and delivers data to us. Here is a great link to one of NASA's pages that describes all of the Cassini events happening this year! Cassini has brought so much valuable information into our hands...more than we could ever have dreamed of. In 2004 alone, Cassini delivered images to us that allowed for the discovery of three new moons! And just think that this was only possible because scientists were able to understand the decay processes of radioactive elements and NASA was able to carry through with the project despite massive protests.

Video Blog: Risk versus Hazard

Dr. Cecil Presents: Basic Science of Nuclear Reactor Meltdown

Last Thursday, I attended a presentation by Dr. Ed Cecil, Colorado School of Mines Professor, which covered the basic science behind nuclear reactor meltdowns. I thought it would be interesting to attend a short presentation about a subject I already understand in order to see how Dr. Cecil would portray the complex information of nuclear physics and engineering to an audience of non-nuclear junkies and do it in less than an hour.

He started off with the simple idea of a nuclear power plant..."it works just like any other power plant setup" that is it contains a steam generator that spins a turbine for power. Everyone can get that...right?

He explained to the audience that from the binding energies one can determine that the average fission process gives off 200 MeV's of energy and that by using that number we can calculate that we only need 10 kg of uranium to supply a 1 GW reactor for 6 months (AWESOME). Cecil accidentally stumbled onto the "iron death of the universe" but he quickly recovered himself. 

Well that's all great and dandy, but most importantly Cecil discussed the problems with nuclear power and how to interpret "radiation". Two topics I feel that the public today knows only enough to be dangerous about. On the first point, a downfall of nuclear power is the decay products left over from the process. Below is one of Cecil's slides listing the radioactive by products.

Q. So what are the radioactive by products of nuclear fission?

A. Lots and lots:

•Isotope                 Half-life         Fraction per fission

•137Cs, 137Xe,…  30 yr, 8 min,…    6.2%

•90Sr, 90Rb,….  28 years, 4 min,..     5.8%

•144Ce,…..            284 days,…         5.5%

•95Zr,…                   64 days,             6.5% 

•etc.  etc. etc

•131I,…                8 days,…              2.9%

•                                               Total = 200%

 

It's because of those elements with half lives of 30ish years that we have to come up with ways of safely storing the waste. (i.e. the shorter half life elements will eventually decay away...but it takes 30 years for some of them)

Another great topic that Cecil discussed was how to interpret radiation. People have become afraid of the word radiation...and I don't blame them. But you have to realize that radiation must be quantitatively described in order to know if it is really dangerous or not. In our world today we have background radiation of up to 0.1 rem/ yr. Bananas alone give off about .0001 rem/yr...should we all be running away from bananas? No. For example, the max dose for industry (nuclear submarine workers or nuclear plant workers) is approximately 10 rem/yr. Therefore, before the public goes off and reads articles about how high the radiation levels are somewhere...they need to educate themselves on what exactly is a "high" number. It was just the other day in my nuclear energy class when we read an article about Fukushima. The article had a quote in there about how "tiny amounts of radiation were leaking..." so what exactly does "tiny" mean. Who knows.

One last thing that I would like to bring up that Dr. Cecil discussed was just a small historical fact. There are a lot of people out there that bring up Chernobyl whenever nuclear power is discussed. Well, yes everyone knows that Chernobyl was a sad day, but there are quite a few of us that don't understand that there was something different about Chernobyl than with every other nuclear reactor in the world. Chernobyl was designed to operate at a criticality above one. Everybody but Russia seemed to realize that this was a bad idea...Russia was warned repeatedly but still went ahead with plans and built the reactor. That design failed just like everyone knew it would.

Bravo Dr. Cecil, what a daunting task to try to explain most of how a nuclear reactor works and about radiation in less than an hour. The talk was a bit jargony but we were all engineers in there so... I hope those 40 some people all went home armed with accurate knowledge about nuclear energy. 

Social Media Sites Dig Nuclear Energy (the graph says so)

Sorry but I just had to make a little blurb about something I found...it reminds me a lot about what we were doing in class with the BP presentations. For example, comparing how media reports certain controversial topics and how geography also affects what is reported. So, I just stumbled upon a site called Social Radar that monitors social media sites to understand how hot topics are being discussed. For those who have no idea what it is (like I didn't) Social Radar's site says: "Social Radar is a social analytics application that collects billions of articles and messages from millions of sources such as blogs, social networks, news sources, microblogs, forums, and more to provide instantaneous insights and measurement into online chatter."  It can even count positive vs negative talks on a subject and where in the world the talking is coming from. Cool, huh?

I pulled up the nuclear energy topic on Social Radar...turns out that they had a graph specifically made to describe the social media conversations from before the Fukushima incident to after. Social radar even determined if the conversation had positive or negative (describing nuclear energy) context. The graph (below) actually has some really interesting data.   

Graph from Social Radar

Before the accident, most of the social media conversations about nuclear energy were "positive". However, once the Fukushima incident happened negative comments took over, which we all could have predicted. The surprising part is that now it seems that people are once again talking positive. I knew nuclear energy would overcome this...but that was fast.

Don't Eat the Yellowcake: Uranium Mining

There are a lot of us out there that don't exactly understand the processes behind "mining" uranium. It's actually a lot like the mining processes for other materials. People seem to have this notion that uranium is a very rare commodity when actually the earth's crust has about a 2.8 parts per million concentration of uranium, about the same as tin. My expertise is actually in the metallurgy field which is greatly connected with mining, so I want to take the time to clear up some misconceptions (hopefully) and explain just how uranium is mined.

There are three main types of uranium mines out there: In Situ, Open pit /underground, and heap leaching.

In Situ leaching (or solution mining) of uranium can be used if an orebody lies in some type of porous material and in ground water. Bore holes are drilled through the ore body and subsequently a leaching solution is poured down the bore holes. Once the leaching solution comes into contact with the ore body it dissolves the wanted material and thus when it is pumped back up to the surface the solution now contains uranium. The uranium is then recovered as a precipitate. Common leaching solutions used for uranium are sulfuric acid or sodium bicarbonate (but others can be used). One benefit of in situ leaching is that it has little ground disturbance (vs. open pit/underground mining) and there is no need for crushing.

Open pit and underground mining of uranium is pretty self explanatory (it's probably the picture that comes to mind when we all think of "mining"). If the uranium deposits are located somewhat close to the surface then open pit mining is preferential. A large pit is made and piles of ground material (uranium plus the rock material) are removed and sent to a processing/separation facility. All of the material will be crushed and then leached with an acid in order to dissolve the uranium oxides. Once uranium oxides are dried out (85% uranium by mass at this point) the resulting product is what we all know as "yellowcake". This is then packed into steel drums and sent to where they are needed. Underground mining is generally the same expect for the uranium deposits sit deeper within the crust and so tunnels must be dug into the ground in order to mine the uranium. These two options are by far the most popular, they account for 57% of the uranium mines.

Finally, heap leaching is very similar to in situ leaching. Except now very low grade ore is piled up and acid is poured on it. The new solution with dissolved uranium is then collected from underneath the pile and processed in the same way as with in situ.

So where is this being done? Turns out that there are uranium mines in over twenty countries. However, the top six of these countries produce about 85% of the mined uranium. They are: Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Namibia, Russia, and Niger in that order (but Australia has by far the largest reserves). In 2009 approximately 60,000 tonnes of uranium were mined which met 76% of the world's demands at the time. One good thing is that it is actually relatively simple to find uranium sources...considering the element is radioactive. A map of a region's radioactivity can be made and thus uranium can be found.

Well, is it safe? In fact...it is. Because the uranium is in such a low concentration there are no major health concerns for workers in the mine. There are however, a few uranium mines that deal with high concentrations. In these rare cases, special measures are taken to ensure that uranium dust does not get into the air and there is limited contact with the actual ore.

These methods have been used for decades and I don't see them changing anytime soon. It works and so it will continue. However, the search for better leachants and solutions is always on in order to recover more of the uranium.

Not Everyone Follows Crowds-South Africa Pushes Forward Despite Japan's Situation

I came across an article today about South Africa moving on to the last step for approval of an energy plan that will increase its nuclear capacity. This is shocking news to a lot of people. Recently, it had made it into the news that Greenpeace (a global lobby group) had urged SA to abandon the plans for adding more nuclear to their energy budget...saying that they should focus on "renewable energy sources". Greenpeace even went as far as calling SA's plan "absurd" due to the current events in Japan. One quote from the group: "We urge the government to rethink its coal and nuclear plans. Instead of dirty and dangerous power generation, it should be working towards a true energy revolution by investing in energy efficiency and renewable energies."

SA's plan involves adding 9600 MW of power from nuclear energy by 2030. And it has got everyone thinking...what is SA thinking? After the Japan incident, Switzerland and Italy postponed meetings about nuclear energy. Germany temporarily shut down 17 nuclear reactors. And, even China put a hold on all applications for new reactors. Yet here is SA deciding to move forward.

I think it's great. It was bound to happen...everyone knows that Fukushima is not going to shut down all of nuclear energy. I don't even think it'll slow it down. Governments know that the way things are going now with coal and such, it's bad...we just can't go on like that forever. If it wasn't South Africa it would have been another country...but hats off to SA for not listening to lobbyists or jumping on the media's bandwagon of nuclear fear.

“A little more persistence, a little more effort, and what seemed hopeless failure may turn to glorious success.” Elbert Hubbard 

What's in a Pebble?

I talked a little last week about an old idea known as the "Pebble Bed Reactor". This week I would like to go into more detail as to what these pebbles are.

A pebble bed reactor is a type of VHTR or Very High Temperature Reactor that is cooled with gas and uses spherical (pebble) shaped fuel pieces which possess a layer of graphite in order to control the reaction rate. It  is these pebbles that are what distinguish the pebble bed reactor from all other nuclear reactor types on the market. Each small pebble contains thousands of tiny fuel particles. Below is a schematic of a typical fuel pebble and a picture of real one.

The graphite shell acts as a "neutron moderator" and thus controls the reaction rate.
In a PBR, thousands of these fuel pebbles would be brought together to form the reactor's core. The pebbles must be cooled and thus normally helium gas is used to do so. Finally, for safety reasons the pebbles are also coated with a layer of silicon carbide in an attempt to fireproof the pebbles.

It is quite amazing...just by placing the pebbles in a specific and calculated geometry, criticality can be reached and thus we have a working nuclear reactor.

China's Upcoming Pebble-Bed Reactor

In the wake of what has happened in Japan it is great relief for me to see that news agencies have once again started talking about nuclear technology versus nuclear disasters. For example, last Thursday the Times featured an article about a special kind of nuclear reactor that is currently being built in China, called a Pebble-bed reactor. This specific type of reactor is an HTGR or high-temperature gas cooled reactor meaning that instead of being cooled by water  (like the majority of nuclear reactors out there are) this reactor is cooled with non-explosive helium gas. This means that if electricity were lost to the reactor (thus no water could be pumped for cooling), it could still be cooled by the gas. Great news right!

The Times talks about how instead of using "conventional fuel rod assemblies of the sort leaking radiation in Japan, each packed with nearly 400 pounds of uranium" the Chinese reactors will instead use "hundreds of thousands of billiard-ball-size fuel elements, each cloaked in its own protective layer of graphite"

Turns out that the "graphite coating" controls the speed of the nuclear reactions. It is truly awesome science. The Times even states that if the plant were to shut down due to an emergency, then the nuclear reactions would come to a stop all on their own (such smart little billiard balls of fuel).

So apparently this is old news...and this already started in Germany in the 1960s (but came to a halt and never preceded). Turns out that in the USA right now the government is working with Westinghouse and General Atomics to research similar ideas.

Sounds like a great idea to me. I hope to bring you more on the story...stay tuned!

Media Portrayal of Fukushima Part 2 - Faster than a Speeding Bullet

I recently wrote a short post on how I felt about the media discussing the Fukushima Nuclear Plant. I would like to continue on another note but it will be brief. You see, I use GoogleNews to get my updates on the nuclear energy world...I keep it simple by typing "nuclear energy" into the news search and reading usually the first ten stories. Before Japan's latest earthquake and tsunami, results were generally positive or neutral to the nuclear movement (don't think I don't read the negative ones though...they are usually the most interesting). Following the disaster however, things took a big turn. For example, if you were to type in "nuclear energy" into GoogleNews today the first few stories that pop up are:

1. Nuclear Energy Isn't Needed
2. Catholic Expert: Japan disaster raises ethical questions about energy 
                       ---(seriously, I know right?)
3. Why nuclear and fossil fuels are disasters waiting to happen.

I'm not trying to discuss the obvious I know that it's clear to everyone that this is an opportune time for those who stand against nuclear to try to get the public to hear what they have to say, it just amazes me at how fast the media can change uh how should I put this...the way the media changes "how things seem". If I was someone who had no idea about the pros and cons of nuclear energy and looked it up a month ago...boy it would just about seem that everyone was on the nuclear bandwagon and so should I. Look it up now...are there seriously governments that allow such things to be built in their country?

It's sad but it's the way things are and the way they've always been.

Sorry for the rant.

“All media exist to invest our lives with artificial perceptions and arbitrary values” Marshall McLuhan

Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant-The Type of "Science" the Media Loves

Although it is my Spring Break and I am trying to enjoy it, it is hard to enjoy anything when we turn on the television and we see that Japan has been devastated. I'm sure we all, at some point, have seen the television and heard of the dire situation in Japan. And ever since the explosion at Fukushima I have been drowning in comments from friends, fellow students, and even my own family members about the future of nuclear power after this incident (my parents called earlier today and my father told me he doesn't think grad school in nuclear engineering is still a good idea).

The Fukushima nuclear plant situation is a great example for my Communicating in Science class...it shows exactly how science and technology are at the mercy of the media. When people ask me questions about the situation and how "nuclear power isn't looking so safe" they are armed with "facts" that they picked up from CNN or Fox when really they should be reading from science publications that are written by people who are respected in the field.

Therefore, I will provide some links that will allow the public to read up on the real facts concerning the nuclear plant in Japan. One link is to a page generated by Dr. Jeff King (prof. at the Colorado School of Mines) with links to other sites that give information on the topic from nuclear professionals. The second link is a facebook page also created by Jeff King that has updates on the situation.

A powerful paragraph that I found from Dr. King's page:
"6:42 PM MST 3/12, If you stop to think about it, as far as engineering disasters go, this one is so far low on the scale. On 9/11, a fully-fueled passenger jet was piloted into each of the World Trade Center towers. 2606 people died when engineering failures allowed the support beams to buckle in the resulting fires, causing the buildings to collapse. So far, Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 has been hit with the fourth largest earthquake in recorded history, slammed by a massive tsunami, and had the top ripped off of it by a hydrogen explosion. Total death toll at/from the reactors so far? One - a crane operator who was apparently killed in the initial earthquake. (And he was actually at Fukushima Daini - a different facilty.) "

I urge you to arm yourselves with real facts on the situation, there is nothing more dangerous than knowing "a little" on the subject. And "a little" is exactly what you will get from the television. Not to be corny and predictable but an old Japanese proverb says it best, "If you understand everything, you must be misinformed."

***My heart goes out to all of those who have been affected by the earthquake.***

Tennessee Plans For Change

If you have been keeping up with this blog you would have read my last post in which I described three US states that were pushing forward with legislation in order to have more nuclear energy in their future. Well there is good news...looks like we can add one to that list...and perhaps to the very top.

A Tennessee power company (TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority) has just released a 20 year plan detailing its interest in renewable resources to possibly lose its dependence on coal. The TVA states that it needs to meet the constantly rising energy demands of its people while also providing cleaner energy.

TVA is interested like everyone else in incorporating renewable resources such as solar and wind into its energy production budget. But shockingly TVA also announced that in 20 years it hopes that nuclear energy will represent more than half of its energy output. That's amazing and I'm glad to see that at least some states in the USA are awake and are finally realizing what is going on around them.

A powerful quote that was taken from one of the developers of the energy plan, Gary Brinkworth:

“While there may be individual components that are expensive, when you bring those all together, clearly adding those renewables gives us a stronger plan, a lower cost plan.”

Three States Making a Move for It

I just read from another blog that three states that are not currently associated with nuclear energy have jumped on the bandwagon. According to The Energy Collective, the states of Missouri, Iowa, and Indiana have recently been making some political moves that may pave the way for nuclear reactors (Iowa does currently have one reactor). From passing new laws that make funding a lot easier to come by for Missouri and Indeana and as for Iowa the possibility of miniature reactors.

One of the big topics recently has been on states that are passing legislation to allow utility companies to add a small fee to energy bills in order to pay for nuclear reactors to be constructed. I could see this making a lot of people angry...our energy bills are high enough already right? Well lawmakers are looking at the data...a recent poll suggested that more than 70% of the USA population support nuclear energy. I guess they figure if we all want it...we won't mind paying for it. If you think about it in the end it will make energy bills lower in the future..if not for you at least for your children. So I say "yay" to this!

Interview: Dr. Ed Cecil, Physics Dept, CSM...and One Really Cool Guy

I have had the privilege, during my four years at the Colorado School of Mines, to have had one of the neatest, smartest, and all-around-coolest professors at Mines...Dr. Ed Cecil. Dr. Cecil has been my professor for Modern Physics, Astrophysics, and currently Nuclear Energy.  From the very first day that I embarked on this blog, I knew that I could get some detailed information and some worthy opinions from him and so now I have decided to pursue it further.

Today I did a short interview with Dr. Cecil about nuclear energy and the problems it faces today and in the future. First off I would like to start off with Dr. Cecil's credentials. In 1966, he graduated with a B.S. in Physics from the University of Maryland and in 1972 he received a doctorate in Physics from Princeton. So we now know he is smart...but what does he do? Dr. Cecil does research on fusion plasma diagnostics (sorry but this is over my head). One of the coolest things I discovered about him today was that he is the one credited with measuring the cross-section of a gamma-ray (in the basement of Meyer Hall)! How cool is that? Now on with the interview:

In terms of "science" ( i.e leaving politics out if you can) what do you see as nuclear energy's biggest obstacle? In other words what is the most significant obstacle impeding it from becoming the world's largest energy source?

For fission reactors by far it is the problem with waste disposal. Where do we put the stuff produced? Also, you have the fact that from the same technology you can make bombs.

What advancements, if any, must be made in nuclear energy technology before America will accept it as say France does?

Once again...waste disposal. You have this plan to put it in Yucca Mountain, Nevada but of course Nevada is saying "noooo". It sounds like a great idea until they ask to put it in your state. What it's going to take for nuclear energy to be accepted in America is the people have to want it. Right now there is a lot of unrest in the Middle East...we could see something like the oil embargo that took place before you were born. If this happens people might realize that we need another solution and the solution is nuclear...we just have to find a place to put the waste.

What do you think should be done with nuclear waste?

I like the idea of Yucca Mountain.  It makes sense...you don't have to worry about the waste getting into the ground water. Yucca Mountain is in the great basin and therefore there are no rivers that flow out of that area so the nuclear waste is just gonna sit there.

What is your take on France's underwater nuclear reactor plans?

If having underwater nuclear reactors prevents LOCA's (Loss of coolant accidents) then it sounds like a good idea. But anytime you place something underwater where it is harder to monitor and you have a liquid environment things are going to be more difficult. I do like the idea of small reactors though, if something is smaller it has the potential to be safer because it is easier to control, you also have less Plutonium produced, and it should be a lot easier to manufacture.

In 50 years where do you hope nuclear energy in America will be?

Fifty percent nuclear and fifty percent solar...no more oil.

For all those who stand against nuclear energy...if you could tell them one thing what would it be?

Consider the alternative. You have this idea of fossil fuels causing global warming and even with all the politics you have to admit there is a lot of data there.

In the end, I hope you all found this interview as interesting as I did. I think it just goes to show that even those highly in favor of nuclear energy understand that it is not a perfect system yet. However, instead of putting nuclear energy down and claiming that it will never work we should research and find a way to make it work for us. We already see that France is doing just fine with it...what are we waiting for America?

The King of Oil...investing in Nuclear?

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest exporter of oil and it gets approximately 75% of its domestic energy from fossil fuels. But if Arabia is swimming in oil why would they be looking into a nuclear future? Possibly because they understand that oil will not be around forever. That is why Saudi Arabia is currently speaking with a country where 75% of its energy comes from nuclear power...France.

France has made a deal with the oil king that allows Saudi Arabia's "experts" to study France's nuclear power technology. As of now, Saudi Arabia has planned a budget of $400 billion to change the face of Saudi Arabian domestic energy (which includes nuclear) by 2013.

This is a very important sign that I hope the entire world is seeing. If the oil-blessed country of Saudi Arabia has come to the realization that the world cannot survive on fossil fuels forever...when will every one else realize it.

Update: What does an SMR consist of?

From Westinghouse itself, "The Westinghouse SMR is a 200MWe class, integral pressurized water reactor, with all of the primary components locked inside the reactor vessel."

Sounds nice...but more detail please.

So for all of you scientists and engineers out there, I was able to find a picture illustrating just what was in the SMR and how they would look.

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/smr/index.htm

 

 

 

Also, the reactors would be built in pieces and then shipped to their final site and assembled there. If you are interested in SMRs I would check out Westinghouse's SMR page they've got videos and even an interactive SMR to play with!

Everything Else is Getting Smaller...Why Not Nuke Reactors?

Technology Update:
Westinghouse, a company who has over fifty years of nuclear experience, has just introduced its newest nuclear reactor design: the SMR. Small Modular Reactors are described by Westinghouse as being a "compact, simplified system configuration" that due to its simplicity is easier to operate and maintain. It uses components that have already been employed in the AP1000 reactor design and therefore they have already been put through the test and proven safe.

In the end, Westinghouse claims that this reactor design will be the safest, most efficient, least expensive, and least complex design available at this time (yes, I know...those are lot of claims). Once a reach a computer that is not ancient (and actually plays videos), I will post more information on the design including videos and pics.

Please let all of your questions loose!

Obama's Budget Plans for Nuclear Energy

Below is a quote and link to an article about the budget outlook for both nuclear reactor construction and nuclear research. Check it out.

"President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget outlines a plan for reviving the country’s nuclear power industry, calling for $36 billion in government-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors and setting aside more than $800 million for nuclear energy research." For entire article click link below.

Obama budget request calls for major investments in nuclear energy 

A Nuclear Future in Sight for some Countries...Thanks to Russia?

I recently came across an article that talked about Russia preparing to build nuclear power plants in other countries. Why would they want to do that? Why else? The money. As the story goes, over a decade ago Russia signed a contract with Iran for 1 Billion US dollars to build a reactor unit in Iran.

So why not do the same in other countries? Turns out that Russia is planning on trying the same thing in countries such as Egypt, Bangladesh, Jordan and perhaps even Morocco.

I am sure that Americans might find this troubling. As we have all seen recently...Egypt (a country very near and dear to my heart) has been in political unrest for the past couple of weeks. So, is it safe for countries that are not as "stable" as others to have nuclear reactors? The government of Egypt recently intentionally released its prisoners to cause riot and panic...what would have happened if Egypt already had a nuclear reactor when this happened?

For anyone that knows me personally you will know that I am always for freedom...no matter what country you live in. It is Egypt's or Morocco's or whatever country's job to provide safety for both its people and the environment. I believe that if countries want to possess nuclear energy, then they have every right to and should be praised for doing such.

Bottom Line: Nuclear energy is the future...and no one should ever hinder another country's attempt at a fossil fuel free energy economy.

Self Evaluation

My blog “The Nuke Truth” was created with one simple goal in mind…to inform people of updates occurring in the nuclear energy field. To evaluate myself, and thus my blog I feel it is important to answer the question of whether or not I feel I have succeeded at this goal. Since the first day I created this blog I have been consistently providing interesting, current, and easy-to-read stories on nuclear energy technologies. I have exceeded the required amount of posting. I write my blog posts with excitement and eagerness because I cannot wait to read the comments that I have received…both agreeing and disagreeing. As for the comments, I always check up on new comments and try to answer them thoroughly. Several of my blog posts have been a direct result of someone’s comment.

My Posts:

What's all the fuss about? 

Underwater Nuclear Reactors in France's future

Duke's Nukes down

More on Underwater Nuclear Reactors

Update: Underwater reactor safety

China to Spend $121 Billion on Nuke reactors

Uranium Production

A Jibba-Jab Free Zone

Blog Self-Interview

            Design. The design of my blog is unique and carefully picked in order to artistically portray the word “technology”. The title banner was custom made. I also installed a poll (which got quite a few votes) in order to get a reading on the audience's view of the topic I was currently writing about.

            As with all the writing I have ever presented this blog brings out my voice. I always write as if discussing the topic with a friend. I write posts exactly like the type of posts I want to read. Not too long, not too technical. All my posts are intended to get the information out, spark some curiosity, and maybe ignite some controversy.
            Commenting. I have commented on many blogs. I understand that many people know their topic much better than I do so sometimes it is hard to post a comment/question and not have a fear that it is really...dumb.

            Media. I have used pictures and videos on my blog. Nuclear technology is not something easy to understand, so what is better than a little visual aid?

            If you were to visit my blog, either on day one or this very day you would see that I love my topic, I will fight for my topic, and I want to tell everyone about my topic. I feel that one of the best features of my blog is that your question will be answered. I believe that if you know the truth about nuclear energy instead of “telephone” information or information from bad media…you will see that it is the right choice.

            I’m not going to lie…I don’t really know what I am supposed to write in this evaluation. Perhaps I am simply supposed to state that: yes I have done all the requirements (minus the framing assignment because my entire blog is framed…it is very one-sided (pronuclear)), I have commented on other blogs, I have used all types of media formats (unless there is a nuclear energy song out there that I need to post), I speak in a clear and respective voice…and best of all my blog always sparks conversation.

I’d like to discuss future plans for the blog now. I am hoping that I can get an interview with a professor of mine who is a long, long, long time nuclear physicist and who would have much to tell us on his view of nuclear energy: its benefits and possible dangers. I’d like to provide my audience with more updates on France’s underwater plans, and of course find out the rest of the world’s plans.

A Jibba-Jab Free Zone

Recently I read the article "Communication: a responsibility of all scientists". As you can tell from the title, it discussed what is expected from scientists when is comes to relaying the information they develop to the public.
One of the key problems in communicating science is that half the time no one understands the words you are using. I've experienced way too many scientists/professors that use technical jargon from their department while assuming everyone else already knows it. There is always a simpler way to say something. If you still feel your audience won't understand you...relay your information as a metaphor. I just came from Nuclear Energy class where if you walked by our classroom today you might have thought we were talking about hanging Christmas decorations...but instead we were learning about how to use the cross-sections of atoms to estimate reaction rates. Using metaphors, allows the audience to visualize what you are discussing and relate it to something they have previously seen...in other words, your topic seems "familiar" to them. With familiarity comes comfort and the willingness to listen more and perhaps become more interested in what you have to say. To me, understanding the power of a metaphor is a crucial skill in communicating science.

With all that aside, this post is just a friendly reminder that...as always my blog will be a Jibba-Jab free zone. That is...no jargon... just plain English. If something I write ever confuses anyone...I welcome questions.

Uranium Production

So I had a question from someone that was curious as to what exactly 20,000 tons of Uranium meant...so I found this table from the World Nuclear Association that describes how much Uranium is mined each year from different countries. CHECK IT OUT  HERE.

There is actually a ton (no pun intended) of information on this page about Uranium production so make sure you check it all out. Also, for more on uranium mining...check out the blog The Nuclear Option

Blog Self-Interview

What is the purpose of this blog?

To inform people of the new advances in nuclear energy technology and how these advances might affect them.

Who is the imagined audience(s) of this blog?

People who are interested in the future and how science can make it better/easier. There is no specific education level that I am writing to. I write my posts in a way that even Jr. high students can fully understand the post.

Have my posts matched up with my purpose/audience?  What/who might I be overlooking in defining my purpose/audience this way?

My posts are pro-nuclear...all the time. Of course I would love to convert people to nuclear energy but there will always be those who don't agree. I do not feel I am leaving them out of my audience because they still have the ability to take away info from my blog just as everyone else does.

What can I do to encourage more reader participation with my blog?

I could ask questions...I already posted a poll for viewer's opinions.

How can I expand my audience in this class?  Outside of this class?

Word of mouth? Email friends the link.  I could build a working nuclear reactor in my backyard and have it run for 100 years with no problems...maybe then people would be interested in my blog.

How would I characterize the tone of my blog?

My blog is as cheery as I am...although I have found that some of the comments are not.

What do I hope to get out of writing this blog?

Conversion!!! If I could get one person to change his/her mind about the future of nuclear energy then I would be satisfied.

What would I like others to get out of it?

Power!!!! From my blog people can arm themselves with the knowledge of nuclear energy...they can then support politicians who support nuclear energy!

What are the strengths of my blog/my blogging?

Many posts. Interesting. Current.

What are the weaknesses?

It deals strictly with nuclear energy...if someone doesn't like nuclear they won't like my blog.

Have I used a deficit model in my writing, or something else?  How would I know?

I do not think I have used a deficit model. I have never explained what nuclear power/energy or the science behind it. I am assuming everyone knows what it is. This is not a blog to learn about nuclear reactions or what uranium is cool. I write my blogs as if the reader is current on the newest nuclear technologies...if you do not know what I am talking about (which I doubt will ever happen) you can surely wiki it.

How have I characterized (implicitly or explicitly) science, engineering, and/or technology in my blog?  

I have made it important, as if it is the key to a better future because that is what I feel it is. Progress is always made to better people's lives...no one does research on how to make things more difficult.

How have I characterized myself?

I have characterized myself as someone who believes that nuclear energy is the answer to a very old question. I am proud of countries that put themselves on the forefront of nuclear technologies. I am open to what others have to say...but my view will not change (kind of hypocritical). I will always search for the answers to what my audience asks.