Remote areas of Alaska are off the wider electrical grid and are far from natural gas pipelines or railways to deliver coal.   Heat may be provided, at least in part, by wood burning stoves that can use local fuel, although wood supplies may also be limited.   However, by far the most important source of energy is oil.   Diesel oil is the only way for these communities to generate electricity and provides most of the heat.   Petroleum also powers local transportation and powers the vital systems of the communities, either directly or by generating electricity.   Communications, drinking water wells, sanitary systems, heat and lighting all require energy provided by oil.

These communities use a lot of oil, and although they may have large storage tanks, the energy density of petroleum means that they can’t go very long without replenishment.   Getting the supplies to these communities is never a sure thing.   When it does arrive it’s expensive and it’s rapidly becoming more expensive as petroleum prices go up.  Due to both the costs of oil as a commodity and the difficulty in delivering it, the final cost can be upwards of ten US dollars a gallon when it is delivered.

Via NPR:

Ultra-Harsh Alaska Winter Prompts Fuel Shortages

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Living in Alaska’s outer reaches is challenging enough, given the isolation and weather extremes, but at least three remote communities also have experienced weather-related late deliveries of fuel so crucial to their survival during an especially bitter winter.

The iced-in town of Nome and the northwest Inupiat Eskimo villages of Noatak and Kobuk faced fuel shortages that illustrate the vulnerability of relying solely on deliveries by sea or air, potentially subjecting communities to the mercy of the elements. The villages, which just received their fuel, are especially vulnerable, unable to afford more additional storage tanks for gasoline and heating oil, which can run as high as $10 a gallon.

Compounding a problem with no easy answers, temperatures dipping as low as minus 60 over the past few weeks means air deliveries are delayed at the same time people are consuming more fuel more quickly. Some people in both villages also use wood-burning stoves for supplemental heat, but diesel is the critical commodity.

“It’s been pretty tough,” Noatak resident Robbie Kirk said of life in the community of 500, which finally received a fuel delivery on Tuesday, three days after the village store ran out of heating oil. “We usually have a nice reserve of fuel. Now we’re just playing catch-up.”

Nome missed its pre-winter delivery of fuel by barge when a huge storm swept western Alaska. In a high-profile journey, a Coast Guard icebreaker is cutting path in thick sea ice for a Russian tanker delivering 1.3 million gallons of fuel to the community of 3,500.

Without a fuel delivery, Nome would likely run out of certain petroleum products before the end of winter and a barge delivery becomes possible in late spring.

Until recently, the situation was much more dire for the smaller communities of Noatak and Kobuk, located farther north above the Arctic Circle, where relentless extreme cold prevented fuel deliveries by plane until this week, residents say.

Before the new supply of fuel arrived in Noatak, the village store borrowed some heating oil from the village water and sewer plant, said store manager Connie Walton. But filling the store’s two 23,000-gallon tanks has diverted any potential crisis.

“We’re good for another month and a half,” Walton said.

Residents in Kobuk also were highly relieved by an air shipment of heating oil that arrived Wednesday in the village of 150 people about 175 miles to the east. It’s been too cold for people to use their snowmobiles much, so gasoline isn’t as much of a concern, said City Clerk Sophia Ward. Running low on the diesel used to warm homes was another matter.

“I’m glad that it came in today,” Ward said Wednesday. “It’ll keep our elders warm.”

In Noatak, residents once had fuel shipped by barge on the Noatak River, but that has long been impossible since the river shifted and became shallow there.

Two years ago, residents began tapping into another source of fuel, thanks to the Red Dog zinc mine 40 miles to the northeast. The mine in 2009 began a program to sell gasoline and diesel to Noatak and another close neighbor, the village of Kivalina. The fuel is sold at cost, said mine spokesman Wayne Hall.

“This is strictly for what we can do to help out our closest community members,” he said. “Energy and heating costs are one of the biggest costs to families in this region.”

The program lets individuals buy fuel on Saturdays every three weeks at a staging area about 23 miles from the village. This winter, they can buy gas in 55-gallon drums calculated at $4.89 a gallon. Villagers also bring their own drums to fill with diesel fuel at $4.35 a gallon.

The latest Red Dog fuel day for Noatak took place on the day the village store ran out of diesel. So villagers formed a convoy of about 30 snowmobiles and freight sleds, and headed out in weather marked by temperatures of 47 below and, for the first 10 miles, dense fog, said Kirk, who regularly takes advantage of the sales.

“It basically cuts my heating fuel in half,” he said. “It’s pretty critical for me.”

The state also helps lower the soaring cost of electricity in Alaska’s rural areas, spending almost $32 million in fiscal year 2011 through its Power Cost Equalization program, which subsidizes residential electric rates and the power bills of community buildings. Power in most villages is diesel-generated.

With so many scattered settlements of a few hundred or less, the logistics of keeping them all supplied is daunting. The very fact that oil would be brought in by air should drive home just how difficult and expensive an operation this is. Even when the system works and fuel and electricity are available, it’s always extremely expensive. The cost may be offset by subsidies, but that only shifts the burden to the government and tax payers. Ultimately, there’s no getting around the fact that getting hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel to remote settlements is a costly undertaking.

There is, however, another option, which could provide these isolated communities with highly reliable and economical electricity and heat regardless of the weather they are experiencing. In recent years, a number of small modular nuclear reactor designs have been proposed. These are sometimes described as “nuclear batteries,” although the name is deceptive. They’re not batteries in the traditional sense, but rather are encapsulated fission reactors, designed to provide power for extended periods of time with minimal maintenance and upkeep. Refueling intervals may be years or decades. The idea that the reactor is a kind of “black box” that simply sits on site and provides energy.

While none of these reactors have been built, all are entirely possible with current technology. The biggest problem is not technical or safety issues but regulatory problems. In the US, all nuclear power reactors, regardless of size, face the same regulatory framework. A ten megawatt reactor must go through the same level of licensing, site studies and inspections as a 1700 megawatt reactor. It must carry the same level of insurance and have the same safety systems and evacuation plans. These regulatory requirements alone can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Some examples of small modular nuclear reactors:

• The Toshiba 4S – A small nuclear reactor capable of producing ten megawatts of electricity and also capable of being used for district heating.   The 4S is intended to be built underground a 30 meter deep shaft.   The reactor is sodium-cooled, although a version with lead coolant has also been considered.  It would provide maintenance-free energy for about thirty years, after which the core would be allowed to cool for a year and then be replaced.   A pilot plant has been proposed for construction in Galena, Alaska and has generally been well received by the local population.  With a population of only 612, the 4S would provide ample power to keep Gelena warm and electrified during the worst winters.   Construction remains delayed because of regulatory issues.   If the Gelena plant ever does get built, it is hoped it would provide a prototype for more reactors of this type in the near future.
• SSTAR – The SSTAR is a lead cooled nuclear reactor which would be constructed off site and delivered as a fully self-contained unit and used until in place until the end of the units lifespan, at which point it would be replaced.   It’s currently under development by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  Initial plans were to have a prototype operating by 2015, but there have been few recent updates on the progress of the program.  The SSTAR is expected to be capable of generating ten to one hundred megawatts of electricity, depending on the size of the unit.   The unit would have a thirty year lifespan.
• Hyperon Power Systems Reactor – Hyperon is a privately held company which has been working to develop and market a small, self-contained prefabricated nuclear power reactor for several years.  The initial proposal was to use a self-regulating uranium hydrate reactor.  Hyperon had claimed that this would be rapidly deployed as the technology had already been proven in numerous TRIGA reactors.  In 2009, the company announced that they were shelving the uranium hydrate design in favor of a lead-cooled fast reactor, citing difficulties in getting approval for the uranium hydrate reactor and delays in development.  However, the company has also indicated it may continue to move forward with the earlier reactor design as well.  The company indicated that it would begin shipments in 2013, but it’s not entirely clear whether this will actually happen.  The proposed reactors, if they are ever built, are expected to produce about 25 megawatts of electricity and have a lifespan of up to a few decades.
• Adams Atomic Engine – A design pioneered by our good friend and fellow nuclear energy supporter, Rod Adams.  The Adams Atomic Engine is a gas cooled pebble-bed reactor.  It would be created as a self-contained unit and available in a number of sizes and configurations, depending on the end use.   The Adams Engine would use nitrogen as the coolant and a closed-cycle gas turbine to generate mechanical power for electrical generation or marine propulsion.   A similar reactor, the ML-1, was designed and constructed by the US Army in 1963, but the design never made it past the prototype phase.  The Adams Engine would have a number of differences from the ML-1 thus avoiding most of the problems experienced by the ML-1 prototype.

There are only a few of the types of small, self-contained reactors intended for sights like the remote villages in Alaska.  There are others.  Many are liquid metal cooled and others are gas cooled and pebble bed type reactors.  a few small self-contained light water reactors exist too, such as the mPower reactor being developed by Babcock and Wilcox.   In general, the light water variety tend to be larger and, due to the lower burn up of light water reactors, they do not have as long a core lifespan and therefore do not allow for the reactor to be left in place for many years without refueling or maintenance.  

Molten salt reactors are also an excellent choice for small reactors with limited maintenance and extended refueling lifespans.   Because molten salt reactors can achieve very high burnup, they do not need frequent refueling and do not require large on sight spent fuel storage.   The passive safety of molten salt reactors is another important advantage as well as the fact that they can operate at very high temperatures, allowing for small modular gas turbine power conversion systems.   Flibe Energy is a venture aimed at marketing such reactors.

Assuming the regulatory hurdles could be cleared, these types of reactors offer vast benefits that could liberate areas of the world from reliance on expensive oil, transported long distances and requiring continuous resupply.

Some areas with constant energy supply issues that could benefit from a nuclear reactor (to name a few):

• Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station
• McMurdo Station (had one briefly)
• Scott Base
• Palmer Station
• Bellingshausen Station
• Thule Air Force Base
• Diego Garcia
• Guam
• Ascension Island
• Saint Helena
• Guantánamo Bay
• Kwajalein Atoll
• Wake Island
• Yellowknife
• Red Dog Mine
• Nome
• Prudhoe Bay
• Eareckson Air Station
• Numerous Islands in the Caribbean

The solution to this problem has been the radioisotope thermal generator.   An RTG is a simple device, consisting of a strong particle-emitting isotope that produces heat and a thermoelectric generator which converts that heat into electricity.   The heat can also be used to keep vital components of the probe warm.  Unlike nuclear reactors, radioisotope thermal generators are extremely simple, have no minimum critical mass, produce little gamma and almost no neutron emissions, which could blind scientific instruments, and therefore require little or no shielding.  Modern RTG’s can provide hundreds of watts of reliable electrical power for years on end in a small, durable package.

The choice of isotope for space missions has always been, and continues to be plutonium-238. Plutonium-238 is a powerful alpha emitter which produces enormous amounts of heat energy.  Plutonium-238 produces only a small amount of low energy gamma emissions, making it easy to shield.  It’s easily prepared into ceramic oxide pellets that are chemically stable and have good thermal transfer.   With an 88 year half-life, plutonium-238 is short lived enough to be a good energy producer yet long lived enough to allow for missions of many decades.

All radioisotope thermal generators used for deep space missions have used plutonium-238.   RTG’s were also used to power the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Packages left by astronauts on the moon.    The RTG used for the Mars Science Laboratory provides 110 watts of electricity and uses about 4.5 kilograms of plutonium-238.  Larger RTG’s have been built for deep space probes, which provide up to 300 watts of power and use 7.8 kilograms of plutonium-238.  Some spacecraft have used multiple RTG’s, for example, Cassini was equipped with three RTG’s which provided a total of 900 watts of power to the spacecraft.

There are other isotopes that can also be used to provide power for RTG’s, but none are as desirable as Pu-238.   Strontium-90, a high energy beta emitter, which can be extracted from spent fuel, also produced significant amounts of heat, but would require substantially more shielding and produces less power per gram of material.  Isotopes of Curium have been studied as well, but also provide much less power and require greater shielding.  Americium-241 has also been considered, but at least four times as much material would be needed to produce the same amount of power, and greater shielding would also be required. Still, Am-241 is regarded as being the second most well suited fuel for RTG use.

Worldwide production of Am-241 is only a few kilograms per year, with US production capacity standing at only 500 to 750 milligrams annually.   Most of this material is already used to fill demand for smoke detectors and moisture gauges.  In order for the US to have a viable chance of using Am-241 as an RTG fuel, production would have to be ramped up significantly.

At one time, plutonium-238 was relatively cheap and easily available.  The United States had large stocks of the material and used it for numerous space missions.  Yet since the early 1990’s, that has not been the case.  Since then, only Russia has had the capacity to produce plutonium-238 and the price has skyrocketed.   US missions have been entirely dependent on plutonium-238 purchased from Russia at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.  Yet now even this limited supply is threatened, as Russia has begun to signal that it will no longer be able to provide the quantities of Pu-238 that the US (or potentially other nations) would require for continued space exploration.

Production of Plutonium-238:

The plutonium that can be extracted from light water spent fuel contains significant amounts of plutonium-238, but it’s combined with other isotopes of plutonium, making it unusable.  Separating out the plutonium-238 would require a complex plutonium enrichment system, which is far less practical than simply preparing the plutonium-238 on its own.

To produce plutonium-238, the first thing that is required is neptunium-237.  Neptunium-237 is produced as a byproduct of the reprocessing of spent fuel.   When a nucleus of uranium-235 absorbs a neutron, it will usually fission.  However, in a thermal spectrum reactor, some of the uranium-235 (about 18%) will absorb a neutron and not fission.  Instead, the uranium-235 becomes uranium-236.  Uranium-236 has a low neutron cross-section, so most of the uranium-236 generated in a reactor will just remain uranium-236, but a small amount of it does absorb a neutron and become uranium-237.  Uranium-237 has a very short half-life of only six days, decaying to neptunium-237.  Another source of neptunium-237 in spent fuel is the alpha decay or americium-241.

Spent fuel contains about .7 grams of np-237 for every one hundred kilograms of fuel.  That might not seem like much, but fuel reprocessing operations routinely go through hundreds of tons of fuel.   Because Np-237 is the only isotope of neptunium present in spent fuel in any significant quantity, it does not require any enrichment.  Instead, simply chemically separating the neptunium out yields nearly 100% neptunium-237.

After removing the neptunium-237, it is fabricated into targets which are irradiated with neutrons in a high flux reactor.   The targets are then removed and processed to separate out the plutonium-238 that is produced.  The plutonium-238 is then fabricated into RTG fuel tablets.

The end of US production:

The United States ended the practice of spent fuel reprocessing in 1977 when it was banned by the Carter Administration because of “proliferation concerns.”  Since then, the ban has been lifted, but as all reprocessing operations were shut down in the 1970’s and little support can be found for restarting the practice, the US still has no capacity to reprocess spent fuel.  After 1977, some material from plutonium production reactors continued, which yielded some neptunium-237, but that also ended in 1992, with the end of the cold war.

Today, the United States reprocesses no fuel at all and therefore cannot produce any neptunium-237.  There may still be some of the material remaining, though it’s doubtful that very much is left.   It should still be possible to obtain Np-237, purchasing it from countries with major spent fuel reprocessing programs, such as Russia, France or Japan.   However, this depends entirely on the willingness of such nations to provide it and may be expensive, since additional steps beyond normal reprocessing are required to produce the highly concentrated neptunium necessary for plutonium-238 production.

Getting enough Np-237, however, is not the biggest problem that the United States faces in producing Pu-238, however.   The US has a shortage of suitable reactors where the neptunium could be irradiated to produce the final plutonium-238 product.  Irradiating the targets requires a reactor with a very high neutron flux and the ability to receive materials for irradiation.  During the Cold War, the United States operated reactors at the Hanford and Savannah River sites primarily for the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons.  These same reactors could be used to irradiate materials for the production of medical and industrial isotopes along with materials like plutonium-238.  Therefore, up until the late 1980’s, the US had ample capacity for plutonium-238 production.   In the early 1990’s, the United States shut down all such reactors over “proliferation concerns.”   Russia, on the other hand, converted theirs to the full time production of peaceful isotopes, which is why they have been the world source for plutonium-238.

There are other reactors in the United States that could potentially produce plutonium-238, but not many of them.   The US has seen an unfortunate reduction in the number of research and irradiation reactors available.  Many, such as the Fast Flux Test Facility were shut down due to “proliferation concerns.”  Others like the High Flux Beam Reactor were closed after celebrities lobbied heavily against them.  Many simply were closed due to age and have not been replaced, given the lack of construction of new research reactors in the US in recent years.

There are only two reactors in operation that might be usable for producing plutonium-238.  One is the High Flux Isotope Reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  However, the HFIR is already running at near full capacity for basic materials research and producing specialty isotopes.  It’s the only source of the vital isotope Cf-252 in the United States.  It also hosts a recently installed cold neutron source.   Because of this, the HFIR does not have enough available capacity to produce Pu-238.  That leaves one reactor: the Advanced Test Reactor.   The ATR is located at the Idaho National Laboratory.  It’s the only source in the US for production of cobalt-60, an isotope critical to medicine and industry.  It’s also one of only a few reactors that can be used to simulate extended fuel irradiation in a light water reactor, making it critical to fuel studies.  It’s not entirely clear to what extent producing Pu-238 at the Advanced Test Reactor might limit its capacity for other important functions.

The Advanced Test Reactor has been the focus of recent efforts to restart US Pu-238 production.   Several bills and proposals to begin production at the site have been floated, but funding has not been provided.  Most recently, a funding request for the relatively small amount of fifteen million dollars by the DOE was shot down by Congress.  No explanation was given, but it seems no US legislators are interested in restarting plutonoum-238 production, quite possibly because nobody’s spent any money lobbying for it and some have spent money lobbying against it.

Restarting production in the US may prove more difficult than simply finding a suitable reactor.   Producing the final Plutonium-238 tablets used for providing heat to RTG’s requires that the irradiated targets be dissolved, the plutionium-238 processed out and fabricated into the final RTG fuel.   The material is very hot, both in terms of radioactivity and literally.  Handling and processing it requires special facilities such as hot cells and plutonium chemical separation facilities.  The United States has limited capabilities in this area, with most of the facilities capable of fabricating special nuclear materials shut down over “proliferation concerns.”

That said, the US should have enough capacity for processing such materials to make at least a modest Pu-238 production program possible, if only funding is provided and the effort to do so is undertaken.   Ideally, enough would be made to allow for its use on spacecraft without extreme conservation measures taken, but that seems to be politically unlikely due to “proliferation concerns.”

In the end, we are left with a few options for the US space program, not all of them very appealing:

1. Restart domestic production of plutonium-238
2. Continue to rely on the limited Russian capacity to produce the material and hope they do not cut production or sales, as they seem to be indicating will happen.  Perhaps this could be avoided by paying an even more exorbitant amount to Russia for the material.  Continue with only limited deep space flights due to this limited source.
3. Hope that some other country steps up to the plate and starts making plutonium-238.  There’s a good chance that a country like China might start domestic production in the coming years, as they become more ambitious in their space program.  Whether they’ll share with the US is another issue.
4. Rely on another isotope that will result in less energy per kilogram, require greater shielding and therefore dramatically reduce spacecraft capabilities and increase launch expense.
5. Rely exclusively on solar power for space exploration.  Space exploration will therefore be limited to the inner solar system, out to about the orbit of mars and a little bit further, even out to Jupiter, although this will require very large solar arrays and will be restricted in capability due to very limited power capacities.   Beyond Jupiter, exploration by space probes will be impossible and will have to cease entirely.  And while exploration of the inner solar system will still be possible, landers that require significant amounts of continuous power will not be possible, thus making the Mars Science Laboratory the last of its kind.

Personally, I vote for choice 1.

They’re really great little items and the perfect gift for just about any occasion.   For one thing, they’re an interesting conversation piece and a very good example of a practical application of radioactivity.   They demonstrate that you can indeed keep something radioactive in our pocket and be quite safe and they’re very eye-catching.

They also have quite a bit of practical value.  Finding your keys in the dark is very easy with one of these key chains.  In fact, it’s so easy that if you happen to misplace your keys, the easiest way to find them is to turn off the lights.  When entering your home or starting your car in complete darkness, the glowing key chain provides just enough light to easily select the correct key and use it without fumbling.   If you happen to drop the keys on the dark floor of your car, you can find them very quickly and without effort.   You can even see the glow of the keys if they are under a seat or somehow otherwise obscured from direct view.  You can get different colors and use them to mark different key chains, making it very easy to grab the correct one, even in complete darkness.

I’ve had these key chains before (and broken a couple by mistake).  I can attest to just how useful they are.   There’s also no other way of getting this same value without using radioactive material.  An electrically illuminated key chain could not provide such continuous periods of glow without the batteries quickly running out.   Standard phosphorescent glowing items are limited to a few hours of illumination and must be exposed to light first in order to glow, making them useless for something like a key chain, which is often kept in one’s pocket.

There’s only one problem with these amazing little glowing key chains:  nobody in the US sells them, at least not directly.   Technically, these are not approved for sale or ownership in the United States, although I’ve never heard of anyone getting in trouble for owning one.  Many people do own them and talk about them openly online and elsewhere.  It might just be one of those things that hasn’t shown up on the radar of a bureaucrat who was asinine enough to bother to do something about it.

Still, there are stories about their thugs stopping sales of these key chains on sites like eBay.  It seems that these days most of those sold on eBay are coming from sellers who are not located within the United States.  Exactly how much trouble you could potentially get in for these remains unclear, but it appears to be a case of selective enforcement.  (So if you have one, don’t ever leave the federal government looking for an excuse to call you a terrorist.)

Yet while the government may tolerate people owning them, you can’t buy them from any major retailer.   They can be purchased on the “grey market,” imported in relatively small batches or sold over the internet.  They can be bought from foreign retailers, like those in the UK, who will generally ship to the US without problem.   The best place to buy them, however, tends to be eBay, where numerous sellers will sell to US customers.

That, however, was not good enough for me.  I know a great product when I see one and these things are inexpensive, extremely useful and very easy to sell.  I had bought one and people were constantly asking me about it and where to get one.   I wanted to sell these, and not just by keeping it on the down-low, selling them on auction websites or to friends.  I wanted to really sell them, importing them wholesale and selling them openly and in quantity.

I also didn’t want even the slight potential to have the NRC knocking at my door, which does occasionally happen when someone tries to sell them in the US.   One would think that the government has better things to do, but of course, they don’t.

I thought it would be easy to do.  After all, these things are very readily available in other countries, and by “other countries,” I don’t mean just Russia, Zimbabwe and Cuba.  They can be bought in the UK.  They are brought into the US all the time.  They’re also perfectly safe.   Of course, I assumed wrong, but this was a few years ago, long before I had gained a full understanding of the bureaucracy that is the NRC.

I e-mailed, called and faxed the NRC several times about this matter.  I cannot even begin to explain how difficult they were.   First, nobody at the agency seemed to understand what I wanted to do or what the devices were for.  They told me that if I wanted to start the process of getting a consumer product containing radioactive material approved, I could get some paperwork to start the ball rolling, but it would be several thousand dollars just to begin and would take more than a year.  I told them I believed the items qualified as being license-exempt, since other items of comparable function and contents, such as illuminated watches are.   They didn’t seem to understand what I was getting at.

After bouncing around many times between different individuals and sub-departments, before I eventually got the answer:  No, I could not import the key chains and no I could not sell them and nobody was really supposed to have them at all.   They never would tell me why the answer was no.  I was not told what exact regulation or requirement they violated.  They never would give me a straight answer about whether I could appeal that decision, who had made it or on what grounds and whether there was any way of having it reevaluated.  The best they could give me was that I could try the expensive process of getting a new product approved, but they also warned me that to do that I first had to have some prototypes of the product to have inspected and it would be illegal for me to have those prototypes unless I first got yet another license, permitting me to possess otherwise illegal amounts of tritium.

So the next place I went was the Health Physics Society.   They managed to put me in touch with some radiation safety experts who had worked with the NRC and knew the right people to ask.   After several false starts, they did manage to track down an NRC official who would go on record and explain the policy.   This is the e-mail I eventually got:

In response to your electronic mail dated October 23, 2007, concerning
keyrings containing tritium, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has
determined that a license is required to distribute products similar to
the Traser “glowring” key chains.  Although the devices are allowed in
the United Kingdom, they are not licensed here.  NRC regulations [10 CFR
30.19(c) and 10 CFR 32.22(b)] and policy (Federal Register Notice of
March 16, 1965, 30 FR 3462) do not allow licensing toys, novelties,
adornments or any consumer product containing radioactive material
considered a frivolous use of radioactive material and where the end use
of the product cannot be reasonably foreseen.   Other consumer products
that are not frivolous use, but contain self-luminous radioactive
material, must go through a two step safety review process consisting
of:  (1) an engineering evaluation and registration for the device as
well as (2) a licensing review of the program involved in possession and
distribution of radioactive material.

In order for NRC to be sure consumer products containing radioactive
material are safe for distribution to the general public the product
must be below a certain activity and/or found to incorporate engineering
features making release of the radioactive material unlikely.  In
addition environmental studies must show that during the products life
from manufacture to disposal, no adverse impact will be caused on the
environment or on those who may come in contact with the radioactive
material.  Traser Glowrings contain about 400 millicuries of tritium as
indicated by the UK manufacturer.  In comparison, a tritium wristwatch
typically contains 5 millicuries of tritium.  Tritium produces beta
radiation that cannot penetrate the skin, however, tritium can be
absorbed through the skin.  Tritium can also be an internal hazard
through inhalation and ingestion, as well as being absorbed through the
skin.

Again, Traser glowrings, and similar products, are not legal to own or
possess in the U. S. without a Federal and/or State license.

So that’s the big problem?   It’s an adornment or a novelty and therefore frivolous?

My Response:

• The fact that an item may be used as a novelty, adornment or toy does not mean it is “frivolous.”  The definition of “frivolous” is “irresponsible, lacking due consideration, without due consideration, improper.”  I think I can see what they’re getting at.  They want any item that is considered radioactive to have a legitimate use and consider entertainment or novelty to not be legitimate.  I have to disagree on that.   It’s fine to use something for such purposes if there’s negligible risk involved.
• The end use of the product can be reasonably forseen: people will put it on their key chain and use it to help locate their keys.
• At least part of the appeal of glowing key chains may indeed be their novelty and fashion aspect, but the same can be said of a tritium-containing wristwatch.   Watches are absolutely and undeniably fashion accessories, in addition to being functional timepieces.  In the cases of watches, the fact that they have a tritium-illuminated dial is often a selling point because of the fact that it’s fashionable in and of itself.   It’s not the only way to illuminate a watch dial.  It can be done with an electroluminescent face or with long lasting phosphorescent material.
• Radiolumonescent key chains are not only fashionable or novel, but also are practical.  They are at least as functional as radiolumonescent watches.  It makes it very easy to find misplaced keys simply by turning off the lights in a room.  The glow of the keychain is obvious in the dark even at a distance.   The glow can even be seen if the keys are partially obscured, such as being under a desk or bed.  The glow of the keychain also provides just enough light to aid a person handling the keys in the complete darkness, making it easier to select the right key for insertion into a lock or automobile ignition.
• While the amount of tritium in a key chain may be greater than that found in most watches, it is still trivial and is less than that found in numerous other commonly available items that can be purchased by the general public.  These include radiolumonescent compasses, small self-powered flashlight-style illuminators, self-illuminating map readers and other luminous items.   These devices are perfectly safe and do not pose any hazard to public health or the environment.  The amount of tritium present is far too low to pose a significant radiation hazard to anyone, even in the wost case scenario, where it might all be released in a confined area.
• Key chains of this style are already available in numerous countries around the world.  They have been sold for years without incident.   They are so common that it’s impossible to keep them out of the United States and there’s no legitimate reason to try anyway.  They’re safe and proven safe and their existence in no way enables terrorists, compromises public safety or constitutes a hazard.

I am willing to acknowledge that there may be legitimate reason for the NRC to require that the product undergo some kind of review, as they state, an engineering evaluation of the product.   Hopefully that would not include an environmental study, because that would be pretty ridiculous to do a study from scratch when there are already products of a similar nature being sold and which would release an equal amount of tritium upon disposal.  I’m not sure why they can’t just use a general purpose tritium device disposal study.  Although knowing the agency, it’s entirely plausible that they will require a completely new study. They could simply apply the same standard for release into the environment as any number of products with the same amount of tritium.  The danger presented is zero, at least if they are evaluated fairly and reasonably.

There are many exit  signs sold in the US which have much more tritium in them than one of these and the tritium is stored in tubes of almost exactly the same type.  Tritium-containing self-luminous exit signs may contain upwards of 40 curies of tritium, one hundred times the amount of tritium in one of these key chains.   It should be noted that these exit signs are subject to some special restrictions.  Those who purchase them are technically also purchasing an individual license for the sign, which requires that they do not tamper with the sign or open it and that they dispose of it properly, usually by returning it to the manufacturer.   Yet this certainly does not always happen.  Despite the requirement, thousands of tritium-containing exit signs of various ages (and therefore with various amounts of tritium present) end up in landfills and incinerators every year.  Despite this, the sky has not yet begun to fall.

I would be more than willing to consider undertaking the necessary engineering review, although I’m sure it would be long and expensive.   The products would almost certainly pass it.  They’re very straight forward and the manufacturer can provide any data necessary.  If an environmental study were also necessary, it still might be worth perusing.

The problem is that even if the manufacturer and distributors were willing to go through that process, the NRC has already decided the key chains are “frivolous” and therefore won’t even entertain the notion of approving them.   So it is simply impossible and they seem to not have the slightest willingness to revisit the decision.  DAMN!

Fission was recognized as a potential energy source after the possibility of a fission chain reaction was realized.  A chain reaction occurs when neutrons produced by nuclear fission strike other fissile nuclei, releasing more energy in a self-sustaining reaction.   In 1942, an experiment at the University of Chicago proved that nuclear fission could indeed produce such a chain reaction.   The first artificial fission reactor was created by piling large amounts of uranium together with ultra-pure graphite blocks.  The graphite slowed neutrons, making them easier to absorb by the uranium nuclei, resulting in the fission chain reaction.  In 1945, the first artificial fission chain reaction to occur without the aid of a moderator when the first nuclear weapon detonated in the Trinity test.  The Trinity device used plutonium as the fissile material, an element produced in nuclear reactors at the Hanford site.   Plutonium is too short-lived to be found in large quantities in nature.  Another bomb, fueled by uranium was the result of years of painstaking isotope separation, which increased the amount of fissile uranium-235 available to far beyond what is found in natural uranium samples.

For many years, it was believed that such fission reactions were always limited to these artificial circumstances.   Nuclear fission, it was thought, was the result of painstaking efforts by mankind to gather up the necessary materials, enrich beyond their natural concentrations and either bring them together rapidly in large quantities or place them in the special conditions inside a reactor, where neutron moderators make it possible to sustain nuclear fission.

In 1940, Russian scientists observed the phenomena of spontaneous fission, where heavy elements like uranium split on their own without the need for a neutron to cause the event.  It was also known that uranium atoms could split as the result of a neutron generated by cosmic rays.   However, such events are uncommon and produce little energy.   They are distinct from the chain reactions that had only been observed in human-created nuclear reactors.

All this changed in 1972, when an unusual discrepancy in the concentration of uranium-235 from a mine in Gabon Africa was detected.  Chemical analysis of a unique uranium deposit  indicated that the formation had sustained a fission chain reaction at one time.   The possibility of a natural nuclear reactor of this type had been suggested as early as 1956, but the Gabon discovery was the first time that such an event was confirmed to have happened.  Further investigation of the site identified at least sixteen regions of the deposit where the concentration of uranium and lighter elements clearly indicated that significant amounts of nuclear fission had occurred.

The reactor at Gabon operated about 1.7 billion years ago, producing chain reactions for at least hundreds of thousands of years.   It was remarkably similar to modern, artificial nuclear reactors.   Fission occurred when water seeped into cracks and pores in the deposits of extremely high grade uranium ore.   The water acted as a moderator, causing the chain reaction.   In modern times, water can only be used as a moderator in reactors where the uranium has been slightly enriched to contain more uranium-235 than found in nature, but because uranium-235 has a half-life of about seven hundred million years, there was a great deal more when the Gabon reactor was critical.

Exactly how long the Gabon reactor was critical or how much energy was released is not known.   Scientists have estimated that it probably generated about 100 kW of power and likely operated intermittently due to the buildup of neutron poisons and variations in the water levels in the rock.   It also generated some amount of plutonium-239 and other heavy isotopes, which would have added to the available fissile fuel.

There has been some debate about just how common reactors like that found in Gabon may have been.   While the Gabon deposit is the only one that is known to have sustained nuclear fission, that certainly does not mean it was the only one.  In fact, there were almost certainly others, possibly many others.  The geological record is incomplete for the period of time that the Gabon reactor was critical.  The vast majority of geological formations from over a billion years ago have long been obliterated by erosion, subduction, volcanic activity and other forces that continuously shape the earth’s crust.    Even if these reactors were once common on earth, we would not expect to find the evidence and the fact that at least one still exists intact at all may be sheer luck.

What is known is that deposits of uranium in concentrations high enough to potentially sustain such reactions are fairly common, even today, and while they don’t have the necessary isotopic concentrations to produce a fission chain reaction, they would have in earth’s early history.   The further back one goes, the higher the concentration of uranium-235 would be and thus the more easily a fission reactor could have come together.  Debate continues about the time scale when such reactors could have functioned, with some arguing that such naturally occurring uranium concentrations would require high levels of oxygen in order for the necessary geochemical processes to occur.

Yet the lack of a complete geological record ultimately makes it impossible to know for certain.   Reactors may have been very commonplace billions of years ago and they may have existed for some time after the period the Gabon reactor was dated to.   It’s remotely possible that a combination of plutonium produced within such reactors and the presence of better moderating materials, such as naturally-occurring beryllium allowed these formations to produce fission chain reactions even more recently than would have been possible with the Gabon reactor.

All that can be said is that there was a period of time in Earth’s distant history when natural nuclear reactors were possible and existed and they may very well have been fairly commonplace.   This itself is a huge revelation.

A reactor at the center of the earth?

Upon learning of the natural reactor discovered at Gabon, nuclear chemist J. Marvin Herndon hypothesized that nuclear fission might actually be far more central to the formation and conditions of earth than had been previously though.   Herndon suggested that if sufficient uranium existed in the core of the earth, it could result in a massive fast fission reactor, which would be capable of producing enough fuel through breeding to sustain fission for billions of years.

Herndon’s assertions have not generally been accepted by the mainstream geological community.   Direct evidence of such a reactor is relatively limited, although the levels of helium isotopes measured in volcanic samples have been intriguingly close to those that the hypothesis predicts. None the less, if true, the georeactor hypothesis would be an elegant explanation for a number of observed phenomena.   It would explain the source of apparently excessive heat in the earth’s core and mantel, which has traditionally been attributed exclusively to nuclear decay.   It also could explain the mysterious phenomena of magnetic pole reversal, which could have been caused by periods when the reactor stopped due to the buildup of neutron poisons, only to start again once they had decayed away.

There is, however, some other data which appears to dispute the possibility of a reactor at earth’s core.  It such a reactor did exist, the bulk of the earth would prevent gamma rays or neutrons from being detectable, but it should still be possible for neutrino detectors to measure the characteristic neutrinos generated from fission reactions in earth’s core.   The data from such detectors does not support the hypothesis that a nuclear fission reactor provides a significant proportion of the heat in the core and mantle of the earth.   Such a reactor could still exist, but it would have to be less than about three terawatts or a greater number of neutrinos should have been detected coming from the earth’s core.  In that case, the reactor would only account for a small portion of the 40 terawatts of observed geothermal activity.

While the neutrino data may seem to indicate that a large nuclear reactor is not currently operating within the earth, it does not rule out the possibility that such a reactor has operated intermittently and that it is currently either not producing a fission chain reaction or is only producing a small one.   Even if that is the case, the residual heat of such a reactor would be very significant.   It is also possible that a redactor existed at one time, perhaps billions of years ago, but has not produced a chain reaction since.   If this is the case, the implications are still enormous for the formation of the earth and the heat and magnetic fields observed to this day.

Implications for earth and beyond:

We really do not know if there is indeed a georeactor or if there ever was.  While the hypothesis is controversial, it cannot be completely discounted and must be considered a possible factor in the structure and formation of the earth.  The implications are quite profound and could rewrite our most basic presumptions of the planets history and formation.

What we can say for sure is that nuclear fission reactors did exist on earth, at least in the crust.  The influence of such reactors must now be considered as an influence on everything from the mineralogy of the earth’s crust to the formation of early life.   The amount of uranium and its daughter products observed in the modern earth may be less than what once existed due to much of the element fissioning away.   Some of the lighter elements that are abundant in the crust may be the byproducts of this fission.  The heat generated by these reactors could have played a major role in shaping the early geology of earth.  It may have even influenced life, possibly heating bodies of water or producing hot springs, where heat-dependent microbes flourished.   It’s even possible that the ionizing radiation generated by the reactors was a factor in the early formation and evolution of organisms.

But even if fission chain reactions did not play a major role in the history of earth, it does not diminish the potential importance on a cosmic scale.   If fission occurred naturally on earth, then we can be certain that occurred naturally elsewhere and continues to occur naturally elsewhere in the universe.   Similar reactors could have existed on other terrestrial planets in our solar system or may have contributed significant amounts of energy to the primordial planets as they formed around the sun.   It has been suggested that fission reactions could also account for the energy observed from the gas giant planets of the solar system.

With more than a billion billion stars in this galaxy alone, there are certainly other places where fission occurs and where it could easily play an important role in how planets form or how life might develop.  As a source of energy, fission could potentially provide the heat necessary for life to exist on planets or planetoids too far from stars to otherwise support life.   It could even mean that otherwise frozen bodies in interstellar space could harbor life.   This alone could vastly change our current ideas of where life might exist beyond earth.

The suggestion that fission could also play a role in the ignition of stars is yet another intriguing, if unorthodox hypothesis that needs to be at least considered.

Whatever role fission plays in the energy balance of the earth and the universe, we now know that it does play some role.  It happens.   It’s a fundamental reaction and a source of energy in nature.  It must be considered in cosmic and geological models as a potential influence.  Uranium and other heavy elements are formed in supernova and are found across the universe.   The distribution of these elements now needs to also be considered as an important factor in which kinds of reactions can occur in which areas.

The more practical side:

The artificial nature of fission has always been used as an argument against it.   It has been claimed that it produces materials that are not normally encountered and have properties that are different from any pre-existing substance and that the uniqueness of the reaction and its byproducts makes it unpredictable.   It has also been argued that since the sun and other stars are powered by fusion, nuclear fusion is therefore a more perfect, cleaner energy source that we have always lived with, while fission does not have the same kind of appeal.

We now know that this is simply not true.   Fission can and does happen on its own, without human intervention and has so for billions of years.   Fission chain reactions and the byproducts of fission are not alien to earth and their existence did not halt life, but may have facilitated it.  They can exist in the environment without causing catastrophe and always have.   Fission is not unusual and is certainly not a creation of man.   It is a basic reaction, as fundamental as fusion or fire.

We live in a nuclear powered universe.  The energy we experience may have come from nuclear fusion, fission, decay, from the reactions of cosmic rays or even from the subatomic reactions that occurred moments after the big bang.   Nuclear reactions generate all energy, liberating it from the forces that bind all mater together.  These reactions will happen with or without our intervention.

We would be fools to not realize this and use nuclear energy to our own advantage.

Yet these subsidies and mandates are exactly the kind that create the worst social inequalities. Those rich enough to invest in the government-backed and subsidized businesses are given a golden opportunity to make more money with less risk than could ever be had in a fair market. At the same time, the general public pays for it through higher electric rates and taxes. Despite the claims that these programs exist to create jobs, the higher cost of energy that results hurts industry and ultimately can cost jobs. The enterprises that take advantage of these subsidies are incapable of ever being self-sustaining and could not survive without these direct and very expensive incentives by the government.

Via the New York Times:

A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search

WASHINGTON — Halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, on a former cattle ranch and gypsum mine, NRG Energy is building an engineering marvel: a compound of nearly a million solar panels that will produce enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes.

For reference: This solar power plant produces 250 megawatts peak. Saying how many “homes” it powers has become a popular way of disguising how small a power producer really is. It’s a horrible measure anyway, since a “home” can consume anywhere from a couple hundred watts up to several kilowatts. By utility standards, a 250 megawatt power plant is modest in size. Many large baseload power plants can produce more than ten times that much power.

And that is only peak output. The facility will only produce 250 megawatts during the most favorable of summer days. On average, it will produce well under half of that. Based on the history of solar power plants in California, the expected capacity factor of the plant will be, at most, 20%.

In other words, it averages out to producing the equivalent energy of a 50 megawatt power plant.

Anything under 100 megawatts is just plain small by power plant standards, so this is a really a pea-shooter of a generating station.

The project is also a marvel in another, less obvious way: Taxpayers and ratepayers are providing subsidies worth almost as much as the entire $1.6 billion cost of the project. Similar subsidy packages have been given to 15 other solar- and wind-power electric plants since 2009.

That’s not a marvel! That’s a disgusting waste of money and a scam on the tax and ratepayers! What we have here is a private company that is getting a big expensive facility built for them and does not need to foot the bill. The government pays the bill but gets nothing in return. Worse still, the profitability of the facility (which I stress is basically given to them for free) is guaranteed, because even if the electricity it produces is too expensive for the market, the government assures that it will be bought, even at an artificially high rate.

Eventually these ridiculous subsidies will likely run out. When they do, NRG will still own the plant and can do with it what they please. In all likelihood, without an artificial market or direct handouts to pay for it, it won’t be worth running. They’ll close it and sell all the panels as surplus and the fixtures as scrap. Doing so will get them a lot less than the 1.6 billion it cost to build the plant, but that’s fine for their bottom line, because they didn’t have to pay for it to begin with.

The government support — which includes loan guarantees, cash grants and contracts that require electric customers to pay higher rates — largely eliminated the risk to the private investors and almost guaranteed them large profits for years to come. The beneficiaries include financial firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, conglomerates like General Electric, utilities like Exelon and NRG — even Google.

Exactly. It’s not a viable product or technology, but the government forces it to be profitable by handing out money and forcing higher rates. The only ones that benefit are firms that are large enough to get in on this lucrative opportunity. If you’re just a lower middle class or working poor individual, you don’t have the capital to get in on this, so you don’t get the handout. On the other hand, if you’re rich, here’s a way to get richer at everyone else’s expense.

A great deal of attention has been focused on Solyndra, a start-up that received $528 million in federal loans to develop cutting-edge solar technology before it went bankrupt, but nearly 90 percent of the $16 billion in clean-energy loans guaranteed by the federal government since 2009 went to subsidize these lower-risk power plants, which in many cases were backed by big companies with vast resources.

These plants are only “lower risk” because their produce has mandated buyers. Utilities and end users are forced to purchase the electricity at a higher rate and therefore there’s no danger of not having income. In the case of Solyndra they were selling a product of relatively limited utility and relatively high cost that there was not a government-mandated market for. If the government could come to your house, put a gun to your head and tell you you had to spend at least ten percent of any money you spent on home improvement or durable products on Solyndra’s solar panels, they would not have failed.

That’s exactly what the government is doing for these generation projects, except part of your energy budget, not your durable goods budget.  Given a free market these solar power generators would never survive.  They would not come even remotely close to surviving.  Their power output is tiny, their costs are huge and their capacity factor is poor.  Nobody would buy the electricity unless they had to, which they do.

When the Obama administration and Congress expanded the clean-energy incentives in 2009, a gold-rush mentality took over.

As NRG’s chief executive, David W. Crane, put it to Wall Street analysts early this year, the government’s largess was a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and “we intend to do as much of this business as we can get our hands on.” NRG, along with partners, ultimately secured $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees plus hundreds of millions in other subsidies for four large solar projects.

“I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects,” he said in a recent interview. “It is just filling the desert with panels.”

That is a very profound statement that really shows how much these subsidies are benefiting the big investors and corporations that receive them.

For companies and investors there’s no such thing as a free lunch, at least not in a free and fair market. All ventures involve some level of risk and the ones with the highest potential to make a profit often are the ones that have the highest risk. Investors who stick their necks out and take that risk of loss can make good returns. Bringing a new and innovative product to market benefits everyone, and assuming the risk that such ventures entail is a vital service these investors provide.

Company’s don’t get a free ride either. In order to make money they have to provide a product or service with a market and do so at a price that people are willing to pay. They have to produce that produce at a cost that allows them to do so. They must also constantly work to assure they stay ahead of the game when it comes to both their end product and the price its sold at or a competitor could undercut them and take away their business.

Power plants are a substantial investment, and while they certainly have the potential to generate great returns, the investors and companies that build them must work very hard to assure that they properly plan, construct and manage the operations of the plant. If the construction schedule is delayed then costs can skyrocket and interest an rapidly accumulate, resulting in huge losses. If the power plant is unable to generate electricity at a cost that is competitive with other regional generators, it will fail to make money. If the plant is built in an area that does not have enough demand for electricity to provide a market for the output, it will not be viable. Companies must therefore do their homework when it comes to where to locate the plant, how to operate it, what the potential for future fuel costs are and other factors.

It’s like this in any industry and it’s really the foundation of our economic system. Companies can make money by providing valuable products and services to the market, but they don’t get a free ride. If a company fails to provide its product at a competitive price, if it produces a product for which there is no market, does not keep up with innovative competitors or if it mismanages its assets and production, it will lose money or fail completely.

These absurdly large subsidies turn the entire system on its head. They allow those rich enough to buy into the offer to make a huge amount of money that is virtually risk-free and completely removes all reason to actually give a damn about making the business work. They can run these operations into the ground for all they care, because no matter how much the power costs or how unreliable it is, the ratepayer has to accept it and pay a price that assures that they’ll make a very good profit. Even if the venture fails completely, they’re not on the hook for it. The government gives them direct handouts for it and guarantees the loans with little or no scrutiny. (which is not the case for nuclear loan guarantees, which have turned out to be very very tough to actually get approved.)

From 2007 to 2010, federal subsidies jumped to $14.7 billion from $5.1 billion, according to a recent study.

Most of the surge came from the economic stimulus bill, which was passed in 2009 and financed an Energy Department loan guarantee program and a separate Treasury Department grant program that were promoted as important in creating green jobs.

Ah, yes, the “Green Jobs,” which apparently are better than other jobs because they cost us all more green (as in greenbacks).

Lets stop here and do some very basic math. The NRG solar project mentioned above will cost at least 1.6 billion US dollars to build.  That’s just to build it, of course, and it will actually cost more to keep it maintained and operating.  Those costs will be covered by yet more subsidies and grid mandates, but lets just focus on the 1.6 billion.  The government and NRG have been fast to point out that during the construction phase of the plant, which will take two years, there will be 350 jobs created.

350 jobs?   Hardly puts a dent in the nation’s unemployment figures.   But apparently they didn’t think anyone would be clever enough to know how to do division, because the cost of each of those 350 jobs turns out to be about 2.29 million dollars per year!

So let me propose a much more monetarily efficient way of “creating jobs” in this manner.  I propose we hire one thousand workers for the term of two years.  We’ll hire them to do some useless job like repeatedly building walls and then tearing them back down or walking in circles or perhaps just to sit on their asses in their living rooms.  We will pay these one thousand workers $75,000 per year, a good wage and well above the national average.   My program will create more than twice as many jobs and yet will cost us only 150 million dollars.  It’s a bargain at twice the price!

Now see how stupid this is as a way of “creating jobs?”

Really, you end up losing jobs because “creating jobs” by hiring people only works if they’re being hired to do something that actually benefits the economy. Otherwise, it’s money down the drain, which could have paid for something useful. Therefore, there is a net job loss.

The windfall for the industry over the last three years raises questions of whether the Obama administration and state governments went too far in their support of solar and wind power projects, some of which would have been built anyway, according to the companies involved.

Well… yeah

Obama administration officials argue that the incentives, which began on a large scale late in the Bush administration but were expanded by the stimulus legislation, make economic and environmental sense. Beyond the short-term increase in construction hiring, they say, the cleaner air and lower carbon emissions will benefit the country for decades.

First of all, if the best excuse Obama can come up with for this nonsense is that the Bush Administration started it, then that’s really beyond sad.   It was a mistake then and it’s an even bigger mistake now.   It should be very clear that the economic benefits are non-existent (except to those who are rich enough to cash in, of course.)  A very few jobs “created”, mostly short term, and costing an ungodly amount to produce is not an economic benefit and can actually result in a net loss of jobs.  It is also not an economic benefit to make electricity more expensive for the public or for industry.

There will not be any substantial decrease in carbon emissions because these multi-billion dollar projects are not actually capable of generating any significant amount of the nation’s total energy.   It’s questionable whether all these projects will actually result in net savings of carbon dioxide that are large enough to offset the emissions from their construction and the incidental emissions associated with operation (like workers driving to their jobs at the facilities).   Some of them may just manage to squeak by and create a net reduction in CO2 emissions, but it will be a tiny one.  There are much cheaper ways to produce a much larger reduction in CO2. It’s just a billion-dollar drop in the ocean.

These projects will not result in the shutdown of a single fossil fuel power station. They never have and never will. There are only two emission-free methods of generating electricity that are actually capable of pulling their own weight and providing large amounts of power at a cost that is economical. One is large scale hydroelectric* and the other is nuclear fission. If you don’t have enough suitable rivers to build dams on, that only leaves one. That’s it. Everything else is expensive window dressing.

(*hydroelectric is not always emission free. Building a dam that floods large areas with large volumes of plant material results in CO2 and methane emissions due to the decay it causes. However, this can be a rather complex issue, since it depends heavily on the type of land flooded – for example, desert valleys have relatively little material to decay and woodlands have large amounts. Also the amount of decay is finite so it will eventually stop after the fam has been in operation for a number of years.)

“Subsidies and government support have been part of many key industries in U.S. history — railroads, oil, gas and coal, aviation,” said Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman.

That is absolutely pathetic. For one thing, those subsidies were not universally a good thing, and I don’t like to hear defending bad policy by pointing out other bad policies. But even so, all those things did help the country and society as a whole in a tangible way. Aviation made our defense forces more capable and our transportation much faster. Gas and coal may be dirty, but they saved what was left of the forests. The railroads made commerce across the continent possible.

These subsidies buy us nothing.

You can read the rest at the New York Times website. I really hope that this kind of press will get people thinking about what this really means. This is money going to the “one percent,” exactly the kind of thing that so many are protesting about. Yet many will likely not realize the harm the cost this puts on society and the lack of benefit. In other to make that clear, we must continue to work to bust the myth that these uber-expensive projects have ecological or economic benefits. They don’t!

An obvious area of debate is transportation, especially in terms of cars versus motorcycles.   There’s no doubt that motorcycles are smaller, with smaller engines and less dead weight being hauled around to carry a single passenger.   They use less fuel than cars.

So are they better for the environment?   The Mythbusters take on this question in an episode that will be airing some time in the upcoming season.

Via the LA Times:

‘MythBusters’ asks: Are motorcycles greener than cars?
A trend is afoot, according to “MythBusters” television host Adam Savage: “People are trading in their cars and driving motorcycles instead because they believe that’s the more environmentally friendly choice,” Savage said in Wednesday’s season opener of the popular Discovery Channel show. “The logic is because motorcycles are generally more fuel-efficient than cars, they burn less gas and thus they must be better for the environment.”

The question is: Are they really? As the MythBusters have done with each of the show’s previous seven seasons, Savage and his co-host Jamie Hyneman set out to test the theory.

Selecting three motorcycles and three cars that represented popular models from the ’80s, ’90s and ’00s, they put the six vehicles through a 30-minute, 20-mile course. Seventy-five percent was freeway driving; the other 25 percent was in the city. Savage drove the three cars. Hyneman trailed him at speed on each of the three bikes. None of the vehicles’ makes and models were disclosed.

All of the vehicles were equipped with portable emissions-measuring systems that took exhaust gases from a probe in the tailpipe and engine information from the engine control unit. The devices determined the vehicles’ fuel economy and emissions profiles while the vehicles were running on the real-world course in California’s Alameda County earlier this year.

The upshot? Motorcycles were indeed more fuel-efficient than cars and emitted less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, but they emitted far more smog-forming hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, as well as the toxic air pollutant carbon monoxide. For the most recent model year vehicles tested — from the ’00s — the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than the comparable decade car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide.

The MythBusters’ conclusion: “At best, it’s a wash. Motorcycles are just as bad for the environment as cars,” Savage said on the show. “At worst, they’re far worse.”
…
In the 2011 American Lung Assn. State of the Air report, eight of the top 10 cities for ozone pollution were in California. Los Angeles ranked first.

Despite the MythBusters’ findings, emissions are only part of the story of a vehicle’s true greenness. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, motorcycle manufacturing requires thousands fewer pounds of raw materials than automobiles. They require less fossil fuel, so they require less energy to pull that fossil fuel out of the ground. They use fewer chemicals and oils than cars. And motorcycles produced today are 90% cleaner in California than they were 30 years ago.

Note to MythBusters: How about a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment for cars and motorcycles for the Season 9 opener?

It’s definitely a complicated issue, especially when one considers the issue of the actual resources that go into one of these vehicles, what impact they may have in terms of displacing other vehicles and how they are driven. Given the differences in driving habits and engine types and efficiency, it’s very difficult to make a one-to-one comparison between motorcycles and automobiles.

Motorcycles are certainly smaller and have a lot less metal in them. However, motorcycles don’t generally age gracefully, especially if they are driven often and therefore may need more frequent replacement. Additionally, many of those who own a motorcycle feel the need to also own a car, since cars have greater utility and can be used when the weather precludes the use of a motorcycle, so owning a motorcycle does not really displace the resources that go into a car.

Many drive motorcycles primarily for recreation, and in this circumstance, they may not be any help at all. Of course this is not universally true, and those who use motorcycles regularly for primary transportation are not comparable to those who use their bikes mostly for fun. How the motorcycle is driven plays a huge role in the environmental footprint. If it’s used for aggressive acceleration, as might be the cause in recreational use, the efficiency is reduced. On the other hand, when used in city traffic, a motorcycle can have major benefits over a car. Motorcycles can negotiate crowded roads better and thus may spend less time wasting fuel by idling.

All these calculations, however, are based on the presumption that the car and motorcycle are both carrying one passenger. This is usually, but not always the case. If the car is carrying three or more people, it wins in efficiency hands down. Motorcycles usually have one person on them, but can carry two. The ability to more easily carry a second passenger or increased cargo capacity can be added with a sidecar. However, when not in use, the sidecar will increase both drag and rolling resistance, thus reducing fuel efficiency.

And of course, though not directly related to emissions, it goes without saying that motorcycles tend to be less safe. Some might say this is a good thing if it means more human deaths, (though I find such views to be despicable) but it could also mean more energy and resources go to medical care.

Personally I have nothing against motorcycles, and I do not wish for this post to come off as being against motorcycles in general. If you enjoy riding, continue to do so. If a bike works out well for your transport situation, go ahead and get one. But the environmental benefits of motorcycles are just not there. It’s a complicated question, but there’s just no evidence that they have a major net impact on reducing emissions.

Of course, this is not really the case. The plants have undergone numerous upgrades and refits over the years and continue to be upgraded and inspected to maintain high levels of safety. New procedures and new systems retrofitted to older reactors have improved their efficiency and safety beyond what it was originally. Of course, even with improvements, the older Generation II reactors still are not as good as new Generation III+ designs, but none the less, they are perfectly safe and reliable sources of power.

The primary reason why the designs have outlasted what was assumed to be their design life comes down to economics. While it has become cheaper and easier to extend the life of reactors, it has also become much more difficult to build new ones. The original designers might have presumed that after twenty or thirty years, their designs would have been so far surpassed that new power plants would have made them obsolete and redundant.

Unfortunately, they had not counted on just how difficult it has become to build a new reactor.  Just getting the permits to build a new nuclear reactor can take upwards of a decade, and a combination of political lobbying, lawsuits and other tactics by special interest groups meets a potential reactor operator at every step of the way, possibly even derailing plans completely before construction is completed but after billions have been spent.   There exists no other facility whose construction will be opposed by so many with so much effort at so many levels.   Paperwork costs alone can top the hundreds of millions, and final costs for construction have skyrocketed since the 1970’s.

Thus we have what we have and their life is extended to the maximum possible since replacements remain so difficult and expensive to built.

This does not mean that they are unsafe.  In fact, there are many examples of technology lasting far longer than its designers had anticipated.

Reasons why something may outlast its original design life:

• Upgrades, overhauls and life-extension modifications may be made during the life of a piece of technology for the purpose of extending the lifespan.   This is especially useful when the limit of the service life is due to one specific part which can be replaced.   Modifications and upgrades can also address systems which become technically obsolete.  It is common practice to preform a mid-life overhaul on navel vessels which includes refitting them new electronics and weapons systems.
• The original design life may have been overly conservative.   This has turned out to be the case with some aircraft.   For example, the first generation of jet airliners were overbuilt and the number of flight hours they were anticipated to be capable of was extremely conservative due to the fact that there was little experience with extended operation of such aircraft.   However, with more experience and testing of the systems, it has become apparent that they can be safely flown beyond their original anticipated service lifespans, as long as they are properly maintained and inspected.
• New technologies may allow the service life to be extended in ways that the original designers could never have anticipated.  For example, in cases where metal fatigue is the limiting factor, new methods for remediation, such as bonding of compost reinforcements to metal parts or ultrasonic peening have been developed.   These may not have even existed when the original service life estimates were made.
• The way in which a piece of technology is used may differ from how it was originally expected to be used, sometimes resulting in decreased loads and stresses and thus increasing the lifespan.   For example, the Boeing 707 has an estimated service life of 30 years before the airframe needs to be replaced or completely rebuilt.  However, that figure is based on airline service, which results in the aircraft making hundreds of flights per year.   Military variations of the 707, though based on the same airframe, spend the vast majority of their time on the ground and only fly for occasional training missions, combat duty and ferrying supplies.   Since the limiting factor for aircraft is flight hours, the 30 year estimated lifespan does not apply and military aircraft can last much longer.
• The design life may not actually be based on the technical limits of a system.   Often, the anticipated life of a technology is not due to the fact that it won’t be usable after a period of years.  It may also be presumed that it will become less economical to provide necessary service, but this is not always the case, especially when new technology makes servicing easier.   The Eiffel Tower is an example of a structure whose design life was not the result of any technical limitation.   It was intended to stand for the 1989 World Exposition, after which it was considered to no longer be needed.   Original permits stated that it could not be left standing for more than 20 years after construction.   This was not because it was expected to be structurally defiant, but many feared it would be an eyesore and that the structure occupied valuable real estate.   Of course, this was not the case as the Eiffel Tower quickly became a beloved structure and even a symbol of the French nation.   Thus, the original plans to remove it were withdrawn.  In other cases,  new missions or purposes may be found after the original is complete.   For example, many Liberty Ships were retired from military sea-lift operations and went on to be used for private cargo shipping companies.
• The design life may be based on the presumption that a newer, better system will come into existence and thus make a design no longer needed.   This is not always the case.
• It may be desirable to continue to operate something even after it has reached the point where the necessary maintenance and operating costs are no longer considered economical by the original standards.   This would be the case with classic cars.  The cost of keeping them on the road is significantly more than when they were newer and no longer makes them economically attractive as general purpose transportation, but that’s not really the point.
• It may refuse to die.   Some devices are intended to be used until they fail and then be replaced.  These include things like lightbulbs, vacuum tubes, bearings and various engine components.   However, sometimes, despite being used for many years, they just keep going and going and don’t fail.

Examples of Technology Going Strong Beyond Anticipated Service Life:

The Boeing B-52:
Anticipated: ~20 years
Actual: 45+ years and counting (airframes in service from early 1960’s).  With plans to keep the aircraft in service until at least 2040, it will likely exceed 80 years and may well approach one hundred years of continuous service before it is finally retired.

The Douglas DC-3/C-47:
Anticipated: A few years to ~20 years.  Many aircraft were built for immediate use in World War II and not expected to be used for more than a few years.
Actual: 75+ years and counting.   Remains in regular utility, charter and cargo service – not simply a flying museum.

The Eiffel Tower:
Anticipated: 1-20 years. The tower was built for the 1889 Exposition Universelle. Original construction permits required the tower be dismantled by 1909.
Actual: 122 years and counting. Baring a catastrophic event, it will likely remain in place for many years to come.

The MS Stockholm/MS Athena:
Anticipated: about 20-30 years (based on similar vessels of similar vessels service life)
Actual: 63 years and counting, the MS Athena is one of the oldest ocean-going passenger ships in regular service.   This is made all the more remarkable by the fact that she was very heavily damaged in 1956 after colliding with the Andrea Doria

Marisat-F2: (Satellite used for maritime and antarctic communications.)
Anticipated: 5 year design life [source]
Actual: 32 years (the satellite was still functional, but engineers believed one of the subsystems was on the verge of failure. The satellite was therefore deactivated and the last remaining fuel was used to place it in a “graveyard orbit” in 2008.)

Mars Exploration Rover Spirit:
Anticipated: 92 days (90 mars days)
Actual: 2269 days

Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity:
Anticipated: 92 days (90 mars days)
Actual: 7.4 years as of publication and counting

The Hubble Space Telescope:
Anticipated: 13 Years [source]
Actual: 21 years thus far and expected to last at least 25 years, though NASA is hopeful it may continue to operate even longer. Hubble benefited from a series of service missions by the Space Shuttle, the last being in 2009. With the end of the Shuttle program no more are planned, though NASA has not ruled out the possibility of future missions using another platform, possibly robotic.

South Pole Station Geodesic Dome Shelter:
Anticipated: 15 Years [source]
Actual: 28 Years – When the dome was finally retired in 2003 it was still structurally sound, but had been replaced by a newer modular station habitat that provided enhanced capabilities and capacity.

World War II “Liberty Ships”
Anticipated: 5 Years (official ship service life requirement) [source]
Actual: 30+ Years. Only two liberty ships continue to operate at sea (both are museum ships). However, after the end of World War II, hundreds of Liberty Ships were sold surplus and were used as general purpose cargo vessels by various shipping lines. They were also modified for military and government uses into the 1960’s.  As cargo vessels, a number of World War II era liberty ships continued to serve well into the 1970’s.

The Parkes Observatory Radiotelescope
Anticipated: About 20 years [source]
Actual: 50 years and counting.

The NASA Crawler
Anticipated: Constructed for the life of the Apollo Program.  Originally anticipated as up to 20 years, but actually 6 years (9 years if Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz included)
Actual: 46 years and counting.  The crawler was built to allow transport of the Saturn-V from the VAB to the launch pads.  After Apollo, it was used for Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz and later to transport the Space Shuttle.  Now that the Shuttle has been retired, the crawlers are no longer actively used, but they remain in storage and are expected to be used for whatever the next heavy-lift launch platform might be, assuming that ever happens.

The “Centennial Light Bulb”
Anticipated: 150-1500 hours (source)
Actual: 110 years and counting.  Early carbon-filament light bulbs typically burned out in a few hundred hours of use.   They were known to sometimes last much longer.  Their high resistance and relatively cool operating temperature can contribute to much longer periods of use beyond the typical 1500 hours.   However, the light bulb hanging in a fire house in Livermore California has been lit continuously (except for a few power failures) since the turn of the 20th century.   The bulb has reportedly gained resistance over the years, due to the degradation of the filament.   Originally it was a 60 watt bulb, but now is much dimmer at an estimated 4 watts.   Yet, most bulbs would have suffered a complete failure of the filament long ago.  Nobody is entirely sure why this particular bulb has outlasted all others.

An old post in a similar spirit: When Old Does Not Mean Obsolete

Plant Must Disclose Data to Fight Cancer Lawsuit

CHICAGO (CN) – The parents of a girl who developed brain cancer can access over a decade of data on an Exelon power plant they claim discharged harmful radiation, a federal judge ruled, but the energy giant can withhold certain other information.
Joseph and Cynthia Sauer say their daughter, Sarah, was diagnosed with a medulloblastoma, a highly malignant brain tumor, roughly three years after the family moved to Grundy County, where Exelon operates the Dresden Generating Station and Unitech Services Group has a nuclear facility.
They claim that radioactive discharges from the plants traveled through the groundwater, causing Sarah’s cancer.
After receiving the Sauers’ lawsuit, Exelon and Unitech said Sarah’s diagnosis should frame the discovery period, which it proposed to run between 1996 and 2004, two years before and three years after.
The Sauers countered with a motion to access Exelon’s historical data going back to the early 1990s, which they said their expert witness need to determine the impact of the facility on Sarah, since radioactive materials persist for long periods of time in groundwater.
The plaintiffs also moved to compel Exelon to produce documents related to three similar lawsuits filed in 2006.
Meanwhile, Unitech filed a motion to compel the plaintiffs to provide specific facts underlying their claims against Unitech and to provide a damages disclosure statement.
The court partially granted the Sauers’ motion against Exelon, but also directed them to clarify and substantiate their claims against Unitech.
Exelon’s objections to the requested time frame are premature, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan found. “Given plaintiffs’ expert’s statement that contamination from the Dresden facility can persist for long periods of time, releases dating back to the early 1990s could be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims or could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” she wrote.

It’s impossible not to feel sympathy for someone like Sarah Sauer. She’s a completely innocent child who did nothing wrong and is faced with a life or death battle with cancer. It must be terrifying for her and her family. I’m sure all readers wish her nothing but the best in beating this cancer and going on to live a long, happy life.

But it was not caused by Dresden Generating Station. It’s impossible to say what caused a given incident of cancer, of course, but in this case, the circumstances are such that the probability of this case of cancer being related to the nearby nuclear plant is so astronomically low that I’m willing to just say that it’s not related.

1. The plant does not produce significant emissions of radioactive substances.   This is inherent to its design.   Lightwater reactors cannot release large amounts of transuric elements or fission products unless there is a catastrophic failure of the fuel elements.   This would be obvious.   Even if a large amount of coolant leaked from the reactors, this would only contain relatively small amounts of tritium, which would not produce an appreciable amount of radiation exposure to the surrounding public.  Furthermore, if there were any releases of radioactive substances, they would be easily detected.
2. The family only lived in the area for three years.   Radiation-induced cancer tends to have much longer latency periods (on the order of ten to twenty years on average.)   It’s not impossible that a radiation-induced cancer could occur sooner, but it’s very unlikely.
3. Brain cancer is not strongly associated with exposure to fission byproducts or to radiation in general in the way some cancers are.   Some cancers are well known to be associated with radiation exposure, for example, thyroid cancer, leukemia and bone cancer.   Brain cancer is less related to radiation exposure and increases in brain cancer have not generally been seen in those exposed to high levels of ionizing radiation.
4. Brain cancer happens and happens in children.   Like most cancers, there is usually no attributable outside cause and most children who have brain cancer did not have any direct exposure to environmental carcinogens.   Cancer exists because of tendencies inherent to animal cell reproduction and genetics.   Genes can mutate in a way that causes cancers to occur.   This mutation happens relatively at random.  Cells do have repair mechanisms that can prevent this genetic damage from resulting in cancer, but these mechanisms do not work 100% of the time.

   While cancer tends to strike at random, the risk increases with age.   Still, even at a young age, the risk is still not zero. Each year, in the United States alone, over 2000 children are diagnosed with brain cancer.  Brain cancer is the second most common form of cancer diagnosed in young children.  While there are some things that may increase the risk of a given child getting cancer, such as family history and the presence of certain other medical conditions, the overall odds of any child getting cancer is about .01 to .02 percent.

Thankfully, most children who are diagnosed with cancer are cured.  Survival rates for all forms of childhood cancer have increased dramatically in recent years.  On average, more than two thirds of children diagnosed with some form of brain cancer will be successfully treated and survive.   Of course, the actual type of cancer, the size of the tumor and numerous other factors.   Likewise, the level of long-term impairment caused by the tumor depends on the specifics of each individual case.

Regardless of the cause, we certainly wish Sarah the best, but do not condone the filing of frivolous lawsuits against individuals or corporations that are not responsible for the damages they were not responsible for.   Such suits corrupt the justice system, unfairly punish those who are not at fault and further contribute to public misunderstanding of things like nuclear energy.

Via the New York Times:

Scientists have long sought easier ways to make the costly material known as enriched uranium — the fuel of nuclear reactors and bombs, now produced only in giant industrial plants.

One idea, a half-century old, has been to do it with nothing more substantial than lasers and their rays of concentrated light. This futuristic approach has always proved too expensive and difficult for anything but laboratory experimentation.

Until now.

In a little-known effort, General Electric has successfully tested laser enrichment for two years and is seeking federal permission to build a $1 billion plant that would make reactor fuel by the ton.

That might be good news for the nuclear industry. But critics fear that if the work succeeds and the secret gets out, rogue states and terrorists could make bomb fuel in much smaller plants that are difficult to detect.

Iran has already succeeded with laser enrichment in the lab, and nuclear experts worry that G.E.’s accomplishment might inspire Tehran to build a plant easily hidden from the world’s eyes.

Backers of the laser plan call those fears unwarranted and praise the technology as a windfall for a world increasingly leery of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases.

But critics want a detailed risk assessment. Recently, they petitioned Washington for a formal evaluation of whether the laser initiative could backfire and speed the global spread of nuclear arms.

“We’re on the verge of a new route to the bomb,” said Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist who advised President Bill Clinton and now teaches at Princeton. “We should have learned enough by now to do an assessment before we let this kind of thing out.”

New varieties of enrichment are considered potentially dangerous because they can simplify the hardest part of building a bomb — obtaining the fuel.

General Electric, an atomic pioneer and one of the world’s largest companies, says its initial success began in July 2009 at a facility just north of Wilmington, N.C., that is jointly owned with Hitachi. It is impossible to independently verify that claim because the federal government has classified the laser technology as top secret. But G.E. officials say that the achievement is genuine and that they are accelerating plans for a larger complex at the Wilmington site.

“We are currently optimizing the design,” Christopher J. Monetta, president of Global Laser Enrichment, a subsidiary of G.E. and Hitachi, said in an interview.

The company foresees “substantial demand for nuclear fuel,” he added, while conceding that global jitters from the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan “do create some uncertainty.” G.E. made those reactors.

Donald M. Kerr, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons lab who was recently briefed on G.E.’s advance, said in an interview that it looked like a breakthrough after decades of exaggerated claims.

Laser enrichment, he said, has gone from “an oversold, overpromised set of technologies” to what “appears to be close to a real industrial process.”

…

The plan was to exploit the extraordinary purity of laser light to selectively excite uranium’s rare form. In theory, the resulting agitation would ease identification of the precious isotope and aid its extraction.

At least 20 countries and many companies raced to investigate the idea. Scientists built hundreds of lasers.

Ray E. Kidder, a laser pioneer at the Livermore nuclear arms lab, estimated that the overall number of scientists involved globally ran to several thousand.

“It was a big deal,” he said in an interview. “If you could enrich with lasers, you could cut the cost by a factor of 10.”

The fervor cooled by the 1990s as laser separation turned out to be extremely hard to make economically feasible.

Not everyone gave up. Twenty miles southwest of Sydney, in a wooded region, Horst Struve and Michael Goldsworthy kept tinkering with the idea at a government institute. Finally, around 1994, the two men judged that they had a major advance.

The inventors called their idea Silex, for separation of isotopes by laser excitation. “Our approach is completely different,” Dr. Goldsworthy, a physicist, told a Parliamentary hearing.

….

In May 2006, G.E. bought the rights to Silex. Andrew C. White, the president of the company’s nuclear business, hailed the technology as “game-changing.”

Mr. Monetta of Global Laser Enrichment, the G.E.-Hitachi subsidiary, said the envisioned plant would enrich enough uranium annually to fuel up to 60 large reactors. In theory, that could power more than 42 million homes — about a third of all housing units in the United States.

The laser advance, he added, will promote energy security “since it is a domestic source.”

In late 2009, as G.E. experimented with its trial laser, supporters of arms control wrote Congress and the regulatory commission. The technology, they warned, posed a danger of quickening the spread of nuclear weapons because of the likely difficulty of detecting clandestine plants.

Experts called for a federal review of the risks. In early 2010, the commission resisted.

Late last year, the American Physical Society — the nation’s largest group of physicists, with headquarters in Washington — submitted a formal petition to the commission for a rule change that would compel such risk assessments as a condition of licensing.

“The issue is too big” to leave to the federal status quo, Francis Slakey, a physicist at Georgetown University and the society official who drafted the petition, said in an interview. He added that Mr. Obama or Congress might eventually have to get involved.

This year, thousands of citizens, supporters of arms control, nuclear experts and members of Congress wrote the commission to back the society’s effort. Many of them cited well-known failures in safeguarding secrets and detecting atomic plants.

But the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group in Washington, objected. It said new precautions were unnecessary because of voluntary plans for “additional measures” to safeguard secrets.

A commission spokesman said the petition would be considered next year. In theory, the risk-assessment plan, if adopted, could slow or stop the granting of a commercial license for the proposed laser plant or could result in design improvements.

The very notion that there are some kind of special “risks” to building a laser enrichment plant really shows that most of those who are opposing the development of this technology have no idea what it actually does or how it works.

Laser-based isotope enrichment accomplishes exactly the same thing that the existing methods of gaseous diffusion and gas centrifuges do: it increases the concentration of uranium-235 to uranium-238.  Each time the process is preformed, it increases the concentration relatively slightly, so it must be done repeatedly, in a so-called “cascade.”   If the same material is processed through the cascade a few times, it produces low enrichment uranium, suitable for nuclear power reactors.   If it is done many more times, it produces highly enriched uranium, which can be used for weapons.

Both the gas centrifuge and gaseous diffusion utilize the small difference in mass between uranium-235 and uranium-238 to separate the two isotopes and thus provide enriched uranium.  Laser enrichment, on the other hand, uses the slightly different absorption of differing frequencies of light.   A high power tunable dye laser is tuned to precisely the frequency which tends to excite uranium-235 more than uranium-238.   This selectively vaporizes the uranium-235, allowing it to be separated.   In most forms of laser enrichment, this is done with a compound like uranium hexafluoride, since it vaporizes at lower energies than pure uranium, although processes for elemental uranium have been experimented with before.

Laser enrichment has been experimented with in the laboratory since the 1960’s and until recently, the high cost of the specialized lasers needed made it uneconomical for anything beyond small experimental setups.   However, improvements in the efficiency and economics of lasers have started to change that and now a number of organizations are working to construct laser enrichment facilities.   These facilities are expected to be more energy efficient than existing uranium enrichment facilities and may be more economical to run in general.

But, lets keep this in perspective:  laser enrichment facilities are still enormous, complex and expensive operations that cost hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.   This is not something that can be done with simple diode lasers that an individual can easily acquire.  It’s far beyond even the large lasers used for welding and fabrication in factories.  These are very precisely built and tuned, very high power laser systems.   Powerful copper vapor lasers pump secondary dye lasers.   Uranium compounds are vaporized in a vacuum, creating super hot  gasses that are highly corrosive and reactive.  These are once-again sublimated back to solids so that they can be again vaporized.   Multiple-megawatts of laser energy are required along with the supporting equipment to power and cool the lasers and other systems.

Laser enrichment also does not remove the other challenges of fabricating weapons material.  The uranium must be highly purified and converted to uranium hexafluoride.  After enrichment, it must be defluoridated.  The materials involved are highly reactive and special care must be used at all steps of the process.  Finally, the uranium must be reduced back to its metallic form before it can go through a final alloying process.  Only then is it ready for use in a weapon, which still requires more effort and resources to produce.

This kind of funding and technology is certainly within the capabilities of many nation states, but is far from within the grasp of any individual, small group or terrorist organization.

The US Stands Poised to Make the Same Boneheaded Mistake Twice:

Even as General Electric works to secure approval for the first laser-based enrichment plant in the US, politicians and various activists are working hard to stop it from happening.   It seems lost on them that the technology will advance and will be used whether or not the US decides to do so.

Of course, whether the US actually moves forward with laser separation has no baring at all on whether other nations decide to enrich uranium or use it for weapons.  Many other countries already do enrich uranium and there’s no reason to think they would pass up the opportunity to improve the economics and efficiency of doing so by turning to laser enrichment as it becomes available, which it will.

The US made the same idiotic mistake before.

The United States is the only country in the world which still uses gaseous diffusion as the primary means of uranium enrichment.   This method was once the standard.  It was developed during the Manhattan Project.  Uranium hexaflouride is pumped through vast systems of pipes and membranes to separate the lighter uranium-235 from the uranium-238.   In the 1970’s, however, improvements in gas centrifuge technology began to make the centrifuge method a viable alternative.   Gas centrifuges are far more efficient than gaseous diffusion.   Most of the world quickly switched to gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment, with plants being built in all countries with uranium enrichment programs in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

But not in the United States.  The United States built a large number of experimental and demonstration gas centrifuge systems between 1960 and 1984, but “proliferation concerns” and politics stopped them from ever being built to a large enough capacity to begin to replace gaseous diffusion.  In 1984 a relatively small demonstration plant was constructed at the Piketown Gasseous Diffusion Facility.  This was the only example of the US building a gas centrifuge plant for uranium enrichment.   However, funding was cut and by 1986 plans to expand the plant to commercial capacity were terminated.  The official reason was that no new nuclear plants were being built.   However the centrifuges could have produced fuel for them at a lower cost and greater efficiency than the gaseous diffusion method, even if it were only for existing plants.

Now, the United States  Enrichment Corporation is finally working to bring a full scale gas centrifuge plant online – just as it appears we are on the cusp of that technology becoming obsolete.

In the long run, uranium enrichment may eventually become unnecessary thanks to advanced fuel cycles such as thorium-based breeders.  However, for now, it is necessary to provide fuel for most existing reactors.   Refusing to accept new and better methods of accomplishing this accomplishes nothing and certainly will not stop others from continuing to advance the technology.

It ranges from weedwackering the genetically engineered crops they fear so deeply to sending bombs to terrorize, injure  or kill.

Via the Miami Herald:

Mexico: Anti-technology group sent college bomb

MEXICO CITY — An anti-technology group calling itself “Individuals Tending to Savagery” was responsible for a package bomb that injured two university professors just outside Mexico City, a prosecutor said Tuesday.

The explosion at the Monterrey Technological Institute’s campus in the State of Mexico on the outskirts of the capital Monday injured two professors, one of whom was involved in robotics research. Neither suffered life-threatening injuries.

Mexico State Attorney General Alfredo Castillo said at a news conference that the group’s involvement was identified from a partially destroyed note found at the scene.

Castillo said the group opposes experiments with nanotechnology and has staged attacks on academics before.

“The ITS is a movement that, in accordance with its ideals, opposes any development of neo- or nanotechnology anywhere in the world, and they are linked to attacks in several different countries of Europe, including Spain and France,” Castillo said.

He confirmed that the package had been disguised with labels from a well-known express package service, but did not say which one.

A manifesto signed by the group and posted on a radical website said: “We have no remorse, our aim was precisely for the guards to deliver the package to the intended professor,” who it identified as Oscar Camacho.

…

The ITS statement said Camacho’s “police impluses” to inspect the package triggered the detonator, adding that “there is no doubt that curiosity killed the human.”

The statement said nanotechnology and other technologies damage nature and native species and contribute to natural disasters.

It appears that the group in question is a kind of anti-industrialization movement with similar beliefs to the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. Essentially, such groups believe that mankind is best left in a primitive tribal state, living off the land in a hunter-gatherer or subsistence lifestyle. While such societies do tend to result in very low life expectancy and high infant, maternal and childhood mentality, this is not necessarily seen as being negative by members of such movements, as humanity is usually seen as being a problem in and of itself, one which is best kept in check through such attrition. The philosophy also takes a page from Amory Lovins, seeing low technology and primitive, tribal lifestyles as somehow being more honorable or honest than modern technological societies.

Of course, this philosophy does have a major problem: given the choice, humans will generally tend to prefer a safer, easier lifestyle and given the option for leisure or comfort will take it. Not only this, but humans tend to be inventive and will develop new ways of doing things, including tools and technologies and refine and improve those technologies. Even if you took all technology away from human kind, we’d start to invent it again. Hence, the use of violence and intimidation to try to stop this from happening.

Such groups tend to be especially fearful and intolerant of any technology that they see as especially unnatural or which ignorance has bread fear over.

Sound familiar?

Nanotechnology is an especially exciting area of science which also has a number of anti-technology and green groups scared. It combines aspects of chemistry, materials sciences and computer and mechanical engineering. It may also include aspects of biology and atomic physics.

Basically, nanotechnology is the use of atoms and molecules to construct nanoscopic structures capable of acting as machines or of presenting useful physical properties by virtue of their structure. The push to nano-scale structures came in part from the desire of computer chip designers to push technology to creating the smallest possible functional electrical circuits. It also grew out of the availability of technologies like the scanning-tunneling electron microscope.

Of course, such concepts are not entirely new either. Chemists and materials scientists have long understood the importance of molecular structure in determining the properties of a material. Nanoscopic “machines” already exist in nature in the form of proteins and enzymes. The semiconductor industry has also long used molecule-level engineering to produce special materials for use in electronics.

To date, the only major area of nanotechnology that has seen much practical application is nanomaterials. These are simply materials which have been created with special molecular structures in order to maximize certain physical properties. Nanoparticles have been used in pharmacology to deliver drugs to certain tissues or protect molecules from being destroyed during digestion. Various nanoparticals have also been employed as chemical catalysts. Biological analytical applications have been found for nanotechnologies which have allowed electronics to interface directly with DNA or enzymes, allowing for “lab-on-a-chip” analytical applications.   Nanowires have found applications in capacitors, batteries, solar cells and thermoelectric converters.  Nano technology has also played a roll in the continued development of computer chips as well as special optical materials.

To some extent, it can be hard to draw the line between these types of nanotechnologies and more traditional chemistry or materials sciences.

A less developed area of nanotechnology is the use of nano-machines. Molecule-sized mechanical machines capable of assembling molecules in desirable fashions or even working within biological systems, such as the human body. Such machines may even blur the line between biology and technology by enzymes or even DNA as part of their structure. At some point nano-engineering may even blend with the genetic engineering of special custom-built microbes. Because these devices would be so small, any single unit is not very useful. Billions must be created to do even a small task and thus researchers have considered the possibility of self-replication as a means of achieving such numbers.

While this is a fascinating area, it’s also largely theoretical. Nanoscopic robots that can seek out and destroy cancer cells or assemble macroscopic structures one atom at a time are at least decades away from being a reality, if they ever are. Still this area has already produced usable technology and continues to push ahead.

And that scares some people.   Their fears seem to have a lot in common with fears of genetic modification or ionizing radiation – the belief that once let out of the bottle, these self-replicating machines will literally take over the world and gobble up all natural material.   Despite the fact that no natural microbe or protein has ever done this, the idea that such technology could do so is so terrifying to some that they don’t think we should even research the infant technology that might someday lead to functional nano-machines.

The idea that nanomachines could replicate to the point of devouring the earth was proposed in 1986 by Eric Drexler, who coined the term “grey goo” what could be left after all life is devoured by self-replicating molecular robots. It makes for a great plot line in a science fiction story, but it’s just that: fiction. At most, it’s a theoretical hazard based on a highly speculative vision of what nanotechnology might become in decades or centuries.

Regardless of whether nanoscale machines ever become a reality, nanotechnology is undoubtedly an exciting and fruitful field of technology.    It’s amazing that a few have become so blinded by their fear of a scifi doomsday they will actually resort to terror and bombings to try to stop anyone from even researching or teaching within this field.

And on a related topic, there are protests and efforts against “nanotechnology products” such as cosmetics, sunscreen and other personal care products…

Friends of the Earth has been one of the largest complainers, campaigning against nano-containing sunscreens, cosmetics and drugs. They call these products “Not worth the Risk.”

They have even staged major protests such as this one in Australia:

The problem is I honestly don’t even know what they’re protesting and I don’t think they do either.   “Nanomaterial” is not itself a distinct type of material or somehow fundamentally new, artificial or special in any way.   All materials have a nanoscopic structure.   Some, like crystals, are regular and others are fairly random.  The term really is more a description of the materials design philosophy that went into researching or synthesizing the material.   It is just the science of exploiting the physical properties of that materials molecular structure.  (If that sounds nebulous it’s because it is.)

Many of the materials marketed as nano-materials have been around for decades or centuries.   For example, titanium dioxide. One of the allortopes of TiO2 is a type of nanotube.   In recent years this form has been produced intentionally and some of the properties exploited, but it has always existed in samples of titanium dioxide.

A “nanoparticle” is really just a really really tiny particle – one which is nanoscopic.  Most molecules can qualify as nanoparticles, though conventionally they are only refereed to as such when being used in a nanotechnology application.   Nanoscopic particles are being created constantly, by combustion, weathering, chemical reactions etc.

When a product is labled as being based on “nanotechnology,” it’s just as likely that the maker is trying to exploit a futuristic buzzword as anything else, since damn near every product in existence could, in some sense, qualify.

So what are they protesting again?