|
Nuclear Power Coal Power
|
No Nuclear Power Plants / No Coal Power Plants!
Try Safe Clean Low Cost Hydrogen!
Two Week Nuclear Leak At Hudson River Power Plant
March 1, 2009
Indian Pt. Broken Pipe Spurs Safety Worries
By ANNIE CORREAL
TWO weeks ago, a worker at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan noticed some water on the floor of a building in Unit 2.
It was spewing from a broken pipe in the secondary cooling system, which circulates water that contains radioactive tritium.
The broken pipe was found Feb. 16, isolated by the middle of that week and dug up and replaced last Saturday. But in the meantime, about 100,000 gallons of water, or 10 percent of the water in the secondary cooling system storage tank, had escaped.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said there were very low levels of tritium in the water.
“There is no threat to health and safety,” said Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for the commission.
“There are levels of tritium that are allowed to be released, and this would be well below those limits.”
The water contained about 2,000 picocuries per liter of the radioactive isotope tritium, one-tenth the permissible level for drinking water. (Radioactivity is commonly measured in picocuries.)
Tritium occurs naturally in the earth’s atmosphere but is also a byproduct of a nuclear reaction and can be harmful if ingested.
To critics, the amount of tritium leaked was not the issue; a broken pipe was a reminder of the aging infrastructure at the plant, which was built in the early 1970s.
“It’s further evidence that Indian Point is an old plant with a chronic history of problems, accidents and unplanned emergency shutdowns,” said Alex Matthiessen, president of Riverkeeper, a Hudson River watchdog group that is fighting Indian Point’s attempt to renew its license.
The state attorney general’s office and the State Department of Environmental Conservation are also contesting the renewal.
A renewal would allow Indian Point’s plants, Units 2 and 3, to remain in operation for another 20 years. They supply about 30 percent of the electricity for New York City and Westchester.
James F. Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, which owns and runs the plant, said the pipe that broke was probably part of the plant’s original piping and was made of carbon steel covered with a protective coating. He said external corrosion caused the rupture.
“It’s eight feet underground, so there’s no way of knowing when you have to replace it,” he said. The N.R.C. did not order an inspection of the pipes after the incident, but Mr. Steets said Entergy would check on those in similar situations.
A nuclear plant’s license is granted by the N.R.C. based on its performance in two areas: programs and processes to manage the effects of aging, and the impact of a plant on the environment.
The broken pipe would be considered part of the daily operation, Ms. Screnci said; it does not play a role in license renewal.
Deborah Brancato, a lawyer for Riverkeeper, said this leak might figure into Riverkeeper’s contention that there are safety issues related to the plant’s aging and ability to withstand aging over the licensing term.
She said the leak “calls into question whether Indian Point’s aging-management program is capable of preventing or even detecting such problems.”
John Milgram, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, called aging infrastructure “a key factor” in the office’s opposition to relicensing Indian Point. “This new leak is just further evidence of the validity of that position,” he said.
The largest tritium leak at the plant was discovered in 2005 when moist earth was found to contain high levels of tritium and strontium 90, which is also radioactive.
Most contamination was traced to a crack in the spent-fuel pool of Unit 1, which was closed in 1974, but there was also leakage from spent-fuel pools of unit 2.
Mr. Steets said that the recent incident was the first time there had been a leak into groundwater involving tritium since 2005. Ms. Screnci confirmed that but said that the leak discovered in 2005 was “ongoing for a long time.”
Have your own idea for prettifying nuclear power?
Send your sketches here.
We’ll publish a selection of them in a later post.
|
The Washington D.C. Capitol Coal Power Plant
"The Capitol Power Plant continues to be the number one source of air pollution and carbon emissions in the District of Columbia!
American's are converging on Washington
Friday 27 February 2009
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk
To press for the closure of 'Congress's own coal fired power plant', marking a political turning point for the future of the fossil fuel.
The stacks of the Capitol Hill power plant loom in front of the dome of the United States Capitol. Photograph: Jocelyn Augustino
It might, in other circumstances, seem a quaint and harmless relic from another era: a coal plant built 99 years ago to assure Congress an independent source of power.
But the Capitol Hill Power Plant, a compact red brick building now encircled by modern concrete, is seen by some as evidence of how a powerful industry has been able to bend Congress to its will.
Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels, and yet provides half of America's electricity – a lethal connection that environmentalists say is epitomised in the continued existence of a plant that should have been retired decades ago.
"In terms of carbon emissions, this plant is small potatoes, but it really is a very powerful iconic symbol. It is Congress's own coal fired power plant," said Matt Leonard of Greenpeace. "It can burn gas or oil or coal and people have fought very hard over the years to make sure it burns coal."
That may be about to change. On Thursday, Democratic leaders in Congress called for an overhaul of the plant so it could run entirely on natural gas by the end of 2009.
Capitol Hill coal power plant targeted by environmentalists
The order came down as more than 10,000 young people began converging on Washington – campus activists, union organisers, and even members of college sororities – to lobby members of Congress to reduce America's reliance on coal.
Organisers say this could be the tipping point in the fight against coal, after years of steady activism on college campuses and in rural coal-mining communities.
Since mid-2006, plans for more than 83 coal plants have been halted. This week alone, Michigan's governor announced a moratorium on all new coal plants, and a Georgia court put a stop on a coal plan for failing to put in place pollution controls.
The campaign got an extra push late last year when Al Gore championed a drive to make Americans aware of the connection between coal and electricity.
The Reality Coalition has plastered public transport with its ads, which seek to
counter the industry's argument that coal is abundant and cheap, and that technology enabling the production of "clean" or carbon-free coal is on the horizon.
The latest television ad, produced by the Oscar-winning Coen brothers, shows a salesman spraying black smog from an aerosol can to debunk the notion of clean coal.
With Barack Obama in the White House and the Democrats in Congress poised to act on climate change, this could be the beginning of the end of America's coal age.
Obama called on Congress this week to pass legislation to cut carbon - leading some to hope that the battle over coal is in its final phase.
Organisers of the Power Shift lobbying effort aim to give it the final push. They say they have set up meetings with 80 Senators and 287 members of the house of representatives, Republican and Democrat, to convince them to vote for action on climate change.
"We are not mincing words. When we walk into those offices in Congress we will be calling for bold carbon reduction," said Jessy Tolkan, 27, the director of the Energy Action Coalition, which represents 50 youth organisations. "We want an immediate moratorium on coal. We don't believe in clean coal."
Meanwhile, some 2,000 others, led by the Nasa climate scientist, Jim Hansen, and the actor, Darryl Hannah, will gather for a protest at the Capitol's coal plant.
The survival of the plant – the only coal burning station within Washington's boundaries – is a testament to the power of coal. It also offers a cautionary tale to the environment activists who think they are within early reach of victory.
The Capitol Hill facility is no longer needed for electricity. Congress got hooked up to the city's main electrical grid in 1952, and the plant is used only for heat and air conditioning for Congress and nearby official buildings.
Last year, the Democratic speaker, Nancy Pelosi, demanded the plant switch from coal to natural for supplying the house of representatives. But until Thursday Pelosi's counterpart in the Senate, the majority leader, Harry Reid, balked at turning off the last two burners.
The reluctance is in part deference to the oldest Senator, Robert Byrd, a Democrat from the coal mining state of West Virginia, who has had years of experience of protecting his interests.
But it also comes down to cash and influence. The coal industry has waged a ferocious struggle for its survival – as have lobbyists for other polluting industries who have invested millions in trying to block action on climate change.
Opposing energy reform provided employment to 2,340 lobbyists last year – a 300% increase since 2003, according to a report from the Centre for Public Integrity. The report estimated that about 15% of all Washington's lobbyists were now working to try to stop Congress from passing a law putting a cap on carbon.
At the front of the pack is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an industry-funded organisation, spent nearly $40m last year on television ads and a lobbying effort for coal.
If Joe Lucas, vice-president of the ACCE, thinks coal could be on its way out, he was betraying no sign of it. "There have always been people who have not recognised the necessity of using coal to generate electricity," he said.
"America not using coal would be like Saudi Arabia not using oil. We have more energy in the form of coal than Opec has oil so the thought that the United States is not going to use coal is somewhat without foundation."
|
60 Year Old Nuclear Waste Found
Published: March 2, 2009
Found in the Trash: A Jug of Plutonium (Vintage ’44, Sleuths Say)
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
An old safe buried in a waste trench at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State has yielded an artifact from the birth of the atomic age: a batch of plutonium that is among the first ever made.
The plutonium, found in a one-gallon glass jug after a cleanup crew tore open the safe with an excavator, was processed at Hanford in late 1944 from spent uranium fuel from a reactor at Oak Ridge, Tenn.
It was the product of test runs of a plant built for separating plutonium for use in the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb.
Apart from the historical significance of the discovery — the only earlier sample of man-made plutonium known to exist was produced in 1941 in an accelerator and is stored at the Smithsonian Institution — the techniques employed to determine its origins provide a glimpse of the kind of detective work that might be used against atomic terrorism.
“This is a completely unclassified example of the type of science you could apply in nuclear forensics,” said Jon M. Schwantes, who led a team that analyzed the plutonium at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash. Their findings were published in Analytical Chemistry.
Through isotopic analysis, reactor simulations and other techniques, Dr. Schwantes and his team determined when the plutonium was separated and which reactor provided the fuel. Since every reactor produces spent fuel with a unique “fingerprint” of small variations in isotopic concentrations, similar analyses could help investigators determine the source of material for a terrorist bomb.
The researchers also demonstrated how another isotopic signature could be used to calculate when an amount of plutonium had been split from a larger batch, and how big the original batch was. That could aid in determining whether a seized amount of plutonium represented only part of a larger cache.
The glass jug, which contained less than half a gram of plutonium-239, a tiny part of the amount needed for a bomb, was found with “wastes for recovery” scrawled on it when it was removed from the concrete-lined safe in 2004.
Once it was determined that the plutonium had its origins in Tennessee, the researchers found old shipping manifests documenting the transfer of 96 slugs of spent reactor fuel from Oak Ridge to Hanford in September 1944.
At Hanford, huge plants to separate plutonium from reactor fuel, and the reactors to provide the fuel, were being built simultaneously. One separation facility, the T Plant, was the first to be finished, in late 1944, and with no local fuel ready to test the efficiency of the process, the Oak Ridge fuel was used.
Later, fuel from Hanford was used to produce plutonium for the first test bomb, detonated in New Mexico in July 1945, and for the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, a month later.
Robert S. Norris, the author of “Racing for the Bomb,” a biography of Gen. Leslie R. Groves, the military leader of the Manhattan Project, said that some plutonium was produced even earlier at Oak Ridge, using a pilot separation plant. Those small samples were analyzed by scientists in the project, and their findings led to an abrupt change in plans for the design of the plutonium bomb. But where that plutonium ended up is anybody’s guess, Mr. Norris said.
As for the Hanford sample, don’t expect it to be on display at the Smithsonian anytime soon. One reason to look at the Manhattan Project for forensic purposes, Dr. Schwantes said, “is to identify and procure samples of interest that we can use as cross-reference material” in new investigations. The Hanford plutonium is just such a sample, he said, and will remain in government hands.
|
Nuclear Age Comes to Antarctica
March 4, 1962
1962: The United States fires up the first - and only - nuclear reactor in Antarctica.
While the idea of placing a nuclear plant in such an ecologically sensitive location may seem like madness today, in the pre- Chernobyl, pre- Three Mile Island world of 1962, nuclear power was seen as a cost-effective, efficient and relatively safe way of providing power to permanent Antarctic research stations.
Supplying those stations posed a real logistical problem. By the '60s some stations were manned on a year-round basis and the burden of shipping millions of gallons of diesel fuel to the south was both arduous and expensive.
When the additional expense of heating the stored fuel (to prevent solidification) was factored in, costs ran anywhere from $1 to $3 per gallon (equivalent to $7 to $21 in today's money), according to a U.S. Navy study at the time.
While there were logistical reasons for building the plant, there were political ones as well: President Eisenhower's full-court press to sell the idea of nuclear energy to the American public, through a program known as Atoms for Peace, was in full swing by the mid-1950s, when the planning for an Antarctic reactor began.
The reactor, designated PM-3A, was a portable plant designed and built by the Martin Company (a forerunner of Lockheed-Martin). It was intended not only to provide electrical power but to run a water-distillation plant as well. Martin Company designed PM-3A to fit inside a C-130 transport plane, although in the end it was sent to Antarctica by ship.
The reactor was set up at McMurdo Station, on a barren spit of land selected by the United States in 1955 for its largest Antarctic research station.
There were problems with the plant from the beginning. It underperformed to expectations and frequently fell victim to power failures. It also raised concerns in New Zealand, where U.S. Navy ships transporting the fuel and waste under Operation Deep Freeze would dock for a few days while in transit.
Worse, PM-3A ran on strontium-90 pellets, a particularly dangerous fuel because of its high radioactivity before entering the nuclear core. All of these factors led to PM-3A existing on very shaky ground almost from the day it began operating.
The coup de grace, however, came in 1972 when a leak in the reactor's pressure vessel was discovered during a routine inspection. A closer look uncovered cracks throughout the reactor, caused by failures in some of the welds, and the decision was made to close and dismantle PM-3A.
Disposal presented other headaches.
Decommissioned nuclear plants are usually entombed in concrete, but provisions in the Antarctic Treaty made this impossible, so the dismantled plant, along with some of the contaminated ground surrounding it, was bundled aboard the USS Towle for shipment to a disposal site in California.
McMurdo returned to diesel power.
|

Capitol power plant dims clean energy hopes
 WASHINGTON (AP) - As Congress tries to clean up energy sources and cut gases blamed for global warming, it is struggling to do so in its own backyard.
The Capitol Power Plant, a 99-year-old facility that heats and cools the hallowed halls of Congress, still burns coal and accounts for one-third of the legislative branch's greenhouse gas emissions. For a decade, lawmakers have attempted to clean it up.
In recent years, Congress has reduced its energy consumption. The steam and chilled-water power plant has become more efficient. It now burns more natural gas and only 35% coal, compared with 49% in 2007.
But Congress is running out of options to make the plant fully green. Also, there are questions about whether it can afford to keep paying to use the extra natural gas, which burns cleaner than coal.
The plant's story is one that is likely to play out across the United States as Congress looks to limit greenhouse gases and require more of the country's energy to come from wind, solar and other renewable sources.
The issues hampering the cleanup - politics, cost and technological barriers - could trip up similar efforts elsewhere. The U.S. counts on coal-fired power plants for about half of its electricity; the plants are also the biggest source of heat-trapping gases.
So if Congress cannot act locally, as the environmental slogan goes, how can it begin to think globally?
In 2007, the facility released 118,851 tons of carbon dioxide, according to the Energy Department. That's a fraction of the amount released by the roughly 600 coal-fired power plants nationwide that produce electricity, and the emissions created at other plants from which Congress buys power.
"We are holding it up as a symbol for how we can and must do better," said Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. It is among 40 environmental organizations planning a protest Monday that is expected to draw about 2,500 people to the plant a few blocks south of the Capitol.
Among them will be James Hansen, the NASA scientist who first testified in 1988 about the perils of global warming. He has called for halting construction of new coal-fired power plants without technology to capture and store carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
"They need to start by getting the coal out of Congress," Hansen said.
While carbon dioxide from the facility could be reduced 60% using carbon sequestration technology, the Energy Department in April 2008 ruled that out. The $112 million cost was too high. There is no place nearby to dispose of the gas and the extra coal burned to run the carbon-trapping equipment would increase other types of air pollution.
Recognizing this dead end, just last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wrote the Architect of the Capitol with another recycled idea: convert the plant entirely to natural gas.
While four times more expensive than coal, natural gas produces about half as much carbon dioxide.
Referring to the facility as a shadow hanging over efforts to make Congress more environmentally friendly, the leaders said the conversion would demonstrate Congress' willingness to deal with global warming, energy independence and the use of finite fossil fuels.
An effort in 2000 to rid the plant of coal and oil was blocked by two senators from coal-producing states. Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., argued at the time that the continued use of coal would save taxpayers money because it is cheaper than natural gas.
Last week Byrd seemed more willing to compromise, saying he would support looking at the natural gas option.
Converting the plant entirely to natural gas would require equipment upgrades at the facility that would cost between $6 million and $7 million, in addition to having to buy more natural gas. It would cost $139 per ton of carbon dioxide saved, or about $2 million a year just for the House's portion of heating and air conditioning.
Pelosi and Reid say the investment far outweighs the costs. But in the midst of an economic crisis, it is not clear if that would be money well spent.
"It doesn't make any difference what they do," said Bill Kovacs, vice president for the environment, technology & regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "It makes a statement, but it is not going to change carbon dioxide concentrations at all anywhere in the world and coal will continue to be used somewhere else."
Coal-fired power plants elsewhere will have difficulty meeting new mandates if passed by lawmakers.
"The oldest and dirtiest ones will not compete well under that system," said Tidwell, who supports efforts to get the Capitol Power Plant off coal. "The people who own those power plants will have to make some choices."
Copyright Feb. 25, 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
LATEST RESEARCH:
CLIMATE CHANGE:
On the Internet
Energy that keeps CO2 in the green
|
A Public Service of
Hot Headlines...
for people on the Run!
|