Expert: We must act fast on warming

Expert: We must act fast on warming

There are 28463 comments on the Kansas.com story from Sep 24, 2008, titled Expert: We must act fast on warming. In it, Kansas.com reports that:

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Kansas.com.

PHD

Thornton, TX

#26715 Apr 3, 2013
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
PHD your initials ?
You have provided a bit of humor for my neighbor (recieving his PhD this year)and me...
There are NO pals in science...that is your fiction among others..
There are no pals in scientific science fiction. You’re a bit confused again. Yes PHD is my initials and so... All my friends say you provide much humor and it would be no surprise being the Son of Entertainment.A professor said what did they do before Wikipedia? A studnet shouted out Know things.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#26716 Apr 3, 2013
Bernard Forand wrote:
Let us take Strontium 90 which has ½ life span of 300 years.
Sorry, Sr90 half life is 30 years, not 300.
KitemanSA brings forth one small method for treating one particular radioactive element.
Actually, I discussed a method that can handle all the different elements we would wish to handle. I'm not sure what BF means here.
SoE

United States

#26717 Apr 3, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>There are no pals in scientific science fiction. You’re a bit confused again. Yes PHD is my initials and so... All my friends say you provide much humor and it would be no surprise being the Son of Entertainment.A professor said what did they do before Wikipedia? A studnet shouted out Know things.
All STUD NETS shout..:-)
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#26718 Apr 3, 2013
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
All STUD NETS shout..:-)
Nuts.
:-D
LOL.
SoE

United States

#26719 Apr 3, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Please don't confuse Hanford, a nuclear weapons site, with typical nuclear power plant sites. They are worlds apart. First thing is that Hanford used the PUREX method to extract ultra-pure Plutonium for bombs. PUREX results in a LOT of nasty waste products.
Here in the US, NPPs are required to set aside a certain percentage of their income for decommissioning costs. The Trojan NPP that WAS downriver from Hanford is gone now. Their decommissioning seems to have gone just fine.
What NPPs have is a political issue. They have been paying the FedGov a fee to be used to handle the Spent Nuclear Fuel in a consolidated manner but the FedGov has been dithering for decades.
What COULD be done is to use a variation of something called pyro-processing to segregate the SNF into three pots, the big one being the UNspent Uranium. That can be either vitrified and returned to the earth or reprocessed for LWR fuel. This represents about 95%-97% of the total.
The second pot is Fission Products (~2%-3%). Those can be dry casked for medium term storage (~500 years). Many of the FPs are stable after 10 years and can, if economical, be separated further; reducing the amount that needs to be stored. Some of the radioactive FPs are valuable because of their special radioactive properties. These can also be further separated and thus reduce the storage needed.
The third pot (~1%-2%) is the stuff that Yucca Mountain was intended for. It is comprised of the stuff bred from some of the U238 in the original fuel. These are the "transuranics" including Neptunium, Plutonium, Americium, and Curium. These are nasty and have fairly long half-lives. These would need to be stored or 10s or 100s of thousands of years. However, these can also be put into Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers and burned up.

The waste sequestering part of your post i'm familiar with. You have jogged some memories surrounding the rest...
I haven't much time at the moment..i'll be back as soon as i find the time...
PHD

Thornton, TX

#26720 Apr 4, 2013
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
All STUD NETS shout..:-)
So stop your shouting...
PHD

Thornton, TX

#26721 Apr 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Nuts.
:-D
LOL.
Go away or post your peer reviewed published work. You had plenty of time to prove your scientific science fiction cut and paste babble. To date you have proved zero. You’re dismissed.
SoE

United States

#26722 Apr 4, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Please don't confuse Hanford, a nuclear weapons site, with typical nuclear power plant sites. They are worlds apart.
I'm having a problem getting past this point...

http://www.ippnw-students.org/medicalvoices/e...
SoE

United States

#26723 Apr 4, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Go away or post your peer reviewed published work. You had plenty of time to prove your scientific science fiction cut and paste babble. To date you have proved zero. You’re dismissed.
Why should SB be required to post peer reviewed work ?
I don't believe anyone has asked that you produce your beer reviewed work...

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#26724 Apr 4, 2013
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm having a problem getting past this point...
http://www.ippnw-students.org/medicalvoices/e...
it is a rather long page so I am not all that interested in replying to the whole thing, but just for starters:
The very first paragraph sets a standard of dishonesty followed throughout the article. The implication is that there are two types of energy resources, "finite" and though not specifically mentioned, "infinite". Nuclear power is lumped with the finite.

In truth, all energy sources are finite. It is merely a question of HOW finite, i.e., when will the resource run out. For fossil fuels, the answer is typically taken to be <1000 years. Four "renewables", a.k.a. "unreliables", the answer is about 5 billion years. For nuclear, the answer is somewhere around one billion years. I'd call that a lot closer to the "infinite" designation, and thus it shouldn't be lumped with the fossil fuels.

Given the tone set by the opening paragraph, I don't expect to find much of value in the rest. I will probably remark on another item or two, but...
SoE

United States

#26725 Apr 4, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text> You’re a bit confused again. Yes PHD is my initials and so... All my friends say you provide much humor and it would be no surprise being the Son of Entertainment.
Yes PHD is my initials and so..........
..........
If P.H.D. are your initials that would serve to clear up some potential misunderstandings.
..........
All my friends say you provide much humor and it would be no surprise being the Son of Entertainment
..........
Have your friends explained, to you, the core and focus of the humor ? Actually given your direction and persistent path they are friends you may wish to keep....
SoE

United States

#26726 Apr 4, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>So stop your shouting...
Even if the NET result is i am a STUD it would be crass to shout..

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#26727 Apr 4, 2013
Another faux pas in the SoE provided link: http://www.ippnw-students.org/medicalvoices/e...
"People often times think that nuclear energy is the “clean alternative” to fossil fuels, but that’s not true… only because it doesn’t produce CO2, doesn’t mean that it’s healthy. In fact, radiation is pretty much the most unhealthy thing you can imagine "
Tell that to the 10s and even 100s of thousands of people world wide who flock to radioactive hot-springs for their healing powers. Radiation in low continuing doses are not only not BAD for people, they are GOOD, up to a point. And that point is quite high.
There are certain isotopes, like I131, that can bio-concentrate and become a problem if not proprely handled. The Russians after were an example of not doing it right. The Japanese after Fukushima were an example of maybe half overdoing it.(They overdid around a given radius but did not track the plume and do it under said plume outside that radius.
But in reality, radiation is a minor issue compared to the toxic chemicle assault from all the alternative power sources. Is you want a cleaner environment, replace coal power with nuclear.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#26728 Apr 4, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry, Sr90 half life is 30 years, not 300. <quoted text> Actually, I discussed a method that can handle all the different elements we would wish to handle. I'm not sure what BF means here.

Thank you for your reply. Have been many years since I last paid attention to this issue. This will be more accurate that what my memories of 45 years ago when I was more active in this area. I will also send additional info on some of those elements I was refering to, here are some excerpts from;
Transmutation of Radioactive Wastes is “Nuclear Alchemy Gamble”

In both the commercial and military sectors, some of the radioactive wastes generated are mixed with hazardous substances, such as organic solvents or other toxic chemicals. Much of this waste (especially the transuranic waste) contains substantial quantities of long-lived radionuclides, such as plutonium-239 and technetium-99. The radioactive components of mixed wastes are regulated under the Atomic Energy Act by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for commercial sources, and by the Department of Energy for military sources. The hazardous components, however, are subject to regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency according to an environmental law known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
One of the major problems associated with radioactive waste is the fact that much of it will be radioactive — and thus will require isolation from the human environment — for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. Since this is a time period far longer than all of recorded history, the problem of waste disposal presents an enormous challenge.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#26729 Apr 4, 2013
Here is just some of the elements I referred to and their disposal methods. Includes the cask methods. Disposal of Technetium-99
Koyel Bhattacharyya
March 19, 2011
Submitted as coursework for Physics 241, Stanford University, Winter 2011
Technetium (Tc) is the lowest molecular weight element that is exclusively radioactive. Because of its instability, it occurs naturally only very rarely, and is found in but trace amounts in the Earth's crust from fission reactions in uranium ores. It is almost exclusively synthetically produced. The more stable isotopes, Tc-97, Tc-98, and Tc-99, have half-lives of 2.6 million, 4.6 million, and 213,000 years, respectively. These long half-lives make Tc a potentially dangerous source of radiation.[1]
While Tc-97 and Tc-98 exist only in very small quantities, due to the necessity for their artificial synthesis, large amounts of Tc-99 are produced from the fission of uranium (U)-235 or plutonium (Pu)-239 in about 5 % yield with respect to U or Pu. An estimated 78 tonnes of Tc-99 were produced by nuclear reactors between 1983 and 1994.[2] Such large amounts of a radioactive material make the production and disposal of Tc-99 an important environmental consideration, and in 2000, regulations were put in place to limit Tc-99 production to about 140 kg/year.[3]
Its long half-life, and our ability to extract it from radioactive waste with high chemical and isotopic purity, permits Tc-99 to be used for industrial purposes.[4] One such method of isolation involves the cathodic electrodeposition of a TcO2 hydrate onto a thin silver foil from a basic solution of the water soluble ion TcO4-(pertechnetate). Its consistent, low-energy output of &#946; particles makes it ideal for instrument calibration and optoelectronic nuclear batteries. Such batteries may last for decades and provide high energy density, but their prohibitively high prices prevent them from being used very commonly. Tc(VII) may also serve as a corrosion inhibitor and oxidizing agent. However, the industrial uses of Tc far outstrip its production, making the remaining radioactive Tc a danger to both health and environment.
The water solubility of pertechnetate makes its long half-life an ever more important problem. The ion is not only water soluble, but also highly geochemically mobile, permitting facile uptake by plants and aquatic life from Tc-rich soil.[5] Further, the mobile pertechnetate ion is easily fixed in plants into less mobile Tc organics, oxides, or sulfides. Plant-fixed Tc is likely one of the key sources of Tc radiation to humans. Once in the body, pertechnetate is readily transferred to the bloodstream with high efficiency by the intestines and lungs. It deposits in high concentration in the thyroid, stomach wall, and liver, where the emission of &#946; particles may induce cancer.
To be continued;
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#26730 Apr 4, 2013
Continued Alchemy;
A key approach to reducing the uptake of Tc by humans is to reduce Tc(VII) levels in plants, and thus in soils, and thus ultimately its water solubility. In order to render it insoluble, Tc(VII), a redox-active element, may be reduced to a lower oxidation state, thereby controlling its levels in plants. Soils contaminated with Tc may also be heated to roughly 1000 °C in order to volatilize the Tc; however, this does not eliminate all of the Tc within a sample, and repeated efforts of volatilization do not substantially lower Tc levels. Most disposal techniques for nuclear waste deal with the removal of cationic species, which are much more common.[6] This makes the elimination of the anionic pertechnetate species more difficult. Transmutation is an alternative disposal method, in which Tc-99 is bombarded with neutrons to form Tc-100, which quickly decays to ruthenium-100.
The large-scale production of Tc-99, in conjunction with its long half-life, makes the removal of this isotope an important problem. While few efficient methods for its removal are currently in place, the development of such methods is an active field of research.
[1] "Technetium," in CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics, 84th Ed., D. R. Lide, ed.(CRC Press, 2004), pp. 4-29.
[2] M. García-León, "Tc-99 in the Environment: Sources, Distribution and Methods," J. Nucl. Radiochem. Sci. 6, 253 (2005).
[3] K. Tagami, "Technetium-99 Behavior in the Terrestrial Environment - Field Observations and Radiotracer Experiments," J. Nucl. Radiochem. Sci. 4, A1 (2003).
[4] K. Schwochau, Technetium: Chemistry and Radiopharmaceutical Applications (Wiley, 2000).
[5] J. D. Harrison and A. Phipps, "Gut Transfer and Doses from Environmental Technetium," J. Radiological Protection 21, 9 (2001).
[6] P. Altomare et al., "Alternative Disposal Concepts for High-level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste Disposal," Mitre Corporation, Technical Report MTR-7718, May 1979.

Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#26731 Apr 4, 2013
KitemanSA Once again thank you on correcting me on SR-90 Precisely what I was saying, my memory has faded. With that in mind here is a more accurate definition. Limited version;
Where does strontium-90 come from?
Strontium-90 is a by-product of the fission of uranium and plutonium in nuclear reactors, and in nuclear weapons. Strontium-90 is found in waste from nuclear reactors. It can also contaminate reactor parts and fluids. Large amounts of Sr-90 were produced during atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s and dispersed worldwide. Strontium-90 emits a beta particle with, no gamma radiation, as it decays to yttrium-90 (also a beta-emitter). Strontium-90 has a half-life of 29.1 years. It behaves chemically much like calcium, and therefore tends to concentrate in the bones and teeth.
How does strontium-90 get into the environment?
Strontium-90 was widely dispersed in the 1950s and 1960s in fall out from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. It has been slowly decaying since then so that current levels from these tests are very low.
Strontium-90 is also found in waste from nuclear reactors. It is considered one of the more hazardous constituents of nuclear wastes. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant also introduced a large amount of Sr-90 into the environment. A large part of the Sr-90 was deposited in the Soviet Republics. The rest was dispersed as fallout over Northern Europe and worldwide. No significant amount of stronium-90 reached the U.S. Hmmm.. Japan…
How do people come in contact with strontium-90?
Everyone is exposed to small amounts of strontium-90, since it is widely dispersed in the environment and the food chain. Dietary intake of Sr-90, however, has steadily fallen over the last 30 years with the suspension of nuclear weapons testing. People who live near or work in nuclear facilities may have increased exposure to Sr-90. The greatest concern would be the exposures from an accident at a nuclear reactor, or an accident involving high-level wastes.
What does strontium-90 do once it gets into the body?
When people ingest Sr-90, about 70-80% of it passes through the body. Virtually all of the remaining 20-30% that is absorbed is deposited in the bone. About 1% is distributed among the blood volume, extracellular fluid, soft tissue, and surface of the bone, where it may stay and decay or be excreted.
What can I do to protect myself and my family from strontium-90?
Strontium-90 dispersed in the environment, like that from atmospheric weapons testing, is almost impossible to avoid. You may also be exposed to tiny amounts from nuclear power reactors and certain government facilities. The more serious risk to you (though it is unlikely), is that you may unwittingly encounter an industrial instrument containing a Sr-90 radiation source. This is more likely if you work in specific industries:
PHD

Thornton, TX

#26732 Apr 4, 2013
SoE wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should SB be required to post peer reviewed work ?
I don't believe anyone has asked that you produce your beer reviewed work...
No one asked you for your liquor review non published work but you keep on keeping on posting it. Why the spacedoutblues, well the spacedoutblues insist it is correct in every post it puts out there so it would be prudent for it to show its peer reviewed published work to save face. To date all it has is cut and paste scientific science fiction useless babble. Let me know if this explanation is some what complicated for you and I will do my best to tone it down.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#26733 Apr 4, 2013
Good job, guys. I've been bringing up the fossil fuel associated pollution.

Coal power plant "ash or fly ash contributes 100 times more radiation to the surrounding environment via its uranium and thorium content than does a nuclear power plant creating the same amount of energy."

"The further observation, that coal ash also contains arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium and vanadium, along with dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), seems like a minor footnote compared with the larger problem of radiation."

http://www.celsias.com/article/coal-fly-ash-1...
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#26734 Apr 4, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
Another faux pas in the SoE provided link: http://www.ippnw-students.org/medicalvoices/e...
"People often times think that nuclear energy is the “clean alternative” to fossil fuels, but that’s not true… only because it doesn’t produce CO2, doesn’t mean that it’s healthy. In fact, radiation is pretty much the most unhealthy thing you can imagine "
Tell that to the 10s and even 100s of thousands of people world wide who flock to radioactive hot-springs for their healing powers. Radiation in low continuing doses are not only not BAD for people, they are GOOD, up to a point. And that point is quite high.
There are certain isotopes, like I131, that can bio-concentrate and become a problem if not proprely handled. The Russians after were an example of not doing it right. The Japanese after Fukushima were an example of maybe half overdoing it.(They overdid around a given radius but did not track the plume and do it under said plume outside that radius.
But in reality, radiation is a minor issue compared to the toxic chemicle assault from all the alternative power sources. Is you want a cleaner environment, replace coal power with nuclear.


“In fact, radiation is pretty much the most unhealthy thing you can imagine " Very true.
Radiation in low continuing doses are not only not BAD for people, they are GOOD, up to a point. And that point is quite high.
That’s false. Even the medical expertise have difficulty in applying the proper doses. Focusing the radiation to the abnormality is a prime objective of theirs. As to the hot springs. Has there ever been a follow up study done on that? Would be interesting. Consider most are volcanic in origin. Hmmm.. Hawaii…
Japan’s plume not tracked or just not reported to the general world population. Similar to when the Russians tested the largest nuclear explosion in the world. Its creator estimated some over 360 thousand people would die from that one fall out. Plume not tracked. Yeah right… From then on he became an anti nuclear activist. Hmmm..
Chemical assault from Alternative Energy? There are some and they have methods to deal with them. Say more efficiently than the recent coal waste flood due to poor dikes and that was not the first time. How about the numerous oil spills that continuously plague us to this day. Let us not forget the various abuses of radioactive scenarios. That have world one implications and no longer restricted to a locality. Radioactivity a minor issue. Only for those that are so blind as those that choose not to see..
Now consider the infrastructure of any toxic system. Which one requires the least amount of say, transportation, or refinement and or storage. Which is limited to centralized distributions, managed by a minority? Which provides independence from the centralized minorities controls? Hmm No brainier there. Alternative Green Blossoms.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Royal Dutch Shell Joining the Renewable Energy ... 18 hr Solarman 1
News Lawmakers propose major electric rate regulatio... Fri Solarman 1
News Utilities Suffer Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas... (Jun '16) Jan 17 TWA Flt 800 4
News Can HOAs regulate residential solar panels? Jan 17 PULTE is a RICO 2
News Clean Energy Might Reduce Global Warming, But W... Jan 16 Poster Child for ... 1
News Al Gore warns that Trump is ignoring weather ap... (Jun '17) Jan 16 Into The Night 345
News Six companies awarded $3 million to assist Canb... Jan 15 Solarman 1
More from around the web