Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Given that there are two sides to every argument with advantages and disadvantages of the continued use of nuclear energy, and given the risks versus the benefits of nuclear power as presented in the lecture and the reading material thus far: Are you concerned with the continued use of nuclear power in our US energy portfolio? Why or Why not?

After reading about nuclear energy I find that having nuclear power has value and should continued to be included in the U.S. energy portfolio.

Today, the U.S. currently has over hundred nuclear power reactors in several states that generate nuclear energy for electricity for homes and businesses; most of these stations are located in the Midwest and along the East Coast, with just four located on the West Coast (earthquakes?). We all read about the catastrophe at Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant back on March 11, 2011 in which the Tohoku earthquake disrupted the plant and the entire plant had to be shutoff. However, like more statisticians would say, what are the risks of that happening to the U.S. or elsewhere in the world so soon afterwards (EIA 2012)? 

According to the World Nuclear News (2012) China is not afraid and is installing nuclear reactors as 27 new reactors will be online by 2015. The EIA (2012) mentions that the U.S. was the top nuclear generating country (out of 31), making nearly 800 billion KWh in 2011. This means economic profit for this country so the concept of shutting down is highly unlikely due to political input. Nuclear waste may be hazardous but not if stored and processed accurately; most of the commercial waste is (stored in water pools or dry casks not buried at the site) near the nuclear site. On the positive side of nuclear energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NCR) reported receiving applications to create 27 new reactors, which will provide over 15 gigawatts of nuclear capacity between 2010 and 2035.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA 2012) mentions that the global population is currently at over six billion people and will reach nine billion by 2050; as the population grows, energy supply must also. Fossil fuel is dirty and unsustainable, while nuclear energy is cleaner energy. As alternative and renewable energies are researched, the technology is improved, safety features are enhanced, and operating procedures are documented and regulated making nuclear energy safer to use.

References:

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012. What is the status of the U.S. nuclear industry? http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/nuclear_industry.cfm (accessed June 13, 2012).

World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2012. The central challenge: decarbonizing energy. http://www.world-nuclear.org/outlook/clean_energy_need.html (accessed June 13, 2012).

World Nuclear News. 2012. Latest Chinese nuclear milestone. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Latest_Chinese_nuclear_milestone_1306121.html (accessed June 13, 2012).

Nuclear Reactors

The type of nuclear reactor that is used today to generate electric power for industrial and residential consumption is based on many factors: public acceptance after a lengthy approval process by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, economics of the electric power company that invests in building the power station, the availability of cooling water for the power plants, transportation of supplies needed to furnish the power plant to keep it operational, nuclear waste repository on site, work force availability to build and to operate and maintain the nuclear plant for its life time, and many other factors too numerous to cover in their entirety. 


There are several types of reactor designs currently used around the world and several new generation reactors planned for the future. 


If you had a choice, given where you currently live which design would you favor to generate electric power for the industrial and residential power consumption in your locale? Why? 


Nuclear power is not favored as an energy alternative in the State of Colorado and only one power plant has existed for 20 years (1970s and 80s): Fort Saint Vrain Nuclear Generating Station in Platteville, Weld County, Colorado. The power plant was one of two high temperature gas cooled (HTGR) power reactor located in the United States. While the HTGR was successful, potential engineering mishaps was blamed for using a new, high-complex (instead of low-complex) steam turbine helium circulator with multiple fluid bearings.


I would use the HTGR design as above, high temperature gas cooled thorium breeder reactor, for the industrial and residential power consumption except use the appropriate equipment to fit the power plant. However, the power plant would use technology that has a proven success rate, as the plants located in the United Kingdom (UK) where they have over 20 reactors, France with eight, Italy, Japan, and Spain with only one. The HTGR would use a simple, commercial, low-complexity electric motor-based helium circulator, such as the electrical coolant circulators. This method is considered safe, affordable, highly adaptable, efficient, scalable, flexible, recyclable, and important nuclear technology due to commercial testing.

Helium is used as the primary coolant when transferring heat to a water based secondary coolant system that drives steam generators because helium is an inert gas and does not react to other chemicals or is radioactive. The HTGR is more efficient than modern light water reactors, reaching a thermal efficiency of 39-40%, which is excellent for a steam-cycle power plant. This design can satisfy the electrical power demand load, making the reactor fuel efficient. The HTGR is flexible and recyclablre as the fuel that is removed from the core can be reprocessed and fed back into the rector along with U-235. Handing of fuel, storage, and transportation is simpler with the HTGR as the fuels can be stored for six months prior to being shipped and no severe issues of fission decay during shipment. It tends to produce less radioactive waste of energy due to being high thermal efficiency and high fuel burnup, which means less plutonium is produced (FSV Folks 2012; U.S. NRC 2012; Shropshire and Herring 2004).


References:


FSV Folks. 2012. Fort. St. Vrain power station history.
http://www.fsvfolks.org/FSVHistory_2.html (accessed June 20, 2012).


Shropshire, David, and J. Stephen Herring. 2004. Fuel-cycle and nuclear material disposition issues associated with high-temperature gas reactors. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 

Environmental Issue of the Safety of Dams

A team of 20 Dillon Dam Road security guards, most are off-duty law enforcement or military veterans, spend several hours a day watching 5,000 to 7,000 cars a day pass the Dillon Dam. The Dillon Dam is located in Dillon Colorado, along Highway 70, on the way to Utah. The guard may appear calm and they wave and smile back at passengers; however, they are high alert and investigating each car that crosses it for any security threats or suspicious activity. The guards' primary duty is security of the dam and the facilities around the dam. The safety of the residents in Summit County and the Denver-metro area is vital. Any faults could cause severe water system issues and 84 billion gallons of water are at stake if the water were to be released and cause a shortage for the Denver area (Nash 2012).

The Dillon Dam was constructed in the 1960s, before terrorism was a factor considered in the course of infrastructure projects, the Dillon Dam was unprotected for most of its history. But the world changed after Sept. 11, 2001 and dams have become an object that needs to make aware that something could happen to it. Since Denver Water is responsible for the Dillon Dam and ensuring a continuous supply of water to the people of Denver and Denver Water’s suburban customers, Denver Water's responsibilities have completely changed. The Dillon Dam Road had to be shutdown completely for several weeks in 2001 while security was overhauled     with new guard shacks on either end of the structure to improve lighting for security purposes (Nash 2012; Hossain, Jeyachandran, and Pielke 2010).

References:

Hossain, F., I. Jeyachandran, and R. Pielke Sr. 2010. Dam safety effects due to human alteration of extreme precipitation. Water Resources Research 46 W03301 (accessed March 28, 2012).

Nash, Caddie. 2012. Dillon Dam guards conserve and protect Denver Water facility. Denver Post. February 7. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19895517 (accessed March 28, 2012).

Dispose of Computers in Douglas County, Colorado

When a computer in Douglas County expires, proper disposal is the key because computers can contain environmental hazards, or e-waste. If the monitor or desktop computer expires it ends up in the landfill. The parts inside are made up of cathode ray tubes and significant amounts of mercury, cadmium, lead and hexavalent chromium. With parts being this high in carcinogenic levels, old computers need to be disposed of correctly (Gaz 2011). 

Back in May 2011 the “Electronics Recycling Act or Senate Bill 269,” a bill to prevent environmental damage by electronic waste or e-waste was approved by the senate. Senator Gail Schwartz (D–Snowmass) wanted to ensure that any computer part made of hazardous material could be recycled properly, and not only in compliance with environmental standards but also provides a list of certified e-waste recycling facilities and education regarding disposal of e-waste to the public. The Bill includes massive steps to eliminate all contamination from reaching the air, water, and land, and assist residents of Colorado with recycling of any e-waste to a safe place. The senate passed the Act during its second reading and now awaits final approval before it will head to the House (Salida Citizen. 2011). 

References:
 
Gaz, Dan. 2011. How to dispose of computers in Douglas County, Colorado (April 25). eHow. http://www.ehow.com/how_8291302_dispose-computers-douglas-county-colorado.html (accessed March 28, 2012).

Salida Citizen. 2011. Bill will prevent environmental damage caused by e-waste and create Colorado jobs (May 11). http://salidacitizen.com/2011/05/bill-will-prevent-environmental-damage-caused-by-e-waste-and-create-colorado-jobs/ (accessed March 28, 2012).

Grassland Drilling in Northeast Colorado

The hunt for oil and gas beneath Pawnee National Grassland gets attention. The Pawnee Grassland, including the iconic Pawnee Buttes, rests above the massive Niobrara shale rock formation on the Northern edge of Colorado between Highway 25 and 76 and along the Southern end of the Wyoming border. 

Oil and gas companies are focusing on this area in order to tap into the grounds energy resources. Letters are being sent out by the U.S. Forest Service to landowners, environmental groups, American Indian tribes and others that may have an interest in this Grassland that energy companies will be surveying the land for any sign of deposits of oil and/or natural gas (Whaley 2012).

Local energy resources has been in such desperate need that a paved road has been already created in order for oil and gas trucks to bypass the small town of Grover, Colorado in order not to disturb the locals. The drilling site already has a reputation of successful drilling as 1,500 barrels of oil was drilled in one day back in 2009. However, there has been little activity regarding oil and gas leasing on the Pawnee National Grasslands due to the land being under environmental review; currently seismic testing is presenting evidence that energy companies are seeking to drill here (Magill 2011).

The wells at Colorado's Pawnee National Grasslands were protected in the past due to signs of rare animals. Oil drilling was prevented back in 1992 due to a rare bird known as 'mountain plover'; however, the area shows great signs of energy resources. However, what environmental dangers hold for wildlife today? Nature seekers, stargazers, and sightseers may have to look elsewhere for vibrant environmental attractions (Gill 1992).


References:

Gill, Dee. 1992. Rare bird grounds grasslands drilling/Oil firms fume over temporary ban. Houston Chronicles (June 26). http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1992_1063716/rare-bird-grounds-grasslands-drilling-oil-firms-fu.html (accessed March 27, 2012).

Magill, Bobby. 2011. Grasslands a target for oil. National Stripper Well Association (NSWA) (January 9). http://nswa.us/custom/shownews.php?action=detail&id=148 (March 27, 2012).

Whaley, Monte. 2012. Hunt for oil, gas beneath Pawnee National Grassland gets attention. Denver Post.  http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_20148252/hunt-oil-gas-beneath-pawnee-national-grassland-gets (accessed March 27, 2012).

Invasive Species - Freshwater Asian marble-size quagga and zebra mussels have invaded Colorado reservoirs

Invasive Species are coming to the United States and one has invaded Colorado. We read the stories on the Internet, newspapers, and over the radio about how invasive species enter the U.S. water somehow and start invading marine and plant life.

Freshwater Asian marble-size quagga and zebra mussels have invaded Colorado reservoirs. Quagga mussels are being investigated by the Bureau of Reclamation's laboratory in Lakewood Colorado for possible ways to prevent mussels from spreading to other waterways in Colorado or possibly other states.

The invasive freshwater quagga and zebra mussels are marble-size marine creatures that have mistakenly hitchhiked from central Asia to Colorado waters by using their microscopic, sticky hairs to attach onto hard surfaces such as shipping boats that are traveling through various waterways. If female mussels are hitchhiking they can lay as many as five million eggs in their lifetime, with as many as one hundred thousand of these surviving to reproduce this type of invasion is not healthy for the local ecosystem or for water technology. Mussels have the ability to invade other aquatic life and cause damage to freshwater ecosystems, clog water-intake and discharge pipes and intake gates in the structure of the reservoirs, power plants, and industries pumps. Mussels may also degrade drinking water and negatively impact commercial and recreational activities through preying on marine life (Finley 2012; Brown 2012).

Mussels were first discovered in the Great Lakes as ships were inspected after moving across international waters. The mussels spread swiftly across parts of the United States, from North Dakota to California during the 1990s. Warmer temperatures provided perfect yearly breeding. Mussels were soon discovered in several Colorado reservoirs of Tarryall, Pueblo, Willow Creek, Shadow Mountain, Grandby, and Jumbo, and now possibly Blue Mesa (Benson 2011; CLRMA 2011).

These invasive freshwater mussels are being examined by a Denver based federal team for clues on how to stop, destroy, or discourage mussels from spreading. Treatments such as poison or molluscicides (Pseudomonas fluorescens, bacterium that eliminates mussels without harming fish), discharge of ultra-violet light and shock waves, or add sunfish to the water that can eat the mussels. Millions of dollars are at stake if the above solutions can solve the issue and protect hydropower and water delivery systems in the western states from invasive mussels (Finley 2012). However, are these tactics environmental safe for humans and other marine life? 


References:

Benson, Amy. 2011. Zebra mussel news. United States Geological Survey (USGS). U.S. Department of the Interior.http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/zebramussel/ (accessed March 27, 2012).

Brown, Elizabeth. 2012. Zebra and quagga mussels. The Colorado Division of Wildlife. Colorado Department of Natural Resources. http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/InvasiveSpecies/Pages/ZebraandQuaggaMussels.aspx (accessed March 27, 2012). 

Colorado Lake and Reservoir Management Association (CLRMA). 2011. Colorado inspectors check over 420,000 boats for aquatic nuisance species. http://www.clrma.org/links/lakenews.shtml#inspectors (accessed March 27, 2012).

Finley, Bruce. 2012. Experts testing tactics to keep harmful mussels from muscling their way in. Denver Post (February 29). www.denverpost.com/environment/ci_15563750 (accessed March 26, 2012).

EPA Update on Air Pollution

EPA Issues Updated, Achievable Air Pollution Standards for Oil and Natural Gas / Half of fractured wells already deploy technologies in line with final standards, which slash harmful emissions while reducing cost of compliance.

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized standards to reduce harmful air pollution associated with oil and natural gas production. The updated standards, required by the Clean Air Act, were informed by the important feedback from a range of stakeholders including the public, public health groups, states and industry. As a result, the final standards reduce implementation costs while also ensuring they are achievable and can be met by relying on proven, cost-effective technologies as well as processes already in use at approximately half of the fractured natural gas wells in the United States. These technologies will not only reduce 95 percent of the harmful emissions from these wells that contribute to smog and lead to health impacts, they will also enable companies to collect additional natural gas that can be sold. Natural gas is a key component of the nation’s clean energy future and the standards released today make sure that we can continue to expand production of this important domestic resource while reducing impacts to public health, and most importantly builds on steps already being taken by industry leaders.