Strontium-90 found in soil at Vermont nuke plant

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont Yankee officials say that while cleaning up after a leak of radioactive tritium at the nuclear power plant, they found another, more potent radioactive isotope in soil near where the leak occurred.

Strontium-90 is a byproduct of nuclear fission that has been linked to cancer and leukemia.

Vermont Yankee spokesman Larry Smith said Friday that the substance hasn't been found in any groundwater and plant officials believe they've removed all the soil containing it. He said they believe it poses no threat to public safety or health. Vermont Health Commissioner Dr. Wendy Davis didn't immediately return a call seeking comment late Friday.

Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011925338_apusvermontyankeestrontium.html

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[Captain Hilts]

2. NOT good. nt

[havocmom]

3. Safe. No problems. Only alarmists & anti-science whiners complain....

yada yada yada ad nauseum

Fact: the plants leak from time to time and the leaks are a big, long lasting problem which makes the damned things unsafe.

[depakid]

4. Considering what's going on in the gulf (or the mine disasters)

one would have hoped that there would be at least a modest sense of perspective on the issue.

[havocmom]

5. Perspective I have

and a good sense of history, trends, and predictable responses

[Zoeisright]

9. Here's your perspective:

Why don't we quit using poison for power? Oil, gas, coal, nuclear - they're all poisonous and we CANNOT control them. Solar power, wave power, and wind are the only intelligent options.

[depakid]

10. One word for you: Math

In reality, it works a whole lot better than magic.

[ThomThom]

11. then it must be time to multiply

If we really wanted to get off these poisons, new ideas and approaches would be created and conceived. Multiply the money spent by 100 and what have you got? Dependence free..........

[druidity33]

13. yeah math...

how many BILLIONS of dollars have been spent to prop up the Nuke industry?

And how many incentives was Solar given from the 70's to the 90's?

YOU do the Math.


:eyes:

[depakid]

16. I guess it depends on whether you want light and heat in your houses or not

A lot of the magical thinkers out there think that they can just turn the switches on and poof!

[mbperrin]

17. Well, since 2007, I have been magically grabbing electricity out of the

wind, running it into some forklift batteries, and out through an inverter. Our net bill last year was a little less than $200 to TXU Electric.

Now go ahead and tell me why I can't actually be doing it, please. My incentive for the investment: 2007, our electric annually was in excess of $5,000.

[depakid]

18. Good for you- now, what proportion of the nation's electricaL energy production is from renewables?

vis a vis fossil fuels and nuclear?

[mbperrin]

21. More if more people would use them.

In 1900, what proportion of folks depended on horses for transportation compared to automobiles?

Now?

Yep, this is the future. The junk is the past.

[depakid]

25. The math is what it is:

And the US isn't going to replace nuclear and fossil fuels with some combination of renewables anytime soon (particularly with respect to baseload power). One of the major choices therefore boils down to filthy coal and relatively clean nuclear power.

And coal, as we know has not only poisoned our fish stocks with mercury, but is helping to cook the entire planet.

[kristopher]

26. You haven't shown any "math", you've just made false, baseless claims.

Care to back up your statement with peer reviewed research that shows renewable energy alone cannot meet our energy needs?

We'll wait...

[depakid]

27. I knew the resident cornucopian would show up!

Will see that paper everyone "loves" in E & E cited soon?

How're those windmills coming? What percentage do they represent of US electrical generation?

[kristopher]

34. Of course you have no source to support your false claims.

You have none because there are none. Why don't you stop trying to deceive everyone?

You repeatedly make the false claim that we MUST have nuclear because renewable energy can't do the job; yet there are HUNDREDS of analyses that show renewables CAN do the job and there are ZERO demonstrating the cannot or even should not be what we move to.

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse



Since you requested Jacobson's analysis, here it is:

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Also, here is one of many plans for 100% renewable grid:
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/Beyond%20BAU%205-11-10.pdf

[Abq_Sarah]

30. The problem is

"Natural" sources are not reliable. How much land would it take to put up enough windmills to power every home in this country 24 hours a day, even if the wind blew at the proper rate every hour of every day?

Solar panels are great... but can you power New York city with them?

I'm building a house off the grid in NM. We plan on using solar, wind propane and generators for back up power because even in an area with 300+ days of sunshine a year, there are periods when there won't be available "natural" electricity.

[kristopher]

33. It isn't a "problem"

Any more than the operational characteristics of any other source of generation are. Your example of going off grid is inappropriate since the fact is that renewables plans are built around the concept of a much more effective, reliable "distributed grid" (google it if you aren't familiar with the advantages). Here is what happens to the intermittent nature of renewables when they are linked together:
Kempton Atlantic Grid



Your plan uses propane for back-up, which is fine for now; but that too is more a matter of current economics than the technical capabilities of the available technologies. The final product will rely on biofuels and storage for the role you now have allocated to propane.

ALL plans going forward are focused on a renewable energy grid as the end point. All of them.






http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[tabasco]

19. "our electric annually was in excess of $5,000"

:wtf:

[mbperrin]

22. $400+ per month. It's hot in west Texas.

Was that your question?

[boppers]

31. Spending $400 a month on Air Conditioning, I take it?

Swamp coolers aren't effective there?

[mbperrin]

32. That was with swamp coolers.

Electric rates vary from 14 to 20 cents per kwh here. We have 2700 square feet, including an attached 480 square foot greenhouse.

We have many neighbors with central air and similar sized houses with bills well over $800 per month in the summer.

[tabasco]

37. Consider downsizing and acclimating.

I had a small home in NM with a swamp cooler but never had a $400 bill.

[mbperrin]

38. No thanks, I'm not going to plant xeriscape, either.

I'm going to be comfortable and happy; it's just a matter of efficiency. As soon as people named Bush, Obama, Cheney, Rockefeller, and others like them start sacrificing their standard of living, I might think on it.

What part of NM? We lived in Farmington years ago. Pleasant city, but all that water was lost on the locals.

[druidity33]

23. Way to totally miss the point. nt.

[Abq_Sarah]

29. It's a nice dream

Everyone wants to live the dream of clean and risk free power. I love the idea of wind and solar power. Unfortunately, they will never completely take the place of traditional electric plants because they don't have 24/7/365 reliability. Alternative energy should be used to supplement our power needs but they can't provide steady, reliable electricity for all.

[kristopher]

35. Your conclusions are wrong - see post 33

[Flaxbee]

14. of course, if a nuclear plant went critical, the gulf and mines

would look like absolute child's play.

Nuclear power is just not worth it. The only reason we still use it is because of the industry lobby.

[depakid]

20. Fossil fuel externalities go far beyond than just the gulf and mines...

Put into perspective, with today's technology nuclear power is comparatively cleans and safe.

The are very few free lunches free lunch with energy production- passive solar and efficient design being the only ones I can think of.

[Downwinder]

6. Want to trade for an oil well?

[FailureToCommunicate]

7. "Strontium-90" is SO Eisenhower era. And "plant officials believe they've removed all

the soil containing it" ? We should just take their word for it?

Time to dust off and re watch "China Syndrome" It wasn't the nuke plant accident that scared the crap out of the viewers, it was the media manipulation at the end of the movie!!

[Liberation Angel]

8. "Oh _ That's from the Chinese Nuclear Tests" (Industry Spokesman

That's what they said in my hometown when strontium 90 showed up in the baby teeth of local children.

Yeah
Right

Assholes deserve life in prison for this sort of poisoning of our environment.

Jut like BP.

Actually come to think of it they probably WOULD get executed in China.

[Leftist Agitator]

12. Strontium-90 accumulates in the milk of dairy cows.

And Vermont has one hell of a large dairy industry.

Oy...

[GReedDiamond]

28. Captain Beefheart..."Safe As Milk"...

... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbzmKPXgtZI

Strontium-90 accumulates in the milk of dairy cows.

That's what the song was (is) about. Or maybe even measurable amounts of Strontium-90 in human "mothers milk," more accurately.

The open-air nuke tests were going on when Don Van Vliet and The Magic Band originally wrote/recorded the song.

[Omaha Steve]

15. K&R!

[boppers]

24. What concentration? How much? How deep?

All of the stories I've found are vague about the levels, is this a pinhead of material in a ton of earth, or something more (or less) serious?

[truthisfreedom]

36. "removed all the soil containing it." Where do they put this stuff?

[BrightKnight]

40. Store it with the millions of tons of toxic and radioactive coal ash

produced each year. Coal generates more radiation per KWh than nuclear power. Also, heavy metals don't exactly biodegrade. Will any tuna be safe to eat 20 years from now.

[davidthegnome]

39. Speaking of natural sources

You know, I just had a pretty good idea of what we could do with BP's assets...

I know, dream on.

Still, great things are being accomplished every day. The movement may have started small, but it is growing quickly. If I had more than enough money for my next car payment, I'd be investing in solar panels. If there was an electric car available and I could afford it, I'd sure as hell buy one. This is where we need to be investing now. Shutting down offshore drilling would effectively begin to drain and eventually eliminate the power and wealth of the oil companies and our dependence on them. People aren't going to pay 10 bucks a gallon for gas for very long, and should we shut down offshore drilling... well, guess what happens to oil prices

Just food for thought.