Nuclear Education by Virginia Recycles Used/Spent Nuclear Fuel's - NUCLEAR ED
A Must see documentary!
Many people are embracing nuclear these days. The most striking statement in this movie (and there were many) is the mention of fast breeder reactors. Some of you may not have studied them, but you should. They turn current levels of depleted uranium and used nuclear fuel into energy. 100 times the energy per molecule possible with uranium in light water reactors. This is the essence of recycling used nuclear fuel. There are many ways recycling can be manifest, but fast breeder reactors far exceed any other method in safety, energy potential, compactness, reduction of volume and time of storage for the waste, and safety. You can literally burn waste with no pollution to produce centuries of energy. The deck is stacked against this technology, indeed, against nuclear all together, because fossil fuel lobbying is promoting "renewables" because they know that these technologies will never compete with their business. But nuclear can run them out of business. Remember the De Lorean? This will be the fate of nuclear if we do not push forward. Remember, the first state in the US to agree to take used nuclear fuel for recycle (we recommend fast breeder reactor technology) will leverage the $40 billion nuclear waste fund into a world-dominating business for centuries. Best of all, the used nuclear fuel may end up being treated at the sites in which it resides anyway, so bonus money, and not much UNF to take, so double bonus. Maybe worth a small risk, mostly politically? Well, maybe there will be one smart Governor out there.
The next most impressive and important issue that was mentioned was the Low-Dose No Threshold (LNT) restriction to radiation protection. Another monster in the closet which costs the nuclear industry billions of dollars for no better result in safety.
This movie was remarkably accurate and presented at the correct level. Some comments on the movie:
Chernobyl was NOT an accident. It is incorrect to characterize it as such. Yes, it was an old technology. Yes it was purposely designed without an inner containment structure to save money. However, it was purposely placed into a dangerous configuration by an overbearing Soviet official (at the threat of the technicians' jobs) in Soviet Russia much to the horror of the knowledgeable professionals forced to do what they did. All the safety features of the reactor were defeated purposely. The result was completely engineered and managed by politically-motivated people who knew nothing about what they were doing. Sound familiar in America? So, technology and design did not destroy Chernobyl, corrupt politicians did. Want proof of what I say? 3 other reactors on the same site, designed the same way, ran for 14 more years with absolutely no problems until they were shut down at the end of their useful life. I'll bet you didn't hear that fact talked about much.
The disaster in Fukushima was an earthquake an tsunami. Panic killed people, not anything to do with a reactor hydrogen explosion and core melt-down. Just like Three-Mile Island (accurate description in the movie), the reactor safety features prevented anyone from being hurt from the reactor malfunction. The Japanese people are apparently easily terrified just from something they hear from their Government (also not the brightest politicians apparently). It was also accentuated by the US influence because Greg Jaczko (who was a chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) evacuated Americans to 50 miles from Fukushima (showing a complete lack of knowledge in nuclear) while the Japanese Government only evacuated to 25 (far more than needed for the reactor). One thing caused by this panic was the evacuation of 1,600 ICU patients from hospitals not threatened by the tsunami to tents, high school gyms, and warehouses where they died. That is what panic can do, yet we try to blame nuclear.
Not only is used nuclear fuel compact, contained, and solid, it is also recyclable. This is not true of any other energy waste form, especially coal. In fact, given time, even the fission products can be recycled into rare earth element and palladium. Talk about your all-purpose clean energy fuel.
Never Attempt to Solve a Problem When the Solution Has Been There for a Long Time
BY: TARAS LYSSENKO - NOVEMBER 16, 2020
The solution: Take the uranium-235 isotope, add a neutron to create unstable uranium-236, which splits (fissions), releasing a lot of energy. Use that fission energy to turn water into steam, and turn turbines, which generates electrical energy. Nuclear energy is the solution to a clean energy future, and one that ends our dependence on foreign oil.
For decades, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) has spent billions of dollars researching and developing this solution that is, because of the expertise invested, the safest, cleanest, carbon-free technology to produce abundant amounts of electrical energy. The problem with implementing this solution is the United States Congress.
We keep electing people to that body who choose to use energy generation as leverage to gain political power, rather than doing what is best for the American public. On the liberal side, they play on the altruistic fantasies of their followers with the myths of “renewable” energy generation, such as wind and solar, all the while ignoring the truth that these forms are inefficient and harmful to the environment. Conservatives pretend that “market forces” will bring forth the next generation of nuclear energy. They ignore the fact that there are socialized agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that make advancement almost economically impossible. However, we as a nation will keep on doing research projects at the DOE’s National Laboratories, handing out pay checks and accolades for minor incremental technology advancements that will in all likelihood never see commercial applications unless we demand that Congress act in a responsible manner.
There are some easy to understand truths. Advanced nuclear reactor designs are well developed and understood. Spent fuel can and should be recycled providing centuries of fuel resources supplying the reactors. The recycling technologies exist and should be commercialized in the United States. Advancing the next generation of fission will propel advances in electric vehicle development (at present, the vast majority of such vehicles are charged by burning fossil fuels), bring forth spin-off applications such as high-speed electromagnetic rail systems, and ward off the developing catastrophic problem of future supplies of fresh water.
It does not matter whether your issues of concern are the changing climate or the fact that we will at some point run out of carbon-based fossil fuels. We, as a nation, need to advance the next generation of nuclear energy. We must convince the United States Congress to act in our best interest and champion the greatly expanded deployment of nuclear fission.
Michael Moore Documentary Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables
Over the last 10 years, everyone from celebrity influencers including Elon Musk, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Al Gore, to major technology brands including Apple, have repeatedly claimed that renewables like solar panels and wind farms are less polluting than fossil fuels.
But a new documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” being released free to the public on YouTube today, the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, reveals that industrial wind farms, solar farms, biomass, and biofuels are wrecking natural environments.
“Planet of the Humans was produced by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. “I assumed solar panels would last forever,” Moore told Reuters. “I didn’t know what went into the making of them.”
The film shows both abandoned industrial wind and solar farms and new ones being built — but after cutting down forests. “It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at was a solar dead zone,” says filmmaker Jeff Gibbs, staring at a former solar farm in California. “I learned that the solar panels don’t last.”
To view the entire FORBES article Click Here.
Nuclear Ed's - Nuclear Knowledge Quiz Series
Test yourself , maybe also challenge a friends Nuclear Knowledge. By clicking on the “TEST YOURSELF” link you will be brought to Nuclear Ed’s – Nuclear Knowledge Quiz Series page. Once there Choose a quiz that will reveal a few slides that will provide you with information that will be in the quiz. Some of the quizzes may have been a review of material that had been seen in one of Jose Negron's T-3 radio show. Review the slides or scroll down past the slides right to the quiz.
We would greatly appreciate if you could fill out some information as well as any thoughts requests or assistance you may be able to provide on this site or Nuclear.Ed’s Facebook Page. Take the quiz. Good Luck – if you know it all, then luck will have nothing to do with Nailing a 100% on the Quiz!
Today-Tomorrow's-Technologies (T3) Online Interview by Jose Negron on Recycling Nuclear Energy with Steve Curtis & Tom Dolan
Click to listen
VIRGINIA’S NUCLEAR ENERGY’S LAND FOOTPRINT is quite small
Nuclear energy produces massive amounts of carbon-free electricity on less land than any other clean-air source.
A typical 1,000 -megawatt (MW) nuclear power plant (NPP) facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate.
- Virginia’s Lake Anna NPP generates 1,892 MW on 1.7 square miles.
- Virginia’s Surry NPP generates 1,678 MW on 1.3 square miles.
Combined they produce 3,500 MW 24 hours a day 365 days a year on 3 square miles (40% of Virginia’s electricity).
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) states that wind farms require 360 times more land area and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity as nuclear energy.
So, for wind to equal the same amount of electricity produced by both Virginia NPP’s would require (3 X 360 = ) 1,080 square miles. To put that in perspective, you would need more than 1,505 wind turbines to produce the same amount of electricity.
For solar farm to equal the same amount of electricity produced by both Virginia NPP’s would require (3 X 75 = ) 225 square miles. To also put that in perspective, you would need more than 10,500,000 million solar panels to produce the same amount of electricity.
The above calculations do not include the Capacity factor of the wind or solar facilities. (Capacity factor - the ratio of the total actual energy produced if the plant (generating unit(s)) had operated continuously at the maximum rating). Meaning that the electricity output of the wind and solar facilities capacity is based on if the sun shined 24 hours per day or the proper amount of wind blew 24 hours per day!
So, in reality the electricity produced on an average day from sunshine during the year in Virginia is 7.4 hours a day and it is not cloudy on average of 61.5% of the year, thus making solar only about 20% efficient. The average for wind may be closer to 30%.
Another interesting fact is that a nuclear power plant can operate for 80 years or more (and the used fuel can be recycled), however both solar and wind need to be replaced after 25-30 years a cost factor that is never addressed when implementing these facilities.
Most of these facilities are only 30 to 35 year deals. Besides where are all of those used wind and solar items to go after their lifespan is up?
And just imagine that if two Next Generation Nuclear Power Plants were constructed on even less land, and can be powered on existing Used Nuclear Fuel already in the State, Virginia could be powering 80% of the state on under 5 Square miles and half of that energy could come from recycled nuclear fuel (what some folks call waste!)
The following Virginia map is a visualization of size comparison on Wind – Solar - Combined 2 Virginia Nuclear Power Plants Equal Electricity Output - Land Area Usage Comparison.
This is a True Comparison ONLY IF:
- The sun shined 24 hours a day 365 days a year, which it Does Not!
- The wind blew between 6 to 50 miles per hour 24 hours a day 365 days a year, which it Does Not!
- Nuclear Power Plants produce electricity 24 hours a day 365 days a year, which it DOES!
Both Nuclear Plants power 40% of Virginia. How will renewables power the other 60% if they only produce power only 20-25% of the time?
DEVELOPING THE MOLTEN CHLORIDE SALT FAST REACTOR (MCSFR) TECHNOLOGY TO UNLOCK THE ABUNDANCE OF CLEAN, SAFE, AND INEXPENSIVE ENERGY FOR OUR GROWING GLOBALIZED AND DIGITALIZED WORLD
It's only waste if you waste it! It is not too expensive to Recycle Used/Spent Nuclear Fuel.... It is too Expensive Not to Recycle it! It is a Good thing & the Right thing to do for Virginia and the United States of America!
See Nuclear Ed's latest Posts on the Facebook Page!
At the opening presentation on Monday November 18, 2019 at the American Nuclear Society's Winter & Expo Dr. Rita Baranwal, Assistant Secretary of the Office of Nuclear Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) stated that along with Advancing Nuclear Energy, Recycling Used/Spent Nuclear Fuel should be part of the US Policy in Nuclear Energy Production.
Right after the presentation my colleague Steve Curtis and Dr. Rita Baranwal were able to briefly speak and she requested to setup a meeting with Steve Curtis and me (Tom Dolan). We are moving swiftly forward in the right direction!
I do not think that I have heard any one say it better than Dr. Rita Baranwal:
Yes!! Standing directly over vitrified, Remnant high-level rad waste (post-Recycling 96% of Used fuel), in a room that stores >20 years of it.
It's only waste if you waste it!
The new American Nuclear Society's CEO - Craig Percy with Tom (left) & Steve (right)
Ed Pheil, Chief Technology Officer and Co-Founder, Elysium Industries sharing some time & thoughts with us.
Steve Curtis & Tom Dolan manning the booth at the ANS Expo
Super Bowl 54 was Powered by the 80 year Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Reactors.
While at the same time protecting the: American Alligator, Manatee, and Humans from extinction. As well as NO - SOx, NOx, PM2.5, CO, or CO2 emissions! And No solar powered the Super Bowl was possible. It was at Night!
Steve Curtis - YouTube & Radio Lectures
Don't have to believe us, but the DATA and Numbers Don't Lie!
Argonne National Laboratory explains Nuclear Fuel Recycling with a technique called Pyroprocessing.
I was fortunate enough to be introduced to and speak with Michael Shellenberger on Recycling Used/Spent Nuclear Fuel issues by Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness' Executive Director - Jim Marra.
Because of the increasing frequency and severity of the damage, detrimental health effects, death and Climate Change caused by fossil fuel produced energy, Best Selling Author George Erickson of the www.tundracub.com has decided to make this updated version of his "Unintended Consequences" :…, his 5th pro-science book, available FREE – even though it sells on Amazon for $24.00. For paper or Kindle, check Amazon.com. Click on book below to download your copy Now!
Climate guru uses science to debunk HBO's 'Chernobyl' on Glenn Beck's Radio Show - July 9, 2019
Michael Shellenberger takes us through HBO's "Chernobyl" to explain the truth about nuclear energy. Watch this clip to learn how people looking at their iPhones while walking or driving is responsible for more deaths each day than the Chernobyl catastrophe.
To Start Off with......... 7 Things The Simpsons Got Wrong About Nuclear!
MUST READ SUBTITLES - It is pro-nuclear which is significant because the Government shut down (or is shutting down) all the nuclear plants in the country in favor of wind and solar. Germans pay triple for their power and their air quality has significantly degraded because they replaced nuclear power with brown coal.
- For Fukushima, the lung cancer is this guy got is not attributable to the reactor.
- You know the Chernobyl deal, so the 4000 deaths are a fairy tale.
- Of course we know about recycling so it does not stay a danger for "100,000" years, which is a figure people pull from their a** with no reference base.
We MUST reduce CO2-emission quickly, else global warming will take over. Switching to wind turbines and solar panels is taking too long. There is another way of generating electricity without CO2-emissions: nuclear energy. But because a lot of people find nuclear energy scary and stupid, it has to leave the taboo-realm first.
Some whimsical nuclear melodies, prior to Nuclear ED!
A musical reflection on the ramifications of 100 percent renewable energy for planet earth.
A video on apples to apples Economics over the lifetime of a nuclear plant vs a natural gas plant. it is about a half hour but well worth watching to truly understand the lifetime costs and income of it all!
Economics of Nuclear Reactor
What are the costs to construct, fuel and operate a nuclear power plant compared to a natural gas power plant. Compares capital cost and fuel costs and looks at how the cost over time should be analyzed. A great video series of clear and concise videos by Professor David Ruzic on his Illinois EnergyProf YouTube channel!
Dealing with the Used Fuel (Reprocessing)
What comes out of a nuclear reactor and how and why you would want to separate the fission products from the actinides (trans-uranics). The radiotoxicity of the wastes vs time. How reprocessing has been done and is being done around the world.
Reactors of the Future (Generation IV)
Difference of the future reactors, generation IV, from the ones of today and how they may be more efficient by running hotter with less down time, and safer. High-Temperature Gas-Cooled reactor, Helium-Cooled Very-High-Temperature reactor, Lead or Salt cooled reactor, and the Pebble-Bed reactor, are all described.
ROADMAP TO NOWHERE - The Myth of Powering the Nation With Renewable Energy by Mike Conley and Tim Maloney
100% Clean & Renewable Wind, Water, & Sunlight (WWS) All-sector Energy Roadmaps for the 50 States by Mark Jacobson, Mark Delucchi, et al
(We read it so you don’t have to.)
Renewables have captured the public’s imagination, but can they actually be scaled up to power the entire nation?
This book will challenge everything you thought you knew about renewable energy . . .
STEM Resources on Nuclear Energy
Department of Energy Education Links & Downloads
External Nuclear Education Links
National Geographic - EXPLORER MOMENTS:
Articles & YouTube
Papers & Studies
- How can the world achieve the deep carbon emissions reductions that are necessary to slow or reverse the impacts of climate change? The authors of a new MIT study say that unless nuclear energy is meaningfully incorporated into the global mix of low-carbon energy technologies, the challenge of climate change will be much more difficult and costly to solve. For nuclear energy to take its place as a major low-carbon energy source, however, issues of cost and policy need to be addressed.
- released by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) on Sept. 3, the authors analyze the reasons for the current global stall of nuclear energy capacity — which currently accounts for only 5 percent of global primary energy production — and discuss measures that could be taken to arrest and reverse that trend.
Nuclear Ed can walk you through how to know more on how to Educate Yourself on "Things Nuclear"!