Monthly Archives: February 2016

Future of Clean Energy?

Posted on by

Pebble_bed_reactor_scheme_(English).svgI recently ran into an article reporting that a “nuclear startup called X-energy just scored a game-changing grant from the [US] government.” X-energy is run by a space contractor who is an Iranian-American – nice bit of irony there.

The article goes on to say the grant’s actually not that big or game-changing. But the technology could:

Commercialize a much needed energy source that doesn’t contribute to climate change and which could help revive a struggling nuclear industry.

Nuclear power
When you think about nuclear energy you probably think of huge plants that divert enormous amounts of water for cooling, thereby damaging aquatic life. Massive transmission lines marching across the countryside to move the power to its users. Difficult concrete pours and high-tech welding. Complex safety systems and expensive refueling cycles.

Okay, maybe some of this only occurs to those of you interested in reactor construction.

Everyone thinks of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

(BTW – it’s not like coal and gas fired power plants are risk free. See this old book– the numbers are out of date but the concepts still apply.)

But people need energy
and even some long-time opponents of nuclear energy are willing to look at better plant designs to stave off global warming. The threats of global warming over the course of the 21st century are extensive enough that listing them sounds hyperbolic. If you’re not familiar with the issue, check out wunderground.com.

X-energy is working on a design I read about some time ago – pebble bed reactors – which I find very exciting.

The pebbles are tennis-ball sized spheres of graphite and ceramic fuel (various radioactive elements can be used). Gas (helium is preferred though I like nitrogen – cheaper) is used to transfer heat from the core, rather than water that becomes radioactive and can lead to steam explosions. The reactor needn’t be shut down to refuel, and the spent fuel come out in the easily handled, shielded pebbles. You can learn more about the technology here.

This design makes the reactor inherently safer, and it gets even better:

A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed ‘idle’ temperature, and stays there.

I once read that small reactors might be built inside railroad cars and hauled into place all over the country. Imagine a grid where one outage doesn’t black-out huge areas. Imagine avoiding the power loss suffered by long transmission lines that eat up land and view-scapes.

Imagine your brother-in-law running one of these things. It’s okay! They’re simple and inherently safe.

I have a nagging concern that, if they’re so wonderful, why aren’t we already using pebble bed reactors? Wikipedia says there’s only one in operation – in China.

The balance between global warming fears and nuclear fears may allow us to look at pebble-beds with a fresh eye. I hope we can make rational decisions based on facts. It may not matter too much for me, but posterity could enjoy cheaper, safer, cleaner, and abundant energy.

Thanks to fortune.com for their article

Eisenhower: Portrait of the Hero

Posted on by

I  picked up this book by Peter Lyon at a used book sale at the local library. I admit that I haven’t read the entire book, which has over 900 pages. I have used the book as a reference in my quest to research why the country decided to construct the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapon Plant. The book has excellent information about Ike’s role in shaping American foreign policy that relates to that subject. I was surprised by some information. Despite the title referring to Ike as a hero, the book often does not portray him positively. Roosevelt selected him to command the D-Day invasion because he was judged to be the general most capable of navigating the difficult political issues among the Allies. He indeed worked diligently to consider all sides in the planning and execution of combat operations and in the process of trying to make everyone happy made no one happy. My interpretation is that he worked very hard to appease Montgomery, who had a reputation for not wanting to move until he had forces at such strength levels that victory was certain. That didn’t go over well with Patton and other generals who wanted to strike fast and often. Montgomery would have been satisfied only if Eisenhower had stepped down and put him in charge.

A primary subject I wanted to research was the decision to invade France instead of Churchill’s preference to invade the “soft underbelly of the Balkans.” The selected invasion site had the strong military advantage that the logistics of delivering thousands of tons of material and replacement troops were achievable because of the relatively short route across the English Channel. The political advantage of invading through the Balkans was that it would counter Stalin’s desire to dominate Eastern Europe after the war was won. Churchill was convinced the invasion “into the teeth of the crocodile” in France would cost many more thousands of young soldiers, and he was brought to tears trying to convince Eisenhower to change the plans. I’m haunted by the prospect that a decision was made to appease Stalin that cost thousands more casualties than if Churchill’s plan had been accepted. Continue reading →

Pulling Stings

Posted on by

Marionettes controlled by strings were popular in the courts of the French monarchy. When someone offered a bribe to the puppeteer to influence the performance, they were said to be “…pulling the strings of the puppeteer.” The use of behind the scenes influence is therefore called “pulling strings.”

Global Warming Saves the Planet

Posted on by

I’ve been entertained by recent articles that the increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has prevented an ice age. Just guessing, but I predict most scientists and other citizens would vote for global warming if the choice was an ice age. Warming and increased carbon dioxide results in increased crop yields and more robust growth of trees while freezing results in poor or non-existent crop yields and people dying at higher rates from cold and starvation.

One explanation for why global warming has saved us is associated with something called the Milankovitch cycle. To avoid getting into tedious technical details, the cycle refers to how changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun changes, which also causes changes to the amount of sunlight received by the earth. (To state the obvious, the primary source of global warming is sunlight.) Citation needed (I admit that I copied the idea of using “citation needed” when an statement is made about an obvious fact from Randall Munroe’s excellent book “What If,” which I recently reviewed.)

To be “fair and balanced” there have been articles disputing the accuracy of claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been good. I was confused by articles that referred to sun spots causing aberrations instead of discussing the Milankovitch cycle, but then again, I’m not a trained climate expert.

I’ve noticed that there has been a scramble to explain why global temperatures didn’t continue to rise after 1998, even though 2014 might have broken that trend. One explanation is that the oceans are storing the excess heat. Now we have to consider something called Milankovitch cycles or sun spots.

I just checked the National Snow and Ice center’s report on Arctic sea ice, and the ice coverage for 2014 bounced around the average coverage for 2011-2012. It has recently just dipped slightly below that average line. Wasn’t the ice supposed to be gone by now?

For those new to this debate, I assure you I believe climate change is real as supported by the fact that the climate has always changed. Citation needed

Living, Working, and Dying in the National Parks

Posted on by

ranger confidentialEver wonder what National Park rangers talk about when they swap war stories over a beer? In Ranger Confidential, Andrea Lankford offers you a chance to find out with this collection of related stories – a wonderful view into the nitty-gritty of rangers’ lives.

National parks are small, self-contained towns and must provide all the services that implies, from jails to restaurants. As one ranger noted, they are “cops, firemen, EMTs, and game wardens! All of the fun stuff in one job.”

The format allows you to dip in and out of chapters, hearing about the lives and experiences of several rangers, including the author. As you’d expect, these stories are the “most.” Most stupid, most frustrating, most unfair, most drunk.

Park visitors bring all the troubles of society with them.

  • Many of the stories are not G-rated. Early in the book one ranger arrests a man caught masturbating over a woman who was asleep on a beach.
  • There are kidnappings, fights, and nuts trying to blow rocks off Yosemite waterfalls with home made bombs.
  • Bureaucratic frustrations abound – you can’t apply for a full time (with benefits – an important point) federal job unless you have a full time federal job.
  • Climbing accidents can be horrific, and rescue or recovery dangerous.
  • Suicides are traumatic for responders, and there was a flurry of people driving their cars off the edge into the Grand Canyon after a popular movie ended with that very act.
  • “Tombstone humor” is common. Upon finding the decomposing body of a fallen climber after a long search, one ranger comments “I don’t think he’ll make it.”
  • Locals are often angry at rangers for enforcing rules so a night off “in town” can turn unpleasant. “Pine pigs” is one taunt.
  • Concession employees who live in the park can be as dangerous as visitors, with drunken fights and rapes.

Animals figure in stories, too. Continue reading →

In Cold Blood

Posted on by

World Wide Words explains that this expression defines the difference between someone who acts in the heat of passion and “hot blood” compared to “…a person whose blood is cold or cool, and therefore detached or uninvolved,” and therefore acts in cold blood.The term was first recorded in 1711.