Recently I have been watching a news story about Iran and their Uranium reserves. It seems that via the IAEA, The United States, Iran, France, and Russia are working on a deal which would have Iran sending it's low enriched uranium to Russia for processing into fuel for Iran's research reactor. The research reactor's purpose is to generate isotopes for cancer treatments, and other uses.
The reason this is interesting is that previously Iran had refused any outside help with it's uranium enrichment. This is actually in direct opposition to a treaty signed in 1968 called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which restricted non-nuclear countries from pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Iran is walking a thin line by stating that it's enrichment is solely for civilian power purposes, not weapons production.
The difference between uranium for power production, and uranium for weapons production is a matter of scale. That scale is VERY significant however. Uranium, as it occurs naturally, is composed of three different isotopes in significant amounts. Those isotopes are U238, U235, and U234. U235 is the one which is important because this is the one needed for power and for weapons. For fuel, the percentage of U235 to other isotopes needs to be about 3% to 5%, for weapons it needs to be >%85. An inefficient "dirty bomb" can be made with %20 enriched uranium. The percentage of U235 in naturally occurring uranium is about .71%. So you see, to get fuel grade uranium, a significant amount of enrichment needs to be done as the naturally occurring amount needs to be increased by 5 to 7 times. For a weapon it needs to be increased as much as 120 times.
One of the processes used for this enrichment is called "gas centrifuge". Gas centrifuge is the process of heating uranium until it changes it's material state from solid to gas, then passing it through a centrifuge which is designed to remove some of the heavier U238 atoms. After the centrifuge, what is left is uranium with a slightly higher percentage of U235 and U234 atoms. The amount of enrichment which occurs with this process is very small, so this has to be repeated a great many times to get usable amounts of U235. According to Wikipedia, this process accounts for about 54% of the world's enriched uranium.
Based upon reported intelligence, and upon what Iran has declared, there is enough technology and uranium in Iran to create weapons grade uranium. However it would take them a few months to do so.
The latest update on this story is that Iran does not now want to have Russia handle it's uranium, but it would rather purchase enriched uranium for it's reactor. They do not want to surrender, or even ship out their uranium for fear of losing it. Nor do they want to have their enrichment capabilities restricted. Basically, they seem to be telling the international community that they wish to be viewed as being capable of producing a weapon if they choose to do so.
It is my opinion that Iran wishes to become the first Islamic super power. They posses significant oil reserves which would seem to ensure that they would have economic stability for the next century or so. But I think they want to have a significant military threat as well, and the short cut to that is the capability to have a nuclear weapon. Therefore this issue may not be resolved for some time to come.
Iran may be a lost cause, but this does bring another topic into my mind. How would you feel if countries like The United States, Russia, France, Britain, China, and Israel became vendors to developing countries in terms of nuclear fuel? The idea would be that they would not have to invest in a fuel cycle themselves, because they could get the fuel and possibly the entire plant from us, and return the used fuel to us when it was finished being used. This is not my idea, and it is not something that comes up in my facebook chats, but I think it should.
So, Uranium or mine?
Friday, November 6, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
We do want it, don't we?
It has occurred to me that the American people are not ready to change the way we do business with regards to energy generation and consumption. The reason I have come to this conclusion is based upon some anecdotal observations, but also upon how some green electrical projects are being received by the public. The Anecdotal evidence is easily available on the freeway. Large, gasoline inefficient vehicles are still barreling down the road at a high rate. But, look also at the welcome that the green project Green Path North has received in Southern California.
Somewhere near the Salton Sea in Southern California is a nice vent in the Earth’s crust which allows heat to come to the surface from the lower regions. The name of that lower region is left to your imagination, and religious beliefs. The amount of energy in this vent is sufficient to create steam which is hot enough to drive a turbine, which in turn can be used to drive a generator. The City of Los Angeles wants to build power plants there in order to generate some of its electricity using this vent. This process falls under the heading of geo-thermal energy. Geo-thermal has a benefit over wind and solar in that sometimes the sun does not shine, and sometimes the wind does not blow. The Earth however, will most likely continue to vent heat continuously for the foreseeable future. Personally, I don’t have much use for Los Angeles, however I am patting them on the back for this type of thinking. The next time I am at a Giants - Dodgers game it ATT Park, I wont yell BEAT LA quite as enthusiastically.
So, now, there is good, reliable, renewable energy source, and a resolve to use it by the second largest city in the United States. THIS, my friends, is progress, no? The next issue is how do we get that electricity to LA? The Salton Sea is about 100 miles away from Los Angeles, so there needs to be transmission lines erected from the Salton Sea to LA. No problem right? It is all desert anyway right? Woohoo!!! Uh...
The transmission line project is Green Path North. Google Green Path North, and you will find several links to sites in opposition to this project.
I have read most of them and there are some pretty good ideas about alternatives that LA could use, such as rooftop solar projects within LA itself. (But remember that solar has a reliability issue related to how much the sun shines.) And there are some groups who are simply dead set against the idea, because the lines would be erected where they live. This is the “Not In My Back Yard” argument, and the acronym NIMBY has been attached to them. There are also opposition groups based upon environmental impact. These are Non Government Organizations, or NGOs. There are also individuals and groups within government who are working against this plan as well. Most influential of these is Senator Feinstein of California who is working to protect large tracts of BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land adjacent to Joshua Tree National Monument, which would effectively block any sort of transmission line project.
The cost of starting these types of projects is fairly high. There are a few different ways to fund them. One is by selling bonds and having municipal, state, or federal governments fund the capital investment needed to do this. Another is for the utilities to invest their own money into the project. And yet another way is to attract investment capitalists into the projects. But money is not the only cost. We also need to consider environment, right of way, eminent domain, and also human costs as well. This is actually more complicated than I would have guessed, because I thought everyone was committed to this path. After all, one US soldier’s life has a very high value when it is placed in terms relative to the cost of investing in energy independence, right? Maybe not, as long as it is not MY US soldier that is.
Just like in your household budget discussions, there is a time when a luxury’s worth has to be evaluated and a decision needs to be made regarding that luxury’s utility. In my house we made a decision that me driving to work in a nice comfortable truck was too high of a cost, and so I switched to a small, loud, cheap, fuel efficient car. As a society I think we also need a way to evaluate our luxuries, and then make a decision as to what we are willing to sacrifice.
The luxury I am discussing is cheaply obtained petroleum from the Middle East. Even though we are not there yet, this decision is going to have to be made over and over in the next decades. Because even if the costs in terms of our soldier's lives turns out to be acceptable, that oil is going to run out soon enough anyway, and the other reserves available are not nearly as cheap. So, I think it is time to start these evaluations now. This decision making will not be easy, and some people will not be happy, and some others are going to have to sacrifice.
This gets me back to the costs of LA’s renewable energy plan, and most specifically the Green Path North Project. This project can be a great case study about how we as a society make decisions about our resource usage.
Who is shouldering the costs of this project? This includes not only the financial investments, but also the personal, and human investments as well. The people listed when you answer that question are the stake-holders in this issue. I am not a NIMBY, nor do I live in LA. But I am a citizen of the State of California since I reside in the San Francisco Bay Area, and if anything about California economic history is obvious, it is that Northern and Southern California are symbiotic economically. Just ask a Central Valley farmer about water rights, and you will get an education. But even more importantly, I have 3 boys. These boys are potential members of the United States military. And this makes me an even more invested stake-holder in this issue, but they are potentially VERY invested. But you see that this also makes anyone who is a parent in the United States a stake-holder in this issue as well, if we remember to frame the Global War on Terror in terms of energy dependence. You can keep on going and add those who are stake-holders in the Terror war as well, who are not US citizens, like the Afghanis and the Iraqis.
I have my opinions regarding who gets the most say based upon that answer, as I am sure you do too. The NIMBY, NGO, Senator Fienstien, and The City of Angels do as well. How do we resolve this?
So how do you feel about Green Path North? What would you say to the NIMBY groups? Or better yet, how would you measure the NIMBY’s costs, and then compensate them for their sacrifices? But then that opens up the question to those who have already given loved ones on 9/11, or in Afghanistan, or Iraq doesn’t it? What would you say to NGO like The Sierra Club? What would you say to Senator Feinstein?
Somewhere near the Salton Sea in Southern California is a nice vent in the Earth’s crust which allows heat to come to the surface from the lower regions. The name of that lower region is left to your imagination, and religious beliefs. The amount of energy in this vent is sufficient to create steam which is hot enough to drive a turbine, which in turn can be used to drive a generator. The City of Los Angeles wants to build power plants there in order to generate some of its electricity using this vent. This process falls under the heading of geo-thermal energy. Geo-thermal has a benefit over wind and solar in that sometimes the sun does not shine, and sometimes the wind does not blow. The Earth however, will most likely continue to vent heat continuously for the foreseeable future. Personally, I don’t have much use for Los Angeles, however I am patting them on the back for this type of thinking. The next time I am at a Giants - Dodgers game it ATT Park, I wont yell BEAT LA quite as enthusiastically.
So, now, there is good, reliable, renewable energy source, and a resolve to use it by the second largest city in the United States. THIS, my friends, is progress, no? The next issue is how do we get that electricity to LA? The Salton Sea is about 100 miles away from Los Angeles, so there needs to be transmission lines erected from the Salton Sea to LA. No problem right? It is all desert anyway right? Woohoo!!! Uh...
The transmission line project is Green Path North. Google Green Path North, and you will find several links to sites in opposition to this project.
I have read most of them and there are some pretty good ideas about alternatives that LA could use, such as rooftop solar projects within LA itself. (But remember that solar has a reliability issue related to how much the sun shines.) And there are some groups who are simply dead set against the idea, because the lines would be erected where they live. This is the “Not In My Back Yard” argument, and the acronym NIMBY has been attached to them. There are also opposition groups based upon environmental impact. These are Non Government Organizations, or NGOs. There are also individuals and groups within government who are working against this plan as well. Most influential of these is Senator Feinstein of California who is working to protect large tracts of BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land adjacent to Joshua Tree National Monument, which would effectively block any sort of transmission line project.
The cost of starting these types of projects is fairly high. There are a few different ways to fund them. One is by selling bonds and having municipal, state, or federal governments fund the capital investment needed to do this. Another is for the utilities to invest their own money into the project. And yet another way is to attract investment capitalists into the projects. But money is not the only cost. We also need to consider environment, right of way, eminent domain, and also human costs as well. This is actually more complicated than I would have guessed, because I thought everyone was committed to this path. After all, one US soldier’s life has a very high value when it is placed in terms relative to the cost of investing in energy independence, right? Maybe not, as long as it is not MY US soldier that is.
Just like in your household budget discussions, there is a time when a luxury’s worth has to be evaluated and a decision needs to be made regarding that luxury’s utility. In my house we made a decision that me driving to work in a nice comfortable truck was too high of a cost, and so I switched to a small, loud, cheap, fuel efficient car. As a society I think we also need a way to evaluate our luxuries, and then make a decision as to what we are willing to sacrifice.
The luxury I am discussing is cheaply obtained petroleum from the Middle East. Even though we are not there yet, this decision is going to have to be made over and over in the next decades. Because even if the costs in terms of our soldier's lives turns out to be acceptable, that oil is going to run out soon enough anyway, and the other reserves available are not nearly as cheap. So, I think it is time to start these evaluations now. This decision making will not be easy, and some people will not be happy, and some others are going to have to sacrifice.
This gets me back to the costs of LA’s renewable energy plan, and most specifically the Green Path North Project. This project can be a great case study about how we as a society make decisions about our resource usage.
Who is shouldering the costs of this project? This includes not only the financial investments, but also the personal, and human investments as well. The people listed when you answer that question are the stake-holders in this issue. I am not a NIMBY, nor do I live in LA. But I am a citizen of the State of California since I reside in the San Francisco Bay Area, and if anything about California economic history is obvious, it is that Northern and Southern California are symbiotic economically. Just ask a Central Valley farmer about water rights, and you will get an education. But even more importantly, I have 3 boys. These boys are potential members of the United States military. And this makes me an even more invested stake-holder in this issue, but they are potentially VERY invested. But you see that this also makes anyone who is a parent in the United States a stake-holder in this issue as well, if we remember to frame the Global War on Terror in terms of energy dependence. You can keep on going and add those who are stake-holders in the Terror war as well, who are not US citizens, like the Afghanis and the Iraqis.
I have my opinions regarding who gets the most say based upon that answer, as I am sure you do too. The NIMBY, NGO, Senator Fienstien, and The City of Angels do as well. How do we resolve this?
So how do you feel about Green Path North? What would you say to the NIMBY groups? Or better yet, how would you measure the NIMBY’s costs, and then compensate them for their sacrifices? But then that opens up the question to those who have already given loved ones on 9/11, or in Afghanistan, or Iraq doesn’t it? What would you say to NGO like The Sierra Club? What would you say to Senator Feinstein?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
