Nuclear: 07/21/11

Have We Forgotten the Gulf Oil Spill Disaster? A Few Notes on the Oil Spill Clean Up Efforts

The Gulf oil spill disaster is the worst in the history of the world. Media coverage was heavy at the outset, but lately I find less and less coverage by the major networks and newspapers. It's hard to tell if public interest has waned, or if it's now become politically incorrect, given that the oil spill clean up efforts on the part of both BP and our government has been less than efficient and quick. The magnitude of this oil spill surpasses the impact of almost any other environmental disaster. Recent reports indicate that the amount of oil has been grossly underreported. Now, we find that in reality, the figure is 10-12 times higher than previously thought: a total of 4.8 million barrels of oil have polluted the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

When the oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, exploded, 11 people were killed. In an investigative piece, '60 minutes' discovered that a key piece of security equipment aboard the rig had failed. BP executives toured the rig just hours before the explosion. Although informed of the equipment failure, the crew was told to continue?and speed up - work, as they were behind schedule. With such an irresponsible, profit-oriented response, it shouldn't have come as a surprise that the ensuing oil spill clean up efforts have been, at best, too little and too late.

The impact has been monstrous. The fishing industry in the Gulf has been virtually destroyed. Fish, shellfish, turtles, dolphins and birds have been poisoned.

During the hurricane season, the warmer the water, the fiercer the hurricane becomes. With the volcanic mud bed of the Gulf, the pressure from the earth's magma against the leaking well threatens with a methane explosion that would reshape the entire Gulf and adjoining states and islands. This also causes an increase in the water temperature that results in horrific climate changes and increased hurricane force.

The sea life and coral reefs in the area may be now decimated. The pollution of the public water supply in the region has already been established. The oil has also shown up in the rainfall. Get out your atlas and take a look at the water currents that circle the globe. How will this 4.8 million barrels of oil eventually be distributed? It's unclear what the long term effects might be. While politicians and BP executives have bickered over legalities, the oil spill clean up efforts are now being downplayed in the major media.

Here's just one example of the attention given to political issues, at the expense of a rapid and efficient oil spill clean up effort: the U.S. received international offers to send oil skimmers, which are oil spill clean up ships, with a capacity of skimming up to 500,000 gallons of oil a day. Those offers were refused.

Now, there are reports of many people, who worked on the oil spill clean up effort, or live in the immediate area, now are suffering from unexplained internal bleeding. Some medical experts attribute this bleeding to be the result of poisoning from the various chemicals in the oil dispersants.

The entire effort, from the oil spill containment, management, and response, must be characterized as unconscionably incompetent. There is probably not a single factor in the ecosystem that has not been affected. This disaster is likely to impact the world for decades. There's no question that the oil spill clean up has already failed. This disaster cannot be undone.

Don't Let an Oil Spill Be the Tip of Your Organization's Disaster Iceberg

As with the most recent incident in the Gulf of Mexico impacting the economy, environment, and the people in the region there are issues that cannot be overlooked. As more and more comes out regarding what happened on the oil rig under British Petroleum's guidance and management more will also come out about what lead to the disastrous and deadly events of April 20, 2010 out on the Deepwater Horizon rig.

As people start to look and wonder at what caused those 11 deaths and the spilling of hundreds of thousands if not millions of gallons of oil (at the end of this) into the Gulf of Mexico they should not only look for answers but for ways to prevent such obvious blatant disregard for preventative measures, safety practices, and good old fashion common sense.

As a stakeholder in your organization you have a vested interested to ensuring that your company is not one that finds itself dragged through the mud in the daily news, ridiculed in the Sunday Morning News talk shows, and have your organization's once good name quickly fall from grace and become synonymous with other companies such as Enron, Arthur Andersen, AIG, any Motor Vehicle Company (except Ford) and now BP.

On that note, organizations all over the world must take notice from these examples of what not to do. Now is the time for all organizations to turn a careful eye inward and see their organization for what it is. Leaders must realize that the organization is not an automated process, it is not a conglomeration of machines, and your organization is only one thing: a living breathing assembly of human beings. It is no secret that each and every one of us is flawed, imperfect, and prone to make mistakes. So it should come as no surprise to anyone when something goes horribly wrong.

However, it should not also come as a big surprise when the layers of determining what happened are peeled back and reveal that other humans allowed what happened to happen.

Logically, questions must be asked such as could the disaster on the gulf have been prevented? Yes. Most certainly it could have been prevented. What could have been done to prevent it? Anything and everything.

Anything and everything sounds like a cop-out answer, a catch all, something politicians say when they don't want to get pinned down on something that may or may not make them look bad. However, in this case anything and everything means that all it would take is for someone in the organization to have said, "Hey, Stop and wait a minute this doesn't look right."

Did I just write, "Hey, Stop and Wait a minute?"

In this economy, in a time that stopping the presses more often than not means that the presses will never restart, is it a wise thing to stop the process, a process that managers and employees have been told to trust? It must be, who would ever imagine that overlooking a simple spike in a pressure reading or a small leak would change the world?

Now ask yourself, who is overlooking the simple spike in the pressure reading in your organization? More than likely you know whom the person is but may not know that they are not taking care of the little things, not taking care of the basics.

When the basics get overlooked, the beginning of the end starts. This means that the core functions of your department, division, company, or organization are not being successfully accomplished. This is then evident as throughout your operations things are not getting properly done because of a lack focus on the core operating functions, thus modifications based on those core functions that are also not getting done. Therefore, at some point the problems will start to surface.

Depending on how long the basics have been overlooked it may take a while for the problem to come to the surface. For example, a small leak in a fire hose will not be an issue when it is needed to put out a house fire. Small leaks are expected, especially as the hoses and couplers get old. Now imagine if the hose is put to use 8 hours a day for 40 hours a week, every week.

The small leak will eventually start to get bigger and over time the business end of that hose will not deliver as much water as it once did. This may be acceptable to someone but it is certainly not acceptable to the homeowner, business owner, real estate investment group or the owner of the property that is on the fast track to becoming a pile of ashes, this is not acceptable to the customers and clients of the fire department. While the majority of us are not putting out structure fires on a daily basis, we are putting out fires of our own and having a leaky hose is not acceptable as well.

Whenever there is a fire, Fire Investigators are called in to find out the cause or origin of the fire. Almost always the cause of a fire can usually be attributed to human error or human involvement (arson, faulty wiring, unmonitored space heater, kids playing with matches, unattended burning candles, grease splatter on the stove, etc., etc.). In the modern workplace as leaders are working hard at putting out fires they are also trying to find the root cause of those fires. Just like the Fire Investigators, we can determine that 99.98% of your business fires have a man-made origin. Then dig even further and you will find that at the core the basics were neglected. As a leader, a business owner, CEO, division chief, department head, front line supervisor, manager it is up to you to ensure that the basics are never neglected.

As the leader you are tasked with ensuring that things are done right, every time, by those you lead, manage, and supervise. Of course, no one is perfect and expecting 0% defects is crazy, then again not sticking to the basics is an even crazier way of doing business. What can a leader do to get everyone back on track? The answer is threefold; conduct your own internal audit, staff review, and train, train, train.

Audit all your processes to determine if the changing times (technology, governance, and ideologies) have made what was once relevant now irrelevant. If there are changes to be made, then ensure that you are clear and concise on what needs to be changed. Once that is identified, be prepared to deliver a thorough examination of what you propose make relevant that which has become irrelevant.

The next step is to conduct internal reviews of the people involved to determine what is and what is not happening in the way or manner it should. At least you should be conducting annual performance reviews of your staff, however, this might not help the problem if the next review is 10 months away. Therefore, conducting frequent internal reviews of not just your staff but also of the members of other departments that your staff interacts with.

Let me qualify this by stating that your role in the internal review is to determine where following the basics went off track. This is NOT an opportunity to pass the blame off on somebody else or on a different department. It is only an opportunity to find out where the problem is originating and then working out a plan to correct it. Should it turn out that the problem originated outside your area of responsibility, do no take it upon yourself to go over and correct it but instead coordinate with the department/division head and discuss the issue and form a corrective plan as soon as possible.

Come prepared because most people don't like being told that they have a problem, especially other managers. However, having the problem and the cause, as you see it, well documented will go a long way towards getting your issue(s) resolved and the organization back on track. Once you have identified the reason as to why the basics were not being followed and who is involved, develop a plan of action to correct the problem; the next thing that must happen is training.

Train your staff on what the problem is, how it will be corrected, how to identify when things do go wrong, and what the future expectations are. When it is all said and done you have to train the people you lead, supervise, or manage right the first time and every time after that. Periodic refresher training is mandatory as people will eventually become complacent and start to slip back into a mode of lax and slipshod ways that are not acceptable. Thus, the need to train, train, and train is ever present.

Time and time again, the public has been witness to what happens to an organization that forgets to stick to the basics. In many cases, overlooking the basics creates situations that organizations may never fully recover from, like many of the unfavorable situations that organization find themselves in, it is avoidable. When it comes to dealing with the basics of any job function or organizational business practices the leadership must not only recognize that there is a problem but also act almost immediately to curtail the fallout. Unfortunately, those leaders that recognize that a problem does exist more often than not fail to properly act and thus create a bigger problem. Therefore, for a leader to truly lead, she must not only be the person that finds the problem but also works even harder to fix the problem and do what it takes to prevent it from happening again. Your organization and those you lead not only demand it from you but as a leader it is your duty to turn that iceberg into a manageable snow cone.

Dave Guerra
Owner The Dave Guerra Company ( http://www.daveguerra.com )

Dave Guerra invites you to find out how providing Information Technology Leadership and Management greatly enhance return on your technology investment. The Dave Guerra Company helps small to medium sized organizations get their message out via the use of Internet Technologies utilizing new media tools such as Web2.0 and the emerging Web3.0 technologies.

Find out what The Dave Guerra Company can do for you, your organization, and your Information Technology investment.

Is the Algerian Nuclear Weapon Threat Real?

Apparently, Algeria wants to put itself on the map, but also wants to strengthen its resources and military, in case of a conflict with its neighbor Libya. We all hope that no war ever breaks out between the two countries, because it would be a humanitarian disaster like we've never seen in a century. Nevertheless, Algeria might end up being a nuclear threat to the free world.

Like Libya, Algeria has been able to buy just about anything it needs, including bio weapons, nuclear weapons, and late model military hardware. Whereas, every nation has the right to defend itself, anyone that studies nuclear proliferation, can see the huge problem we have here. While the rest of the world is looking at Iran, Syria, and North Korea and their nuclear weapons programs, no one seems to be looking at Algeria.

But many nations are busy selling them weapons, including China. And the Russians are selling them aircraft and anti-aircraft missile systems including SA Five and later anti-aircraft batteries, you should see the most recent deals. These anti-aircraft batteries are being placed around an Algeria so-called future nuclear power plant.

Interestingly enough, this so-called nuclear power plant has no transmission lines or power lines running up to it, or anywhere else nearby. That doesn't really look like a newer nuclear power plant, it looks like a nuclear weapons manufacturing facility, for enriching uranium, and building weapons system using Chinese rockets as delivery vehicles once completed, defended by Russian military hardware.

Anyone at the IAEA, NATO, in United States military intelligence, in the NSA, in the CIA, or anyone in any intelligence agency of European Union that doesn't see this as a threat, clearly is not looking, or purposely choosing to look away.

In that case I ask one question;

"Why?"

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes in good intelligence at ALL times

Fukushima Is Not Chernobyl

In the wake of the horrific March 11 earthquake and subsequent nuclear power plant accidents in Japan, environmentalists have been chomping at the bit to use this opportunity to relegate nuclear power to the dustbin of history.

The Japanese earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi power plant explosions were a double propaganda victory for greens, because it allowed them to not only bash nuclear power but also blame the earthquake on global warming.

Cameramen captured a dramatic explosion at Fukushima Unit 1 on Saturday that left the top of the reactor building exposed. A similar explosion took place at Unit 3 on Sunday. Mainstream media news outlets have been tossing around the comparison of Fukushima to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant explosion and radiation leakage in 1986.

In fact, Fukushima is nothing like Chernobyl, for the same reason modern-day Japan is nothing like the late Soviet Union. The former is far more technologically advanced and better run, thus capable of anticipating and mitigating the effects of high-tech disasters.

The level of uninformed hysteria over Fukushima recalls the ignorant cries bandied about after 9/11 that terrorists in this country might try to set off a nuclear explosion at a power plant (which is physically impossible).

According to scientists who understand the physics of nuclear power generation, the construction of the Fukushima plants, and the nature of the explosion, there has not and will never be any harmful level of radioactivity released into the environment.

The reactors at Fukushima Daiichi and the neighboring Daini plant were programmed to go into automatic shutdown at the first sign of an earthquake 1/5 the size of the one that happened, which is exactly what they did. The plants were designed to withstand high seismicity zones, due to the prevalence of earthquakes in Japan.

The type of radioactive isotopes that were manually released in a cloud of steam prior to the explosions to help cool the reactors have a half-life of seconds, meaning that by the time they hit the air around the plant they had broken into benign, virtually non-radioactive particles far less dangerous than the radiation you would get from, say, being full body scanned by the TSA. In addition, the prevailing winds have been blowing any minute bits of extant radiation out to sea.

The external shell of the plant whose top was blown off was not a containment device for radiation, which means that the only thing workers will have to worry about from not having a roof is rain failing on their bento boxes.

Japan's nuclear power plants are so advanced, so thoroughly designed to accommodate any level of unexpected disturbance, so replete with backup capacities to compensate for one failed system after another, that there were several layers of components that could have failed but didn't-and the plants' security measures still would have prevented a catastrophe.

Japanese authorities evacuated residents within a two-kilometer radius, then three kilometers, then 10, then 20, all well before the manual release of radiation and explosions.

On the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) scale, which ranges from 0 (deviation) to 7 (major accident), authorities rated Fukushima only a 4 or "accident with local consequences"-which puts me in mind of the driver who overturned a World Wide Tours bus on a Bronx freeway last weekend and killed 14 people. (No, wait-that's far more people than were killed at Fukushima. The Bronx accident was much worse.)

The Fukushima accidents have more in common with the Three Mile Island non-disaster of 1979, which liberals used to cripple nuclear power production for the next three decades, than it does with Chernobyl. Three Mile Island was rated a 5 on the INES scale; Chernobyl was a 7.

In the case of Chernobyl, the problem was not the existence of a competently run nuclear power plant, but the ineptitude and dishonesty of the Soviet system, which prefigured the plant's sloppy design and incompetent management, and the cover-up that delayed damage containment. In addition, the type of severe explosion that happened at Chernobyl did not happen at Fukushima.

In contrast to the frantic, appalled coverage of lethal floods, fires, and chaos resulting from the earthquake and its aftershocks, there is no evidence of a hair being harmed on the head of a single Japanese person not working in the plants.

The expected death toll from earthquake-related damage is 10,000. The expected death toll from radioactivity released from Fukushima is 0.

About a dozen workers were injured by the explosions at Fukushima Units 1 and 3; one died indirectly as a result of a crane accident. But hundreds of thousands of workers worldwide are injured by explosions, malfunctioning machinery, and construction accidents every year, in all kinds of industries from building to drilling to mining. There is nothing uniquely monstrous about a pair of nuclear power plants wounding a handful of unfortunate workers in a rare incident.

Far more people have died in Japan as a result of the earthquake's causing buildings to collapse, bridges to crumble, and tsunami waves to wipe out beachside resorts. Should we ban buildings, bridges, and beachside resorts?

Nuclear power remains-notwithstanding poorly designed and managed plants like Chernobyl-the safest, cleanest, most efficient method of power production mankind has ever devised. Fukushima does not change that fact.

http://www.scottspiegel.com

Is Nuclear Power Safe?

This is the first time in our history, that villagers are opposing the construction of a Nuclear Power Plant. Most States are demanding such plants, considering power supply, employment opportunities etc. thinking that it is pollution free.

The reality is that it converts the whole area, into a danger zone, inviting an accident like the one at Chernobyl in Russia. The Russians could control the spread of radiation, by spreading soil, brought from various parts, transported in planes, as the whole nation rose as one man. All European countries admired the management of a disaster of such magnitude.

Can we do it?

The negative factors are:

Such projects are very costly and the real cost is hidden, because of the fact that, intense supervision by BARC Scientists, is ignored in cost calculations.

Still, no one knows how to dismantle a plant. The cost of dismantling should also be taken into account, in calculating the cost. This cost is enormous.

Disposal of spent fuel, which is highly radioactive, is also very difficult. An accident of the special train carrying it can be disastrous.

A newly constructed Atomic Power Plant was abandoned in Switzerland, after the people voted in favour of this idea, after the Chernobyl accident.

The villagers are opposing the acquisition of land for the Project, because they fear that the environment will be spoilt forever. Their fears are legitimate and we all should join the struggle against the plant.

It is necessary to create awareness about the dangers to life and environment posed by nuclear power plants

U.S. Utilities "Stealth" Nuclear Revival

The news media love headlines, especially those which mention that no nuclear reactor has come online in more than a decade. How would journalists (and environmentalists) react if they discovered U.S. nuclear utilities have added the 'nuclear power' equivalent to four large reactors? A fifth or more could be on the way.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) website, "With projected increases in electricity demand, construction of new nuclear power plants or the re-activation of shutdown reactors is drawing public and media attention. Both of these options, however, would take place in the future-if at all. A third option that is already taking place has generated less publicity: uprating existing units to generate more power. Although the uprates are usually less than 10 percent, they are quite significant. If all of the proposals are implemented, nuclear capacity would increase by more than the construction of any new reactor design now under consideration."

Surprise, there is a nuclear renaissance. New nuclear capacity has been growing in the United States for the last quarter century. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory (NRC) website, "Utilities have been using power uprates since the 1970s as a way to increase the power output of their nuclear plants. As of July 2004, the NRC has completed 101 such reviews resulting in a gain of approximately 12,548 MWt (megawatts thermal) or 4,183 MWe (megawatts electric) at existing plants. Collectively, an equivalent of about four nuclear power plant units has been gained through implementation of power uprates at existing plants."

To put this into perspective, if one separated the power 'uprates.' of more than 5100 MWe, from total U.S. nuclear capacity and counted this capacity as 'its own country,' the uprates alone would become the world's 14th largest nuclear electricity producer! As of January 2007, the U.S. uprates, past and proposed, would generate more electricity than nuclear reactors in Brazil, Mexico and Argentina combined; nearly as much nuclear-generated as India and South Africa combined; more nuclear-generated electricity than Finland, Switzerland, Slovakia, or the Czech Republic.

The power uprates have created a 'stealth' nuclear renaissance in the United States. Flying under the radar screen, the increased nuclear capacity is something environmentalists have paid attention to, but not made serious effort to roadblock. Tiny capacity increases, adding up over a period of years, don't make headlines. But, as you can see, it adds to additional U3O8, conversion, enrichment and conversion consumption.

With all the hoopla of new nuclear reactors proposed for construction in China, India, Russia and elsewhere, 'new' capacity requiring more uranium has been a continuous effort, right here in the United States. Some of the up-and-coming uprates, in percentage terms, are quite substantial.

These are the power uprates currently being reviewed by the NRC. Six of the reactors plan to have completed their uprate procedure within the next twelve months. Another three remain in the 'to be determined' category. The nine uprates with 1002 MWe capacity represent slightly more than the average capacity of the 103 nuclear reactors currently operating in the United States - averaging 955 MWe.

Further, the NRC reports licensees plan to submit 18 power uprate applications over the next five years. At a 2005 World Nuclear Symposium, one utility spokesman forecast another 2600 MWe would be generated by 2010 as a result of power uprates. This additional growth could represent slightly less than the combined nuclear reactor capacities of Hungary, Pakistan and the Netherlands. Potentially, this would be tantamount the construction of 5 new 1,000 MWe reactors - since the uprate process began, or the same number of nuclear reactors in Switzerland or Slovakia.

About 105 power uprates were completed between 1977 and 2006. Most uprates increased capacity by less than two percent, but more than 30 reactors increased capacity by 5 to 15 percent through the uprate process. Exelon Corp (NYSE: EXC) increased capacity at the Clinton reactor by 20 percent in 2002.

There are three types of power uprates. The Stretch Power Uprate (SPU) requires no hardware changes, but can increase thermal power by 7 percent through analysis of the plant's existing safety margins. Improving the feed water flow measurements generally nets a thermal power uprate of about 1.5 percent. This is called a 'Measurement Uncertainty Recapture' (MUR) power uprate. The NRC approved the first MUR uprate in 1999. More than 30 MUR uprates have been approved, adding an additional 500 MWe capacity.

The most significant in adding power to a nuclear plant is the Extended Power Uprate (EPU). Since 1998, the NRC has approved 13 EPU uprates, adding more than 1500 MWe to the U.S. nuclear capacity - the equivalent of 1.5 nuclear reactors. This would be same power generated by two small natural gas combined cycle plants, a small hydroelectric facility or a 150 MWe wind farm. EPU uprates require major modifications which often include the replacement or modification of the turbine-generator, reactor pressure vessel internals, controls and instrumentation. Generally, the EPU process has involved replacing old turbines with more efficient new ones, but it can also involve other changes. Some industry experts believe the EPU uprate and other efficiencies could add up to 20 percent more capacity to a nuclear reactor.

Uprates are neither a new development nor limited to the United States. In May 2006, Nucleonics Week reported KHNP had applied to upgrade four reactors in South Korea. In the late 1990s, one Swiss reactor was uprated by 12 percent and a Finnish reactor was uprated by 15 percent. Spain has been aggressive in its uprate programs. The country has added 11 percent to its nuclear capacity by uprating its reactors by as much as 13 percent. One reactor's capacity was upgraded by 5 percent for $50 million. Another reactor is operating at 112 percent of its original capacity.

Because licensing has been an uphill fight in many developed nations, many nuclear utilities have circumvented the process through uprates. In many cases, this extends the plant life and avoids the decommissioning process. Prime candidates for additional uprates include Exelon (EXC), Entergy (ETR) and FPL (FPL), among others.

What impact on U.S. electricity generation takes place by adding more than 5,000 MWe capacity through power uprates? Quietly and under the radar screen the uprate process saves the United States the annual equivalent of 68 million barrels of oil, 17 million short tons of coal or 329 billion cubic feet of natural gas, while generating nearly 40 billion KWh of electricity - all of the electricity needs for nearly four million people. And that is just through the power uprate process.

Hypothetically, U.S. utilities could add the equivalent of 20 new nuclear reactors by 2020 through the uprate by upgrading the maximum power level of the nation's existing 103 reactors. Under this scenario uranium mining production would have to increase another 20-30 million pounds to accommodate the increased power expansion.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. His focus on the uranium mining and nuclear fuel sector resulted in the widely popular “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market,” which is now available on [http://www.stockinterview.com] and on http://www.amazon.com

Molybdenum - Vital for Nuclear Reactors

Molybdenum plays a more vital role in the global nuclear renaissance than you might suspect. Without the silvery white metal, the world's energy infrastructure would somewhat suffer. But, nuclear power plants would be set back at least two decades. The new high performance stainless steels (HPSS) contain as much as 7.5 percent molybdenum and can add more than three times the life to the world's aging nuclear fleet condenser tubes.

During the early construction of nuclear power plants, steam condensers relied upon copper base alloys - brass and copper nickel - for heat transfer capabilities. These alloys have high coefficients of thermal conductivity required in steam generation to power nuclear reactor turbines. But copper-alloyed tubes were being replaced too quickly - with an average life of eight years - because of sulphide pitting. Hardest hit were those reactors using polluted seawater to cool their reactors.

Over the past 30 years ago, nuclear utilities slowly began turning to the super austenitic stainless steels as one way to make their nuclear reactors last longer. The addition of molybdenum, initially starting with percentage of less than four percent, helped increase the thermal conductivity lacking in nickel, iron or steel. At nuclear stations which replaced the copper alloys with HPSS condenser tubes, 57 percent rated the thermal performance good and all but one rated it normal. Molybdenum had helped overcome the thermal hurdle.

A large number of the 190 nuclear reactors, which now utilize HPSS condenser tubes, reported an average life in excess of 18 years. The longest stainless steel condenser installation has remained in service more than 26 years, according to a study done several years ago. According to a report published in 2000, more than 100 million feet of super-alloy stainless steel tubes have replaced the older, copper-alloy tubing.

Condensers are large heat exchangers used in nuclear power plants. Condensers have thousands of tubes horizontally mounted to condense and recover the steam passing through turbines. Each low-pressure turbine generally has a condenser, which also maintains a vacuum to optimize the turbine's efficiency.

Water fouling deposits were cited as a major problem at many reactors, especially with condenser tubes where seawater or high-chloride brackish water was the coolant. Pitting corrosion, tube sheet crevice corrosion and galvanic corrosion put the tubes at risk for leakage. Plugging, mud, or detritus accumulating in condenser tubes reduce a power plant's efficiency.

Utilities use cleaning systems with small, abrasive sponge-like balls to keep the tubes clean and test for tube defectives with probing devices. Tube thinning and corrosion create the opportunity for tube leakage. This can not be tolerated because chemicals such as sodium and chlorides find their way into the reactor vessel or steam generator.

Upgrading the steam condenser tubing to stainless steel also plays a vital role in the 'power uprate' program utilities have used to increase generating capacity for existing reactors as we recently discussed. The more advanced uprate program could add up to 20-percent capacity to existing U.S. nuclear reactors.

Different Molybdenum Alloys

There are several HPSS manufacturers for nuclear reactor condensers. The most prominent in the nuclear sector include Pennsylvania-based ATI Allegheny Ludlum and Finland's Outokumpu. Each offers austenitic steels with chromium and nickel composition of between 20 and 25 percent for each alloy and a range of 6.2 to 7.5 percent molybdenum.

In a paper presented by Jan Olsson of Avesta Sheffield (before the company was acquired by Outokumpu), he highlighted the results of tests performed on the new super-austenitic stainless steel, 654 SMO®. Metals comprising this brand include 25-percent chromium, 22-percent nickel and 7.5-percent molybdenum. To increase pitting resistance, the manufacturers added up to 0.5-percent nitrogen and three-percent manganese (for make the nitrogen more soluble).

As with all pioneering developments - and remember that R & D breakthroughs have taken place over a two-decade-plus period, manufacturers have re-designed their metallurgical composition to find the most encouraging percentages of nickel, chromium, molybdenum and nitrogen. The earlier stainless steels relied on higher nickel content and lesser percentages of chromium and molybdenum.

At first, conventional austenitic grades, such as 316L, or high chromium-ferritic grades, were utilized. Pitting struck down widespread use of the 316L series and was replaced by higher alloy steels. For example, others, such as the 254 SMO® stainless steel, began aggressively replacing the copper alloy tubes and in some cases the 316L series. The 254 is comprised of 20-percent chromium, 18-percent nickel, 6.2-percent molybdenum and 0.20-percent nitrogen. It has also offered a high level of corrosion resistance at desalination plants without becoming cost-prohibitive.

The most significant breakthrough came after various stainless steels were tested at Scandinavian coastal reactors. In the Avesta paper, the failures of each lesser austenitic grade were checked off. Significant deficiencies included insufficient stress corrosion cracking resistance and resistance to natural seawater. Even titanium tubing was used as an interim measure because it increased total heat transfer by 17 percent, but the metal failed to stand up to high velocity steam and suffered 'water droplet erosion.'

According to the study, "The only alloy fully resistant to all test conditions was 654 SMO®." The results at nuclear power plants in Finland and Sweden, along the Baltic Sea, were astonishing! Four important conclusions about this super alloy were reached after the testing.

o Its corrosion resistance could cope with the hostile environments existing inside condenser tubes of desalination plants and power plants.

o Its corrosion resistance was good enough to cop with many other hostile brine and seawater environments.

o Its erosion resistance was advantageous where it was exposed to high velocity streams.

o There was no concern about its heat transfer characteristics.

Nuclear Consumption of Molybdenum

About 48 nuclear reactors are reportedly scheduled for construction by 2013. It may be possible that up to 100 could be constructed by 2020, depending upon political and financial climates. The largest number proceeding through the proposed, planned or construction phases will be located along coastal areas to service the most populated areas. The greatest numbers of new constructions are expected from China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and Japan (and possibly the United States).

Existing reactors along coastal areas in Asian countries presently breaks down as follows: Japan (57), South Korea (26), China and Taiwan (19) and India (11). Because these are the most prone to seawater or brackish corrosion, they are also the likely candidates for upgrading existing condenser tubing to high alloy stainless steel. And their new reactors are likely going to be constructed along their coasts, requiring the super austenitic grades. As an aside, of the previously mentioned 190 nuclear power plants which had replaced their condensers with HPSS, 45 percent used fresh water as coolant. Those plants chose the high alloy steel as a 'fail-safe' measure to prevent interrupted service or a potential reactor incident.

The United Nations estimates that two-thirds of the planet's population will be living with water stress by 2025. Global freshwater scarcity may demand the use of brackish or seawater as nuclear reactor coolant. To prevent the accompanying corrosion, the higher-percentage molybdenum alloy, specifically the 654 SMO®, could emerge as the condenser tubing material of choice. Either the 254 SMO® or the 654 would be utilized in desalination plants required to overcome water shortages in the hardest hit areas: North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia.

Typically, nuclear power plant condenser tubing requires approximately 520,000 feet of stainless steel. According to the International Molybdenum Association (IMOA), larger reactors could utilize up to one million feet of stainless steel. With the higher molybdenum grades found in the super alloys, new nuclear reactors could require tens of thousands of metric tons of molybdenum.

By comparison, nuclear waste containers proposed for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository were forecast to consume about 15,000 metric tons of moly. While this project may or may not proceed as planned to the construction phase, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has proposed regionalized storage of spent fuel.

Should comparably designed storage canisters be utilized to 'temporarily' contain the nuclear waste, it is likely molybdenum will play a key role. According to the U.S. Government's Energy Citation Database, as published by the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information, "Alloys with combined chromium plus molybdenum contents greater than 30 percent were the most resistant to general and local attack." This was the conclusion reached after corrosion scouring tests were performed on stainless steel and nickel-based alloys to immobilize high-level, radioactive waste.

Another aspect where high-percentage molybdenum stainless steel would double up is with the expansion of nuclear desalination plants. In the past, and in our publication, "Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market," we have discussed the rise of nuclear desalination across those coastal areas, requiring far more freshwater than can possibly be transported through other means. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) has reported of numerous such desalination projects in progress.

Will The Energy Bull Have Sufficient Moly?

From nearly every energy project - oil, gas, coal and nuclear, and for water, molybdenum demand will continue increasing. Super austenitic grades demand a higher moly content to combat corrosion and provide reliability of service. Of course, there will be substitution in the face of future supply shortfalls. In some instances, there are reports the Russians have substituted vanadium for molybdenum in some of their oil and gas pipelines to conserve on moly consumption. ATI Allegheny Ludlum has argued for the substitution of two-percent manganese for every percent of nickel, but in the lower grade austenitic groups which do not demand the corrosion resistance of energy projects.
While reviewing the anticipated new projects from the molybdenum mining sector, we foresee the high probability of supply inadequacy. Aside from China Moly's Sandaozhuang molybdenum mine, which the company hopes could produce 28,000 tonnes of molybdenum concentrate this year and perhaps grow by another 17 percent the following year, there is a paucity of new molybdenum projects coming fully online before 2009.

Based upon China's voracious appetite for molybdenum - one research firm estimated compounded annual growth rate over the previous five years at 17 percent, whatever excess moly production comes from China Moly's mining efforts could very well be domestically consumed.

Future North American molybdenum producers may need to ramp up their projects to meet the growing demand. During 2006, demand grew above the historical norm of four percent; most of the consumption came from China. This is unlikely to stagnate or decrease, and could interfere with North American and European consumption of molybdenum.

Only one company is scheduled to commence molybdenum mining in 2007, Roca Mines. Because the company is limited to a small-mining permit, anticipated production could not exceed three million pounds. By late 2008, or early 2009, Adanac Molybdenum hopes to commence its start-up efforts to reach eight-figure moly production. Later, Blue Pearl Mining hopes to commence high-grade molybdenum mining at the Davidson deposit in British Columbia. Around this time, the Climax molybdenum mine could re-open and begin production in Colorado. Moly Mines hopes to begin production at the company's Spinifex project. Possibly, before the decade ends, Idaho General might commence operations in Nevada. Perhaps before those 48 nuclear reactors come online, US Energy's Mt. Emmons deposit may be mined in Colorado.

Many of these projects are subject to environmental permitting and/or financing, putting any material amount of forecasted supply in jeopardy. And this comes at a time when some experts believe byproduct molybdenum production at copper mines could be constrained. There are many conditional requirements which do not necessarily guarantee a reliable supply from the new breed of primary moly producers. We have witnessed comparable obstacles in the uranium sector, which has since been accompanied by a hyperbolic price rally in this metal.

There could come a point in the molybdenum sector where the silvery white metal could mimic such a breakout scenario. Nearly three years ago, StockInterview.com featured a forecast of US$100/pound uranium. No one believed that prediction at the time. On Friday, TradeTech announced a spot price of US$113/pound.

Understanding Energy - What Is Nuclear Power?

Nuclear power is one of the most discussed sources of energy nowadays. Nuclear energy is produced by nuclear fission or nuclear fusion of radioactive elements such as uranium. The process of nuclear energy production is free from carbon emission. So for this reason it is considered as an environment friendly energy source.

Nuclear energy is produced by certain chemical reactions. These reactions produce a huge amount of energy that is then converted to other forms of energy depending upon its required application. The reaction generally used to produce nuclear energy is nuclear fission. The fission reaction takes place within the nuclear reactor. Here the nucleus of the uranium atom is hit by some foreign neutron.

This causes the nucleus to break down into many small pieces and to release some free neutrons from it. The released neutrons hit the other uranium atoms and they break down. Thus a chain reaction takes place and huge amount of energy is released in the form of heat. This energy is then converted to other suitable forms if needed.

Nuclear energy is quite popular nowadays, notwithstanding tragic accidents which have occurred at nuclear power plants in the past. The most common source of energy today, however, is derived from fossil fuels. Due to the excessive use of these fossil fuels, it is predicted that their reserves will soon be exhausted.

So a new source of energy is needed badly to meet the needs of the current age. Beside this, there are also environmental concerns with the continued use of fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuel releases carbon emissions into the air, which is harmful to the environment.

Many scientists believe this is increasing the temperature of the atmosphere of the whole world, as a result of what they call the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric pollutions produced from burning fossil fuels is also directly harmful to people and animals, having many adverse health consequences. Nuclear energy is free from emitting carbon products, so in this way it is friendly to the environment.

A nuclear power plant needs less substrate than the fossil fuel using power plant. So it has less fuel consumption too. The subject of the nuclear reaction is very sensitive, however, because the processed uranium can be used to produce the nuclear weapons and the nuclear waste is very harmful to the environment.

So, caution should be exercised when handling these materials. A nuclear power plant is also a sensitive place. Radiation leaks can occur anytime if there any kind of fault in the reactor, creating a hazardous situation for a potentially large geographical area.

Nuclear energy needs lot of technological support for production. Nations with the less technological advancement are unlikely to have the facilities and support to safely implement nuclear energy plants. Only a few countries in the world have already implemented nuclear power as a means of electricity generation.

World politics also presents an obstacle to the wide use of the nuclear power, as the supply of radioactive materials necessary to achieve the requisite reactions is subject to many restrictions.

So while from some angles it may seem that nuclear energy generation could be a perfect solution to the exhaustion of fossil fuels, there are quite a few objections to its immediate widespread usage.

For more Free Fuel & Energy Information download Charles' Free Fuel & Energy Information Series at http://www.free-fuel-energy-info.com and join thousands of other people discovering and utilising free and alternative energy sources!

For other free information on a variety of issues please visit www.free-info-site.com

Nuclear Power for Australia?

Australia has one of the worlds largest supplies of Uranium. It is therefore ironic that Australia has not taken advantage of this resource to produce power. Australia only has one nuclear reactor and this is mainly for scientific use/research not the production of power. This is because Australia also has huge cheaply access coal reserves. Australia therefore has numerous coal plants for the production of power, the majority of power production coming from this source. Being a dry continent currently in the grip of a record drought the options for hydro power is limited and largely already exploited.

The problem with being so reliant on coal is the amount of CO2 and other gases produced that are contributing to global warming. Australia which continues to has a growing economy and population has increasing power demands like most of the world. Australia which has not sign the Kyoto agreement (rightly so as Kyoto is a mere band aid measure and will not seriously change our environmental problems).

Thus the Australian prime minister, John Howard, is pushing Australians to consider the nuclear option to meet future power needs as nuclear power plants don't emit CO2 or other greenhouse gases. However there are a number of problems with this option.

Firstly nuclear power is more expensive power. Australians already complain about the size of their power bills (an average family in Brisbane spends about $500-$800 a quarter or over $2000 a year). This is particularly felt most by those who rely on air conditioning to counter Australia's hot climate. They are not willing to accept more expensive options.

Secondly although there are thousands of nuclear power plants operating without incident and although it happened on the other side of the world Australians are well aware of the Chernobyl disaster and the shocking consequences that continue to be felt. Australia although a large continent is essentially like a giant island with a belt of green extending only a few hundred kilometers inland from the sea with the rest being in a vast desert or near desert condition for much of the time. Australia couldn't afford to have any section of this 'green' band destroyed or a no go zone, such a result would have a greater impact in event of a disaster than in other 'normal' countries. It has already been made clear for nuclear power to be a option is must be near a water source and near to power users to cut down on transmission costs.

The vast majority of Australian would have the view of "not in my back yard". Whilst most wouldn't care if a power plant in the middle of the desert a couple of thousand of kilometers away, the lack of water and transmission costs for make this an unrealistic option. With a power plant in their back yard there is the higher risk of radiation from the transport of nuclear waste to a holding facility (likely to be somewhere in the outback). Although Australian could easily have a nucealr waste facility with no threat to people due to extreme isolation and geological stablity in the outback, the problem lies in transporting the stuff there. Road and Rail transport are both subject to regular accidents. A heavy vehicle carrying waste could result in a mini-chernobyl with nuclear waste entering the environment from such an accident possibly endangering a large area and having long term consequences.

Such waste from a nuclear power plant would also give Australia the potential to immediately make nuclear weapons in a very short space of time. Australia is already recognised has having the technological know how to produce the require missle and warhead technology. Such an outcome would be very worrying for our neighbours and lessen our argument against nations such as North Korea having nuclear weapons.

Likewise such nuclear power plants would be a magnet for terrorists and the like.

The final nail in the coffin for the prime ministers idea is that the states have made it clear they have no interest in nuclear power. Such a battle over energy would be over the very survival of states and their rights. If the states lost such a battle the point of having individual state parliments would be mute, they would be useless overhangs from federation with the Federal government in fact taking over all government in Australia should such an eventually occur. Some would argue this process of the destruction of the state government is already well underway, with the federal government grabbing ever more power, but further on this is for another article.

Whilst nuclear power presents a vison of greenhouse gase free energy production it doesn't present a realistic future for Australia. Australia has other options to explore, both wind and solar, possibly geothermal and even the real future for a cleaner world - H2 - Hydrogen power. Perhaps putting research and money into this field will produce better and more politically acceptable results.

You are welcome to submit politic articles to ezine@rticles and other great article directories like [http://www.article-gems.com]

This article is the property of Alastair HARRIS and his immediate family. It may be freely republished over the internet but must include original links.

Alastair HARRIS is the main promoter for article-gems.com article directory (visit [http://www.article-gems.com]) and the getfinancialfreedom4u family of websites, blogs and projects (visit http://getfinancialfreedom4u.ws) specializing in online business opportunities and education, income being generated by affiliate marketing, google, GDI, eBay, clip flipping and more. Alastair is rated as an expert author on numerous article directories and is very open to assisting others on the internet

How Nuclear Power Creates Energy

While most people may not realize it, a significant amount (nearly 17%) of the electricity produced for the world's needs is generated by nuclear power. In some countries, the majority of the electricity comes from nuclear energy. The promise of a low-cost alternative to fossil fuels is attractive. And while are current reserves of fossil fuels are becoming exhausted, uranium (necessary for nuclear fission) is plentiful.

Creating electricity from nuclear energy is not without inherent risks, of course. But, managing those risks is possible and provides an opportunity to leverage a sustainable energy source. In this article, you'll learn how nuclear energy is converted into electricity. You'll also discover what's inside a typical nuclear power plant.

Basics Of Conversion

In order to transform nuclear energy into electricity, atoms must be split. This process is known as nuclear fission. A Uranium-235 nucleus is split by a neutron. This event results in 2 new atoms and multiple free neutrons. When the atom splits, heat is produced. The heat is then used to create steam which powers turbines. The turbines operate generators which produce and help distribute electricity. The process of nuclear fission continues as atoms are split by isolated neutrons.

How The Components Of A Nuclear Power Plant Work

There are several critical pieces of a nuclear power plant. Each component plays an important role not only in the production of electricity, but also to help regulate the integrity of the process. Enriched uranium is collected into bundles that are immersed in water. Control rods are used to normalize the heat of the bundles. Housed within a containment structure, the heat turns water into steam.

The steam that is generated from the heat in the containment structure is transferred through a steam line into a turbine. This turbine includes a cooling water condensor that helps normalize the power provided to the generator. The condensor is also connected to a cooling tower that aids the normalization process. Upon receiving power from the turbine, the generator begins spinning to produce electricity.

Potential Drawbacks And Hazards

Typically, nuclear power plants are built cleanly by design. This allows efficient and environmentally friendly power generation. In fact, nuclear facilities emit significantly less radioactivity, carbon and sulfur than conventional coal plants. That being said, nuclear plants have a few disadvantages.

First, using uranium is not a clean process. Mining, purification and nuclear fission produces substantial toxic waste. This waste remains toxic for centuries so extreme care must be used in its disposal. Second, nuclear power is not a renewable energy source. That is, once the world's supply of uranium is depleted, it cannot be replenished. Third, a poorly-designed nuclear facility imposes extreme risk to the environment and the people who live within close proximity to it.

In recent years, there has been increased interest in using nuclear energy to generate electricity. Production of power plants slowed after the Chernobyl catastrophe. However, experts in nuclear power realize that the Chernobyl accident occurred largely because of poor design of the facility. Though risks exist, they can be managed. The motivation to find an alternative energy source has never been greater. As a result, new nuclear facilities will likely be erected in the near future.

Power Systems & Controls is the industry standard for Uninterruptible Power Supply and Frequency Converters

Nuclear Energy in South Africa

In the past countries went coal as it was the only option, but in the future it will be about finding the 'right mix' of energy producers. Guenon's solution is to include nuclear power in that mix.

The argument was a fair one - nuclear does have financial benefits to it. The cost might be a bit hefty in the beginning; but most (if not all) energy providers are. The one thing about nuclear is that the price of energy thereafter doesn't change. What you pay today for your electricity will stay that way for the next 50 - 60 years.

In his presentation he included a diagram that showed nuclear was the least in greenhouse gases. Europe doesn't have many options for energy development but here in South Africa, where we are blessed with sun and the south-easter wind, we have a variety. Even though we can include renewable in our mix, Guenon showed that solar costs 10 times more than coal and wind was four times more.

Guenon's main purpose of his presentation was also the job development and therefore economy improvement, that comes from nuclear power. As nuclear involvers building an entire plant consisting of a variety of technologies and includes a variety of industries there is huge potential in employment and expansion in industries. Other energy producers, such as solar or wind, involve a slice of professions and specific exclusive industries. Nuclear touches on engineers, technicians, welders, management and a wide variety of workers.

When asked about the chances of an accident, Guenon simple answer was "about the same chance of a meteorite landing in your lounge."

It creates abundant energy at a fraction of the price, while creating job opportunities and improving the economy; all of this and to top it off - no coal. On the outside it seems to provide the answer to all our problems. So what's the catch?

"Dr Guenon!"
A hand shot up in the audience.

"What about waste?"

While only a small percentage of employees at a nuclear power plant are nuclear physics, the fact is that it is still a nuclear power plant. So while on the outside it looks like a wonderful idea, the real question is what is going on in the inside.

Guenon that in France they have chosen to repossess the fuel, reduce the toxicity level as much a possible by running it through a chemical process (twice) and then putting it into a storage container which can hold it up to 300 years.

The concept is that the technology currently is only a few decades old. Hopefully in a few more decades, or longer, research and technology improvements will find a solution to how to completely deal with the built up waste.

It wasn't mentioned if that was the case for the proposal in South Africa, nor was it mentioned what would happen if the container had a leak.

If nuclear believe that if countries invested in their product, they would be able to solve waste issue, then surely if countries invested in wind, solar and water energies then improvements would be made in those technologies to solve issues such as cost and consistency.

Here in South Africa there is another side to the plant. One proposed site for building the nuclear plant is only a few kilometres outside Cape Town in Bantamsklip

Location, location, location
Bantamsklip is within 50km of one of Cape Town's biggest 'holiday' towns; Hermanus. Known for its unspoilt natural beauty, the area is the biodiversity core area of the Cape Floral Kingdom and is one of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The proposed site contains 800 plant species and 22 red data species, 6 of which grow no where else in the world.

The nuclear power plant will be right by Agulhas National Park, and on the edge of a threatened marine ecosystem. Due to the beauty of the area, it is a high tourist attraction.

In another article [Age of Stupid] a woman from the U.K. refused to have wind plants built on her neighbours farm as it 'spoilt the view,' which frustrated a lot of the environmentalists in the audience, as if we don't start investing in renewable energy there won't be much of a view to enjoy.

In this case, however, 'spoiling the view' with a nuclear power plant doesn't only mean damaging the tourism in the area, but also threatening protected species like Blue Cranes, due to the overhead power line collisions; also threatening the marine sanctuaries of the Southern Right Whales and Great White Sharks.

According to Barry Clark who did a review of the Marine Impact Study for the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] for the proposed nuclear power station; continuous low level dosing with chlorine is proposed as a means of reducing biofouling on the seawater intake pipes. Clark questions "the impacts of this are dismissed as being 'very localised and are considered unlikely to have a significant negative impact on the receiving environment' the source of which is the previous EIA for the Koeberg Power Station.

A dosing level of 2mg/kg is cited in the introductory sections of the report. Is this the same as or less than that used for the Koeberg Plant? If not this statement has no validity whatsoever. No information is provided on the toxicity of chlorine to marine biota and the breakdown rates of chlorine in the environment. The reason it is used as an antifouling agent is because it is toxic to marine organisms."

Prof Richard Cowling from the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University writes in his 'statement of concern: nuclear facility at Bantamsklip' "Locating a nuclear facility anywhere on the Agulhas Plain coastline, but especially at Bantamsklip-Hagelkraal is a preposterously silly idea... Keeping Bantamsklip as a site for nuclear facility in this 'Year of Biodiversity' is a damning indictment of a country that has signed numerous conventions pledging concerns about nature and the service it renders for South Africans."

Celeste is the director for South African Biodiveristy Media which is media company focusing on biodiversity and the

Nuclear