Nuclear Ithaca, Schemes and Mind Maps of Nuclear Physics

Download Nuclear Ithaca and more Schemes and Mind Maps Nuclear Physics in PDF only on Docsity!

Nuclear Ithaca

L A W R E N C E B R A Z I N · C A R L G R E I N E R · V I V I A N L I NS A R A H S T O D T E R · J E F F E R S O N W U · Y U S H I Z H A O

What is Nuclear Power?

Nuclear Cycle

y

Concerns

i

i

y

Water Contamination

y

Fuel DisposalI

Ri k

y

I

nvestment Risks

y

Security, PoliticalI

y

I

n our case

Fuel Disposal

p

y

Low Level Waste (LLW) {

LLW includes items that have

{

LLW includes items that have become contaminated withradioactive material or havebecome radioactive throughexposure to neutron radiationexposure to neutron radiation.

{

Current LLW repositories^ Ù

Barnwell, South Carolina

Ù

Richland, Washington

g

Ù

Clive, Utah

y

High Level Waste (HLW) {

Spent reactor fuel

{

Spent reactor fuel

{

Waste materials remaining

after spent fuel is reprocessed

y

Storage and Transportation

Security

y

y

Domestic Safeguards {

Physical Protection

{

Physical Protection^ Ù

Nuclear Facilities

Ù

In transit

{

Material Control (Special Nuclear Materials)

{

Material Control (Special Nuclear Materials)^ Ù

Strategic SNM

Ù

SNM of moderate strategic significance

Ù

SNM of low strategic significance

y

Information Safety {

Classified Information

N ti

l S

it

I f

ti

(NSI)

Ù

N

ational Security Information (NSI)

Ù

Restricted Data (RD)

{

Safeguards Information (SGI)

{

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information

{

Sensitive Unclassified Non Safeguards Information(SUNSI)

Community Response

1968 Proposed Sites

http://www.ithacahours.com/archive/ithacapower/8812.html

Bell Station

1968 – Bell Station

In April 1969 a controversy over 'thermal pollution' postponedIn April 1969 a controversy over thermal pollution postponedconstruction of a proposed Nuclear Plant at Bell Station.

Public Concern

By 1973, public concern had shifted awayfrom thermal pollution and waste heatfrom thermal pollution and waste heatissues.“As

experience

with

the

operation

of

p

p

fission reactors accumulates, more andmore

evidence

of

unreliability,

malfunctioning, and unpredictability ofthe technology are appearing ”the technology are appearing.

(CCSCL, Newletter, April 1973)

NYSEG Letters

Opposing

Bell

Station: •

45%

reactor safety and nuclear

NYSEG Letters

Favoring

Bell

Station: •

18%

need for more power

45% – reactor safety and nuclear waste •

20% – lake ecology

9% – preserving lake for recreation

18% - need for more power

10% - confidence in federal, state and corporate responsibility forsafety

5% – conserving power

21% – did not elaborate

9% - confidence in NUS report

50% - did not specify

Ithaca Journal

Opposing

Bell Station

(of 98):

Ithaca Journal

Favoring

Bell Station

(of 22):

(of 98): •

39 – risks associated w/ nuclear power •

23 – criticized the NYSE&G experts

bj

t d t

NYSE&G

d

(of 22): •

4 – risks trivial compared to benefits

7 – confidence in NUS and NYSE&G decision-making process

d

20 – objected to NYSE&G procedures

21 – called for increased citizen responsibility •

10 – criticized local officials as non-

12 – need more energy sources

1 – impact on local tax base

1 – pollution caused by movie theater industry more widespread than

representative •

5 – criticized federal agencies and licensing procedures •

31 dealt with consumer issues and

y

p

potential pollution by Bell Station •

10 – questioned the representatives of those opposing the plant: “a few collegemen from Cornell keeping the people all

31 dealt with consumer issues and proposed various methods to reduce theuse of electricity

men from Cornell keeping the people allworked up.”

AES Cayuga (formerly NYSEG Milliken) http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3435/3726780187_49d6a683be.jpg

Misconceptions

y

Operators must have aBS in Engineering

We’re all familiar with Homerrunning the plant But

BS in Engineering

y

Require several years of

running the plant

. But…

Require several years ofrelated experience

Misconceptions - Chernobyl

y

Chernobyl did not have acontainment structure like Three Mile Island did {

If it did, disaster would havebeen averted

28

l

di d i

1986

y

28

people died in 1986

from Acute RadiationSyndrome

y

19 more died from 1986-

y

19 more died from 1986-2004 from different causes

y

Estimated that 4,000people may die earlier thanpeople may die earlier thanotherwise expected due tothe increased cancer risk

Misconceptions – Risk Assessment

Nuclear MeltdownNuclear Meltdown

Coal BurningCoal Burning

Nuclear MeltdownNuclear Meltdown

Coal BurningCoal Burning

y

Fuel Meltdown expected

i

f

y

Air pollution from coal

once in 20,000 years ofreactor operation. {

2 out of 3 melt-downs would

l i

d

h

estimated to cause10,000 deaths per year

Th

f

ld

d t

result in no deaths

{

1 out of 5 would result in1000+ deaths

t

f

ltd

{

Th

erefore, would need to

have 25 nuclearmeltdowns PER YEAR for

l

b

{

1 out of 100,000 meltdowns,ther would be 50,000 deaths

{

AVERAGE = 400 deaths permeltdown

nuclear power to be asdangerous as burningcoal!

meltdown