This is a blog where I can write those things that interest me, including but not limited to, Nuclear Power, Climate Change, Engineering, Open Water Swimming and Economics.
75 posts
Latest Posts by jbheffernan - Page 3
WHAT more could one want? It is cheap and simple to extract, ship and burn. It is abundant: proven reserves amount to 109 years of current consumption, reckons BP, a...
This article from The Economist magazine dated April 19th to 25th April suggests that Coal is going to play a large role in providing electrical power for he foreseeable future. This will be especially true in poorer countries. What we need is to make nuclear cheaper than coal.
Yum Yum Helen's made pumpkin pie 😊
WELL begun; half done. That proverbor, rather, its obverseencapsulates the problems which have dogged civil nuclear power since its inception. Atomic energy is...
This article from The economist magazine talks about using Thorium as a Nuclear Fuel instead of Uranium. Thorium has several advantages over Uranium and in the view of the author of this article the most important is the relative resistance to proliferation compared to Uranium. I learned a few things from this article. The things I learned was that the US did build a few bombs out of U233 which is the fissile element formed from the fertile Thorium. I was always a bit unsure as to whether or not any bombs had been built. The article also confirms my prior understanding that U233 makes a poor nuclear bomb material because of the presence of small amounts of other radioactive isotopes that emit hard gamma radiation that messes up the other mechanisms required for a bomb.
Open Water Swimming at RWSABC
I am the Open Water Swimming Convener at the Royal West of Scotland Amateur Swimming Club. The upcoming season will start soon. We have set out the programme for the upcoming year. The programme is shown below:
Social Swims for members of RWSABC
Thursday and Friday evenings every week with water entry around 6:30pm starts Thursday, 17th April ends Friday, 12th September
Swimming generally takes place along the Esplanade but sometimes in certain conditions swimming takes place in the direction of the Battery Park.
“Open” Social Swims for members of the public
Fridays - 23rd May, 6th June, 4th July and 1st August.
Moonlight Swim for members of RWSABC
Saturday, 12 July at 10:00pm - Dependent on weather and cloud conditions
The Cross Clyde Swim
From Kilcreggan to The Esplanade, Greenock the distance is about 3km
Saturday, 16 August - This swim is dependent on conditions and the event may be rerouted or cancelled in case of poor conditions. There are strict criteria for entering this event.
You can find more by contacting me at openwaterswimming@rwsabc.com
Happy swimming!
Open Water Swimming along The Esplanade, Greenock - 7 January 2014
Happy New Year!
This is my first Blog of the year. I am working at home today to try to get some marking done. I have done a reasonable job but there is still lots of marking to do.
Seeing as I was at home I decided to go for an Open Water Swim in The Clyde. As normal I swam from the Royal West of Scotland Amateur Boat Club (RWSABC).
The last time I was in was in December. Today's weather was fairly mild with with the temperature around 9 degree C. It was overcast with lite winds.
I went in around 15:45 and stayed in 15 minutes. High tide today was at 16:41 so the water was well in. I much prefer to be swimming around high tide if possible. The main reason is probably that you are walking over sand to get in the water. Going in at a low tide means that you are walking over cobbles and larger stones to get in the water. I am guessing I swam about 400m. I never did put my face in and mostly swam side stroke. After coming out I went into the boat club a took a nice hot shower. I was still a bit shivery after the shower.
Having said that I am still on a bit of high from the swim. It was great.
I didn't take a picture today but here is one from early December when the conditions were much the same as today.
I have spoken to a few people who tell me stories about people they know who made it a habit to swim in The Clyde every day. I certainly believe them now. Today's swim means that I have had at least one swim in The Clyde every month since April 2013. I expect that to continue. I would like to get in once per week but I'm not sure if my schedule will allow this.
Happy swimming!
Reflections on Scottish Independence as set out in "A Green Yes"
On September 18, 2014 Scotland will vote whether or not to become an Independent Country. Currently I am reading the White Paper issued by the Government of Scotland titled "Scotland's Future". I am about 45% of the way through it and expect to reflect on it once I have finished it. Currently I am undecided as to how I will vote. That is why I am reading "Scotland's Future".
The Scottish Green Party supports Independence and they have issued a document which sets out their main reasons for supporting Independence. This blog is to reflect on this document.
Extracts from "A Green Yes" that I like:
Whichever way Scotland votes, the referendum will leave some people celebrating, and others deeply dismayed. It’s vital that celebration does not turn into divisive triumphalism. The result will be far more readily accepted by the losing side if the winners act with respect and a constructive spirit; that will be as difficult for some as losing would be. (page 4)
Oil and Gas
Some still make the case for a Yes vote with tired old slogans about “Scotland’s oil”. Even if there was no environmental consequence from burning fossil fuels, Scotland’s remaining reserves would only offer an economic future for a few more decades. Greens want an independent Scotland to be successful far longer than that!
But the hard truth, for all fossil fuel nations, is that we can’t even afford to burn what we have. The world has far more fossil fuel in existing reserves than can safely be used, if we’re remotely serious about preserving a liveable environment. So as well as opposing new extraction from deep-water oil drilling, opencast coal, and unconventional gas technology such as fracking, we need to leave a great deal of our oil and gas in the ground, or support a more diverse range of petrochemical uses which don’t involve greenhouse gas emissions.
Scotland has the skills to do that, and with the usable portion of oil and gas funding public investment in renewables to replace future revenue, we have the opportunity to make this transition rapidly. The UK will only ever see North Sea oil as a revenue source; Scotland could see it as a springboard, taking us from reliance on polluting and finite energy sources to the cleantech of the future. (page 6)
The document "A Green Yes" has the following section titles:
A Green Yes
Could Westminster Deliver?
Will Holyrood Deliver?
Transition
Developing a Constitution
Parliament and Democracy
Currency
Ending the 'Tyranny of Big'
Oil & Gas
Welfare
Closing the Wealth Gap
Peace & Security
Employment
Immigration/Asylum
The document is quite short, only 8 pages long. From reading this document the main points that I take away are:
They remind us that the White Paper sets out the current Government of Scotland's view on what should happen post independence but that post independence these policies would need to be decided democratically by whichever parties form a new government. To that end they state, "The development of a written constitution should be led by a new constitutional convention, to be established before the end of 2014, with political parties involved but not in sole charge.
"A Green Yes" suggests that the Government of Scotland should have a "Plan B" with regards to currency because in the longer term they expect Scotland to have it's own currency and as an interim measure having a "Plan B" would improve the negotiating position of the Government of Scotland when discussing a Currency Union with the Rest of the UK.
"A Green Yes" recognises that if every other oil producing nation in the world takes the view that it is their right and duty to produce every barrel of oil then there are significant implications with regards to climate change. Based on the above extract they seem to have a realistic view that Scotland will not shut down the oil wells the day after independence but are suggesting that after this Scotland should be striving to leave the oil in the ground and using what oil is produced as a springboard to "Cleantech of the future". The document is silent on Nuclear Power but I am not optimistic about the ability of the Scottish Green Party to embrace nuclear power.
"A Green Yes" has a strong emphasis on reducing inequality.
"A Green Yes" reminds me that when/if Scotland becomes an Independent Country that the expectations set out in "Scotland's Future" are uncertain. The future is like that. I would expect that some of the things that Government of Scotland wants will not come to pass or will only be achieved with greater than expected cost. Other things will go better than expected. If we want certainty we are in the wrong world.
I am still undecided about which way to vote in the referendum.
You can find "A Green Yes" at:
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/11/Green-Yes-document.pdf
You can find "Scotland's Future" at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348
Geo-engineering with Nuclear Power - Biorock
Geo-engineering to me means man as a species doing something to change the whole world. It is of interest because it has been suggested that perhaps we could use geo-engineering to either mitigate or delay the impacts of climate change caused by our proliferate use of fossil fuels. Proposals range from the simple such as painting all roofs white to reduce the earth's albedo. To the grandiose of deploying large mirrors in space to reduce the the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth.
In this blog I wish to suggest nuclear power be used to undertake geo-engineering. I would like to think the proposal contained in this blog is at the simpler end of the geo-engineering scale. The proposal is to use a nuclear reactor to produce electricity that in turn would power Biorock coral reef growth and restoration. From Wikipedia - "Biorock, also known as Seacrete or Seament, is a trademark name used by Biorock, Inc. to refer to the substance formed by electro-accumulation of minerals dissolved in seawater." The nuclear power plant (NPP) would be the source of the electricity in this process.
In this proposal, a NPP would be located near the coast and provide electricity for the electro-accumulation. The wikipedia article suggests "that one kilowatt hour of electricity will result in the accretion of about 0.4 to 1.5 kg (0.9 to 3.3 lb) of biorock, depending on various parameters such as depth, electrical current, salinity and water temperature." The main components of biorock are mainly calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide, again as provided by the Wikipedia article.
The chemical formula for limestone, a major component of biorock is Calcium Carbonate (CaC03). Therefore one mole of CaCO3 weights (40g + 12g + 3*16g) = 100g. I don't know the typical ratio of calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide in biorock but let me guess it is 50% calcium carbonate and 50% magnesium hydroxide. Assume that 1 kw-hr of electricity will produce 0.4 kg of biorock which converts to 0.2 kg Calcium Carbonate. Therefore each 0.2 kg of Calcium Carbonate contains 24g of Carbon (Chemical symbol "C").
Now assume we build a NuScale SMR which has a nominal output of 45Mw electric with 90% availabilty and typical carbon lifecycle output of 16g CO2 per kw-hr which converts to 4.4g Carbon per kw-hr (4.4g = 16g *12/44). Therefore each kw-hr of electricity can remove 19.6g (24g - 4.4g = 19.6g) of Carbon from seawater. The NuScale reactor produces 45,000 * 0.9 = 40,500 kw electric over the life of the reactor. Therefore each year a NuScale reactor would remove (40,500 * 24 * 365)kw-hr * 19.6 g per kw-hr = around 7,000,000,000 grams or 7 million kg or 7000 tonnes of carbon per year. It is also expected that the new or repaired reefs will sequester further Calcium Carbonate by biologic means as corals reestablish
Is this worth doing? It turns out that according to Tesco the average British person has a carbon footprint of 15 tonnes of CO2 (around 4 tonnes carbon per year). Therefore, 1 NuScale plant will offset the carbon emissions of 1750 people. On this basis this doesn't seem a very sensible idea. That seems to me to be a large effort to offset the emission of 1750 Brits or 0.003% of the population. This shows just how hard it is to remove carbon from the world once we have dumped it by burning fossil fuels.
On the other hand some low lying topical islands might consider this a reasonable idea if it were to make their communities less vulnerable to storm surges or rising sea levels. The NuScale reactor would allow the production of around, 40,500 * 24 * 365 * 0.4 / 1000 = 141,912 tonnes of biorock per year. The typical density of limestone is around 2.5 tonnes per cubic metre. I will assume that biorock has the same density. Therefore, the NuScale reactor would allow around 56,000 cubic metres of biorock to be produced in a year. If the biorock were grown in a strip 100m wide and 1m thick each year around 560m of coastline could be protected.
The above is a very simple calculation with simple assumptions. I recognise that the above has not considered the carbon input required for the metal used to make the initial structure. It is my understanding that the biorock process can continue for many years as the biorock accumulates. There are probably other carbon inputs that I have missed. On the other hand some of the assumptions above are conservative. Two conservative assumptions are the production of biorock per kw-hr and the availability factor of 0.9 for the NuScale reactor. Both numbers could well be larger.
The next time I write about geo-engineering with nuclear power I will look at biochar.
Have a nice day.
Really Tiny Reactors
I would be keen to see really tiny reactors becoming ubiquitous. We need more than the typical 1000 MWe class reactors to help solve the world's energy and climate problems. The problem with this class of Large Reactor is that they cost Billions and take between 4 and 6 years to build.
What if a reactor were the size of a tea kettle and the whole of the reactor, shielding and power production could fit in something the size of a tall refrigerator? These reactors could be rolled out much more quickly at low capital cost and very low fuel costs.
In my opinion the requirements for such a reactor are:
Inherent and passive safety of operation,
At least 5 years before reactor needs to be refueled,
An ability to run unattended,
Production of both electricity and heat as required,
Ability to load follow electricity demand,
Use of either naturally occurring Uranium or Low Enriched Uranium.
I would hope that there would be a range of power outputs from this family of reactors. I would hope that a reactor as small as 3 kW electric could be produced. The size of 3 kW was chosen as that seems to be the typical small petrol generator size.
This size of reactor does exist in the form of research reactors. According to World Nuclear Association web site on research reactors, reactors with heat outputs as low as 0.1 kW thermal exist.
An example of the kind of reactor (although not for the production of electricity) is the SLOWPOKE reactor designed by Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL). There have been different variations of this reactor but the standard one has an output of 20 kW thermal. AECL have done the design for a larger one with an output of between 2 and 10 Mw thermal to be used as a source of district heating. To me this shows that the class of reactors I am interested in is possible from a technical point of view. Of course, like most things associated with Nuclear Power the technical aspects are only a small part of the ability to introduce the technology.
How do you get through all your emails? I don't
Tonight I am feeling a bit down. I was working on my emails at home when I remembered an important email from a student that needed a reply. I first had to find the email which took a few minutes. I then looked out some information. I couldn't find the exact information I needed but I think I found enough to make a reasonable reply.
The student had written to me about resitting an exam in their home University. This is a pretty big deal because of the cost involved in travelling from her home country back to Paisley to take a 2 hour exam. There would probably be some accommodation and meals expenses also. The email I was responding to had come in on the 9th of December and I was replying on the 17th. Unfortunately, the 9th of December was beyond the cut off date for making an application to sit the exam outwith the University. I told her this, gave her some other information and even provided an alternative that might be a better solution. At that point I was thinking I have done as much as I can.
I then went to file her email and guess what I found? I found another email from the same student dated 3 October. I had never even opened this email. It must have gotten buried before I saw it. I am now feeling pretty down because had I picked up the first email the ideal solution could maybe have been implemented.
I do wish that this student had pestered me a bit more. I don't hold it against someone to send a second email if the first hasn't had a response. In addition, I have my phone and mobile numbers at the bottom of my emails. Why don't people pick up the phone or text more?
There isn't much more to say. After I finish writing this I have to go an email the student and say I am sorry but I don't think my words are really enough.
Give Nuclear Power Plants cool names
The list below shows the 16 Nuclear Reactors currently operating in the UK. It was taken from the World Nuclear web site at
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Kingdom/
I would urge those naming Nuclear Power Plants in the future, pick cool names for Nuclear Power Plants instead of simply naming them after a location. Names that come to mind are "Opportunity", "Hope", "Progress", "Our Children's Future", "Reliability" etc. In fact you could have a competition and ask local children to name the plant.
In the Iain M. Banks Science Fiction books there are ships capable of faster than light travel controlled by "Minds". "Minds" are cognitive machine and because they are cognitive they get to name themselves. There names introduce a bit of whimsy into what often is a very serious business. A bit like Nuclear Power, a serious business that would benefit from a lighter and more fun image.
A list of the names of the "Minds" appearing in some of Iain M. Banks novels is available at Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_%28The_Culture%29
I think the favourite name there that could be applied to a good Nuclear Power Plant is "Vision Of Hope Surpassed".
In addition, it might be good to hear an opponent of a Nuclear Power Plant saying something along the lines of "I don't want to see "Our Children's Future" built" or carrying placards the say "No Nukes ! Stop Hope!". Quite often this is what they really are saying but without being explicit.
WHERE WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO VISIT ON YOUR PLANET?
The place I would most like to visit is Patagonia.
First entry into Tumblr
This is my first post in Tumblr. This seems a nice system for writing blogs. I have sort of tried Wordpress but it doesn't lend itself to short posts. I will move the blogs that I have created so far to here. I'm not going to put any tags on this entry. - Note to myself - Only one entry per day. I was following a blog on Tumblr called "Today I learned (TIL)". With a title like that you might expect to learn one new and hopefully important thing per day. No he/she seems to put things out every hour and it completely clogged up things. I got fed up and stopped following the blog.
(33 cities chosen from) more than 1,000 registrations and nearly 400 formal applications from cities around the world. Each city was asked to present a clear and compelling description of how they are approaching and planning for resilience to decrease vulnerabilities, and after careful review of the applications, a panel of esteemed judges, including former presidents Bill Clinton and Olosegun Obasanjo, recommended the first set of 33 cities for the 100 Resilient Cities Network.
It wasn’t easy to choose only 33 – we had so many passionate, vibrant entries. Among the winners: One of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world wrote of the city’s history withstanding shocks for the past eight millennia. One African city wrote of a resilience plan as harmonizing climate change adaptation, biodiversity, planning and management and water security. And a city in South America finds itself dealing with landslides and forest fires, all while sitting in the shadow of a volcano.
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Europe
Bristol (UK) Glasgow (UK) Rome (Italy) Rotterdam (Netherlands) Vejle (DK)
Links to the rest of the cities, here. What’s surprised me most was Oakland, California(!) made the final cut. Also, Bill Clinton and Olosegun Obasanjo were on the panel. Bizarre stuff.
