North Sea Study: Oil, Gas Emit More Radioactivity Than Nuclear

[Dogmudgeon]

From the MARINA II Project on the radiological exposure of the European Community from radioactivity in North European marine waters (2003).

I found it interesting because, once again, perspective can be gained on the relative safety and danger of nuclear material. Although many pro-nuclearists minimize the risk posed by radiation, anti-nuclearists greatly over-estimate it. MARINA II shows where the sources of radiation come from, and how much. There was no hiding; if there had been a major discharge of nuclear material into the North Sea that went unreported, MARINA would have detected it, and woe unto the vile blackguards who sullied Poseidon's brisk northern waters.

For example, it accurately shows the Sellafield leak as a significant accident, yet that Europeans need not worry about Godzilla showing up in a kilt, playing bagpipes, and demanding a wee bit a' haggis. On the other hand, nuclear waste reprocessing still requires some technical improvements before a major era of reactor construction can be undertaken without alarming too many people. I strongly advocate this method of "encapsulating" the nuclear fuel cycle; it would be money well-spent, and since American money is timid and only interested in junk and derivative paper, it will probably be up to the Europeans or Japanese to do the heavy lifting yet again.

Phosphate fertilizer production is also a significant source of radiation via runoff discharge. This surprised me. The implications for nitrogen and nutrient loss are also worth considering.

BTW and FYI: NORM is an acronym for Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material(s).

North Sea Study: Oil, Gas Emit More Radioactivity Than Nuclear

...

Oil and gas operations contributed 35.3% and phosphates, 55.4%. This compared with the contribution to the collective dose rate from discharges of 3.8% from British Nuclear Fuels plc's (BNFL) Sellafield reprocessing complex, 1.7% from Cogema's La Hague facilities, 3.3% from weapons fallout, 0.2% from Chernobyl fallout, and 0.1% from nuclear power stations.

However, the overall impact of the discharges to the EU population can be gauged from the fact that, even at the discharges' peak, the collective dose rate was around a factor of 20 less than the annual collective dose from natural radioactivity in the marine environment. The Marina II results have been circulating within the expert community for some time and have been placed on the Internet and issued as a "Radiation Protection 132 Pre-Publication Copy," but the official report is not expected to be published for another month or so.

NORM is discharged as a result of phosphate fertilizer production, although such discharges have been reduced since the 1990s, and from the extraction of oil and gas from the continental shelf in the North Sea, mainly in the Norwegian and U.K sectors. NORM accumulates as scale inside pipework and valves at offshore oil and gas production platforms. It also gathers as sludge in separator tanks and other vessels. It is discharged in "produced water" and its radionuclides of radium--226 and Ra-228 and Pb-210 (lead) become available in concentrated form for consumption by marine biota.

...

(Format --p)

That excerpt was probably from a press release, but I found it on a pro-nuclearist website. This source is likely to be unacceptable to most anti-nuclearists. However, there is a website for the MARINA II study. The Executive Summary is concise and unusually readable for a scientific report to a governmental organization. The original reports are there, and you can read them in depth, without worrying about spin -- the reports are peer- and voter-representative-reviewed scientific works and therefore free from political bias.

--p!

[Systematic Chaos]

1. K&R in the name of simple common sense.

Funny how people aren't jumping over themselves trying to refute the claims in this thread, no? :D

[Nihil]

2. K & R for two paragraphs in particular:

> Oil and gas operations contributed 35.3% and phosphates, 55.4%. This
> compared with the contribution to the collective dose rate from discharges
> of 3.8% from British Nuclear Fuels plc's (BNFL) Sellafield reprocessing
> complex, 1.7% from Cogema's La Hague facilities, 3.3% from weapons fallout,
> 0.2% from Chernobyl fallout, and 0.1% from nuclear power stations.

> However, the overall impact of the discharges to the EU population can be
> gauged from the fact that, even at the discharges' peak, the collective
> dose rate was around a factor of 20 less than the annual collective dose
> from natural radioactivity in the marine environment.

And, especially for some of our newer readers, this bit is worth repeating
time and time again:
Oil and gas operations contributed 35.3%
phosphates, 55.4%
3.3% from weapons fallout
0.2% from Chernobyl
0.1% from nuclear power stations

In other words, if you are not prepared to eliminate oil, gas and
agricultural phosphates first, you can take your "Chernobyl" fear & terror
bullshit and stick it.

[phildo]

3. Seems like the general concept that they both suck . . .

would be pretty easy place to arrive at.

Wiser folks than me figured out long ago . . .

Between two evils, choose neither.
Between two goods, choose both.


Not much sense in arguing if nukes or carbon (oil, gas, coal) suck more. They both suck. Where is the rocket science in that?

[Nihil]

4. Only if you're stupid.

The "rocket science" comes in when you choose to look to the future.

One option leads to *certain* extinction for a large number of species
(already happening, will get worse) along with the *certain* death of
a large proportion of humans.

The other option leads to a *risk* of a "serious" nuclear accident
(i.e., one that actually kills as many people in that year as the
coal industry kills in a month) and the survival of species that
will otherwise die from relentless climate change.

It's all well and good to quote trite crap about "choosing neither"
but that is NOT a third option, just a rewording of the first one.

Anyone who considers that those choices "the same" is too stupid for words.

[phildo]

5. well, maybe it is rocket science for some . . .

so let me slow this down a bit.

The "choice" and comparison this article is promoting is between two bad options -- carbon (oil, coal, gas) and nukes.

It is made in the false premise that those are the only choices.

There are plenty of other good choices. For example -- Solar boilers are here, now. They work. A good choice, drive on.

Real deal is we need neither nukes nor carbon -- but that is the "why" towards promotion of both.

[NickB79]

12. Solar boilers produce a tiny percentage of world energy demand

As NNadir likes to point out, world energy demand is roughly 440 exajoules per year. Solar energy has yet to produce even 1 exajoule per year.

The issue isn't whether solar works, but rather if it is scalable to supply enough energy for modern life to continue as we know it, without bankrupting every nation on Earth.

[phildo]

23. That solar boilers are cheap and underused is sort of the point . .

I think everyone follows that PV is too expensive for en masse application, but the thermal end of the operation is wide open, and do-able with even "third world" technology.

Right now my numbers are running competitive with Hydro and can beat Coal. This is a wide open field.

[Dogmudgeon]

24. What *are* your numbers?

I've been very supportive of solar thermal, but I found that it ran into the same problems that wind power did: the scale of implementation is unexplored and it is locked out of most investment by the dominant psychology of timidity and the lust to make a fast killing.

That's why carbon-trading schemes are so eagerly proposed -- they're inflatable derivatives. Better than tulips.

In addition, there are potentially severe environmental impacts from low-tech approaches using corrosive liquids (such as water) as the working fluid within an off-the-shelf system built from commercial plumbing materials. The best approach would be to use boilers similar to those in modern natural gas or nuclear plants, but that is a high-tech approach.

I have discussed the problem of the "finance community" a number of times, too. I think it's the big killer. After the OPEC oil boycott was resolved in 1974, energy demand destruction was universal, and the only area of profitable energy investment was in oil development.

My support of nuclear energy is based in part on the fact that "we did it once, and we can do it again". We don't have a lot of time left to address the world's energy situation, and even implementing nuclear energy better and faster will require considerable work.

If your numbers are optimistic, please post them. I would like to have something more to advocate than nuclear-only.

--p!

[phildo]

25. Sorry to [be] vague on that . . . .

My target is 2 cents or below per kWh for all generation costs (including MARR and capitalization recovery) -- with the emphasis on the "below," portion.

I never know what level of technical background folks in a forum like this have, so I was sort of discussing it "lite," to gauge perceptions and perspectives. A re-con trip, as it were.

So for anyone reading that 2 cent number -- that is wholesale manufacturing pricing. The rest of what comes in your typical bill includes "transmission cost" (the big power lines) and "distribution cost" (your local retailer, who reads your meter) and various other fees and taxes.

Not too surprised about the Vulture Caps not being too interested. Actually that is way-OK by me—sort of good sign, mho. This is so open that it would be hard to have a "lock" on it, and it is too old-tech to be patentable. None of the VC types I have dealt with would touch it. Actually did not even consider asking -- considering my motive and all.

As far as working fluids and boiler methods -- The typical working fluid on the plants I have worked on is distilled water. No real rocket science there. The turbines usually have several tap off stages for differing pressure pick-offs, and a final vacuum stage as the water is cooled and condensed. I figured I would do it simpler than that, since I want normal medium-tech level folks to be able to safely repeat it.

Have discussed freon, ammonia, as turbine fluids, and oil heat transfers, as well, with various Mechanical Engineers, along the way. But I am leaving that part as a fill-in with at least a couple good built-and-documented working solutions for whoever wishes to copy the system.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Exactly

[Dogmudgeon]

7. "Phosphates" = Agriculture

Agriculture contributes MORE radioactive material than ALL energy generation. Soil runoff is also a problem we need to address, and MARINA II suggests that nutrient runoff is extensive.

The natural radioactivity of SEAWATER is about TWENTY TIMES as great as all human-source radiation. Seawater contains substantial amounts of uranium, thorium, and plutonium, all of which can (and should) be extracted for their energy.

In perspective, our present level of fear of radioactivity makes no sense -- but ALL human activity could, and should, be improved, including improvements in handling the radioactive materials we use. That's why I posted it.

You don't suggest we ban the oceans, do you? Of course not! Radioactivity is part of nature. We neither want to be at the mercy of nature nor our own stupidity. Ignoring radioactivity, both for purposeful use and in nature, would be doing both.

--p!

[losthills]

8. You don't think

anyone is actually buying this Rush Limbaugh claptrap?

Do you?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

11. So scientific research commissioned by a European research group = claptrap these days?

Your statement is the one that sounds remarkably like that of Rush Limpballs.

[losthills]

13. "Radioactivity is part of nature."

Wow, how do you argue with genius like that?
That's why chernobyl and hiroshima are garden spots now...

[Dogmudgeon]

14. Seriously, now

What do you think radioactivity is?

I mean -- really.

Radioactivity is not some man-made technology, it's a fundamental property of matter. When an atom is unstable from an "imbalance" of its subatomic particles or energy levels (both are thought to be the same thing), it emits a quantum of radiation -- usually as an alpha, beta, or gamma ray.

Are you aware that in most places, the soil contains enough uranium to qualify as a nuclear accident site? It has one PPM -- part per million -- of uranium in it, three times as much thorium, and a dozen other naturally-occurring isotopes.

The food you eat emits measurable radiation. The water you drink contains all sorts of radionuclides. The cigarettes you smoke contain carcinogenic levels of Polonium 210 in addition to carcinogenic levels of nicotine and smoke residue. The metal from which your guitar strings were forged is significantly radioactive. Almost all of it is naturally-generated radiation. The amount that got there by the hand of Man is minor, even with Chernobyl and Hiroshima and 25 years of nuclear bomb testing.

Incidentally, Chernobyl is being resettled, and Hiroshima is a thriving port city.

Yes, you can -- and you should -- check for yourself. You probably think I am lying to you. I assure you that I am NOT, but you should check these things out anyway. And not just the advocacy sources like the NEI or Greenpeace, but universities and the EPA and other countries' regulatory agencies.

I know we got off to a rocky start here. But I will say this without one iota of rancor: educate yourself about radioactivity. I can understand if you don't immediately start advocating nuclear energy, but at least learn the basics of what it is.

--p!

[NickB79]

16. Actually, Chernobyl has become one of the most diverse wildlife sites in Europe

Without man to hunt them or bulldoze their habitat, the number of otherwise rare species around Chernobyl has flourished. Bear, wild boar, wolves, deer, etc, are all rapidly recolonizing the abandoned areas. That alone says a lot about what's more dangerous to the environment, a nuclear meltdown or ordinary daily human activity.

As for the question in your title (Radioactivity is part of nature), google "Oklo reactor" and see what you get.

[Nihil]

20. Wow.

Your post is a wonderful encapsulation of sheer unadulterated ignorance.

In a mere three lines you have completely explained why you hold the views
that you do: A total absence of knowledge coupled with a lack of desire to
learn.

If you have left school then this is seriously depressing as it shows that
homo non-sapiens is more widespread than even a cynic like me had thought.

:wow:

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Actually, I *do* think

That's why I use evidence gathered by scientists, rather than laughable culture-warrior arguments.

I do not claim to be a genius. I simply look into issues before I make my mind up. And when I do make my mind up, it's always up for review.

--p!

[losthills]

18. You haven't said one thing

that would convince a rational person that our country, or any country should build more nuclear reactors to generate electricity. All your so called "evidence" and "facts" may be interesting, but they are irrelevant to that issue.

I have read through all these threads and there are a couple of you nuclear messiahs who are flooding this site with mis-information on this subject. You seem very bitter that your views are in the extreme minority regarding nuclear power and you try to control the debate through sheer beligerance, but I don't think you're convincing anybody.

Everyone who really studies this issue eventually comes to the same conclusion. That nuclear reactors are not a reasonable tool for generating electricity. They are too expensive to build, too expensive to maintain and too dangerous to operate.

They are good for lining the pockets of corporate grafters, good for enriching uranium, and good for keeping us all under the thumb of the military industrial complex, but they represent the very worst of all possible methods of generating electricity.

But carry on with your crusade. It's the most entertaining sideshow on this site...

[Dead_Parrot]

19. Oh, my.

All your so called "evidence" and "facts" may be interesting, but they are irrelevant to that issue.

You spend a lot of time in church, don't you?

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Mighty touchy, aren't you?

Meanwhile, you still haven't given us the first reason to believe anything you have said.

But you sure said it loud.

--p!
Facts have a well-known liberal bias.
(Stephen Colbert)

[hunter]

22. Who, losthills, is "everyone who really studies this issue?"

I guess I haven't "studied" enough.

I'd probably need to buy some hemp shoes or something. Not that I have anything against hemp shoes. Some of my best friends wear hemp shoes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=57616&mesg_id=57616

:hi:

[unpossibles]

29. I am buying it

While I think there are problems with current nuclear technology, I think it is foolish to write it off as unusable. Just my opinion. I think we can make it even safer and cleaner, and that we should. I also think we should use as much solar, wind, sea, and other renewable power sources as possible, but would rather get off coal.

Maybe it's because I live in the midwest and grew up seeing the destruction caused by coal mining first hand.

[philb]

17. Coal plants emit the most radioactivity and other toxics

Toxic Metal Content in Appalachian Coal

parts---- tons per---- tons per---- ---------------- pounds
per million million tons year *------ ---------------- per year in
of coal------ ---------------- ---------------- ash & emissions
Mercury 0.2 0.2 1 2000
Lead 14 14 70 140000
Arsenic 15 15 75 150000
Cadmium 8 8 40 80000
Aluminum 17000 17000 85000 170000000
Barium 2600 2600 13000 26000000
Berylium 3 3 15 30000
Chromium 23 23 115 230000
Copper 16 16 80 160000
Manganese 80 80 400 800000
Nickel 18 18 90 180000
Selenium 3 3 15 30000
Thallium 25 25 125 250000
Thorium 3.1 3.1 15.5 31000
Uranium 1.8 1.8 9 18000
Vanadium 5.7 5.7 28.5 57000
Zinc 0.8 0.8 4 8000

Total 19,817 99,083 198,166,000

* assumes plant burns 5 million tons per year (2 large coal units)

source: Radian Corporation, "Estimating Air Toxics Emissions from Coal Sources",
U.S. EPA, 1989, NTIS PB89-194229


see uranium and thorium

[Dogmudgeon]

26. Let's put some lipstick on this pig

Toxic Metal Content in Appalachian Coal

····metal······PPM····tons/yr········lbs/yr
--------------------------------------------
··Mercury········0.2········1·········2,000
·····Lead·······14·········70·······140,000
··Arsenic·······15·········75·······150,000
··Cadmium········8·········40········80,000
·Aluminum····17000······85000···170,000,000
···Barium·····2600······13000····26,000,000
Beryllium········3·········15········30,000
·Chromium·······23········115·······230,000
···Copper·······16·········80·······160,000
Manganese·······80········400·······800,000
···Nickel·······18·········90·······180,000
·Selenium········3·········15········30,000
·Thallium·······25········125·······250,000
··Thorium········3.1·······15.5······31,000
··Uranium········1.8········9········18,000
·Vanadium········5.7·······28.5······57,000
·····Zinc········0.8········4·········8,000
--------------------------------------------
····Total···19,817·····99,083···198,166,000

Notes:
-----
Source: Radian Corporation (PI: G. Brooks), "Estimating Air Toxics Emissions from Coal Sources", U.S. EPA, 1989, NTIS PB89-194229.

Assumes plant burns 5 million tons per year; 2 large coal units; approximately 1 GWe output.

In the original table data, there were two identical columns, "Tons per Million Tons" and "Tons per Year". They have been merged into "tons/year".

Format emphasis (red bold) has been added to highlight naturally-occurring radioactive material.

Thanks to philb at DemocraticUnderground.com for finding the table and originally posting it.

--p!
Corrections welcomed.

[Dead_Parrot]

27. OK, so how do you a table?

OT, but I didn't know you could do that in DU... :dunce:

[Dogmudgeon]

28. Easy in theory, difficult in execution

(I'll be using regular XML angle brackets for illustration instead of the square braces that DU's tags require.)

First, of course, you have to specify a monospace font face.

<font face="Courier,Andale Mono,Courier New">
The table goes here
</font>

The table data is arranged using spaces to tweak the positions of the text.

Then, convert all groups of spaces to middle dots, ASCII #183. You can use any non-space character, but people are familiar with the dots from years of seeing them on word processing screens. You can NOT use spaces. DU's coding condenses multiple spaces and tabs into single spaces. And proportional fonts can't be hand-tweaked accurately.

I replace ALL spaces with dots, then restore the single spaces where they normally occur between words. IOW, the dots are for format and spaces are for reading. If you select/highlight the table in that post, you will see how the dots are used.

The dots are made "invisible" by this tag:

<font color=white>············</font>
<font color=white>This will be invisible</font>

Select the text here:
Start ==> This is now invisible·········and so is this <== End

A set of tags is used for every chunk of whitespace. There are a LOT of them, and the result is difficult to read, so I do the nasty stuff after I've edited everything into the form I want it.

I used a couple of poorly-written S-&-R macros and two programs; I was in a hurry. I ought to just code this in Python or VBS but my skills are quite rusty.

--p!

[Dead_Parrot]

31. Ahh...

...what a cunning stunt. I'll have give that a go next time.

Thanks! Have a virtual beer.
:beer:

[hunter]

30. Select the table as if you are going to copy it and you can see the dots.

White-on-white text also works for "secret messages."

>> LIPSTICK ON A PIG! <<

^^^^^^ There is a secret message ^^^^^^