Having recently retired from 45 years as a general medical practitioner, I am going to essay some short videos on various health topics. Given the challenge of global warming, I plan to inform people of the medical wisdom of accepting nuclear as a vital energy source.
Just yesterday I started on a five minute video, thinking people are more likely to watch a shorter rather than a longer video. The subject is the tritium release from Fukushima.
Are you willing to share with me your calculations about drinking tritiated water? I am sure you are correct qualitatively, but would learn from seeing your quantitative analysis.
If any fusion design works I'm very interested to see the reaction to the tritium release which may be about 100x that of a heavy water fission reactor. As a fusion fanboy at one point I was mildly worried about the actual effect of tritium, now I know the effect will be entirely one of perception
A wonderful treatment. I recall in the ca. 1963 tritium peak from nuclear testing there were (IIRC) 300 to 600 KG, not grams in the atmosphere? Yet we are here and breathing. I remember Kodak finding exposed film after some rains, not sure directly tritium related. The issue is, an a massive fusion economy, suppose there were 10 times the amount of escaped tritium from fusion plants, say 3 tons or even 30. By this model, 100 times the escaped tritium of the nuclear tests , would this even approach the 37 million Bq/L water, threshold mentioned above? How do you calculate that?
I very much doubt it's a problem, but I'm not enough of a fusion fan to work thru the numbers. My problem with fusion is, even if you somehow solve the daunting unsolved technical problems fusion faces, you still have to deal with immense parasitic loads: plasma heating, magnet power, vacuum pumps, cryogenic compressors. You end up recycling most of your electricity back into the plant. This means your TG, your heat exchangers, etc have to be multiple times the size of the net electrical output. I dont see how fusion can compete with fission in which the parasitic loads are roughly 10% of the net out put.
And the question is why? The answer is to avoid the nuclear waste problem. But spent fuel is a "beautifully small" problem to use MacKay's phrase. See
that an all American level of consumption world has enough U and Th easily accessible for around 60,000 years. So in the 'short term,' fission is simply the less complicated system.
by S Zheng · Cited by 36 — The annual tritium consumption of a fusion power plant operating at 1GW fusion power is ~55.6 kg per full power year (FPY) or ~152g per full power day (FPD)
Thanks for this. Although what are we really to expect from a guy that quotes reactor grade Pu quantities in spent fuel in number of “nuclear bomb equivalents.” He is just another antinuke fearmonger and it is pretty transparent. Fortunately this stuff isn’t just a one sided argument anymore!
Good one Jack.
As a chemist, I am always interested.
A piece of paper will block tritium emission
I really like my watches with the tritium dials!
Good timing as Japan releases its Fukishhima nuclear waste water (treated) into the sea
Bet the book will become Big in Japan
You will never go broke crying about the dangers of "radiation."
Tim Maloney and I show in our new book "Earth is a Nuclear Planet" (to be published in
August by Generation Atomic) that you would have to drink a half
pint of Fukushima water every single day for the rest of your life to match the
daily dose of radiation you already get from the potassium-40 in your
body. Vermont Yankee’s tritiated water was even more dilute,
requiring you to drink 3 gallons per day to match your stored K-40.
Like freaking usual, Makhijani is fear mongering.
Having recently retired from 45 years as a general medical practitioner, I am going to essay some short videos on various health topics. Given the challenge of global warming, I plan to inform people of the medical wisdom of accepting nuclear as a vital energy source.
Just yesterday I started on a five minute video, thinking people are more likely to watch a shorter rather than a longer video. The subject is the tritium release from Fukushima.
Are you willing to share with me your calculations about drinking tritiated water? I am sure you are correct qualitatively, but would learn from seeing your quantitative analysis.
Thank you,
Douwe Rienstra, M.D.
Dr. Rienstra,
The substack editor is very limited when it comes to communicating math.
Pls send me your email address and I will send you the algorithm. My H3 dose rate
is about 14 times larger than Mike and Tim's.
Dr. Rienstra,
Jack Devanney has kindly explained his calculation method of the internal radiation dose resulting from drinking Fukushima water.
I concur with his value of 2.5 mSv /year for a 70-kg person drinking 1 pint of Fukushima water per day.
If any fusion design works I'm very interested to see the reaction to the tritium release which may be about 100x that of a heavy water fission reactor. As a fusion fanboy at one point I was mildly worried about the actual effect of tritium, now I know the effect will be entirely one of perception
Dr. Rienstra,
Timothy Maloney here.
Jack Devanney has kindly explained his calculated annual dose received from daily drinking of Fukushima waste water.
I now concur with his radiation dose value of 2.5 mSv /year , for a 70-kg person drinking 1 pint of Fukushima water per day.
A wonderful treatment. I recall in the ca. 1963 tritium peak from nuclear testing there were (IIRC) 300 to 600 KG, not grams in the atmosphere? Yet we are here and breathing. I remember Kodak finding exposed film after some rains, not sure directly tritium related. The issue is, an a massive fusion economy, suppose there were 10 times the amount of escaped tritium from fusion plants, say 3 tons or even 30. By this model, 100 times the escaped tritium of the nuclear tests , would this even approach the 37 million Bq/L water, threshold mentioned above? How do you calculate that?
Joseph,
I very much doubt it's a problem, but I'm not enough of a fusion fan to work thru the numbers. My problem with fusion is, even if you somehow solve the daunting unsolved technical problems fusion faces, you still have to deal with immense parasitic loads: plasma heating, magnet power, vacuum pumps, cryogenic compressors. You end up recycling most of your electricity back into the plant. This means your TG, your heat exchangers, etc have to be multiple times the size of the net electrical output. I dont see how fusion can compete with fission in which the parasitic loads are roughly 10% of the net out put.
And the question is why? The answer is to avoid the nuclear waste problem. But spent fuel is a "beautifully small" problem to use MacKay's phrase. See
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/600-year-old-spent-nuclear-fuel-is
In my view, fusion is a non-solution to a non-problem.
Yes, , all the parasitic busywork leads to considerable capex all of which needs maintenance..
The 600 year article, I read it and a number of others of yours. I love your Substack!
Years ago I calculated
https://web.archive.org/web/20170510132250/https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/what-if-we-get-unlimited-cheap-isotopes.html
that an all American level of consumption world has enough U and Th easily accessible for around 60,000 years. So in the 'short term,' fission is simply the less complicated system.
But
As I understand from here, https://scientific-publications.ukaea.uk/wp-content/uploads/Preprints/CCFE-PR1568.pdf
a 30 terawatt fusion world will use around 165 tons of tritium yearly, and if 20% leaks or releases, that was the origin of my curiosity.
Assuming D-T of course
--------------------source------------
Fusion Reactor Start-up without an External Tritium Source
https://scientific-publications.ukaea.uk/wp-content/uploads/Preprints/CCFE-PR1568.pdf
by S Zheng · Cited by 36 — The annual tritium consumption of a fusion power plant operating at 1GW fusion power is ~55.6 kg per full power year (FPY) or ~152g per full power day (FPD)
Sorry, 1650 tons tritium, dropped a zero. So if 300 tons leaked, 1000 x 1963 Tbackground.
Thanks for this. Although what are we really to expect from a guy that quotes reactor grade Pu quantities in spent fuel in number of “nuclear bomb equivalents.” He is just another antinuke fearmonger and it is pretty transparent. Fortunately this stuff isn’t just a one sided argument anymore!