advanced energy technology for sustainable development. part 5

Satoshi Konishi

Institute for Sustainability Science,

Institute of Advanced Energy, Kyoto University

Aug 13, 2011

Advanced technology for

sustainable development - Analysis of fusion from sustainability -

Contents - technological, environmental,biolobical and social risk

- radiation, tritium, cancer and life

- Sustainability issue

International Symposium on Global Sustainability Institute of Sustainable Science

Question:

Can technology make people happy?

－people (individual) regards energy as a risk for their life.

Energy ( in fact, all the technology) must be analyzed for risk and

benefit.

What does technology have to do?

- to avoid risks for sustainability

But, the researchers do not understand how their work would

DAMAGE the environment, person, and social system.

- regardless of the source, energy itself is not sustainable.


・All the R&D programs are evaluated from the aspect of social acceptance. －All the energy technologies are evaluated from the

aspect of future social risk.

－ “Effect” cannot always be measured in monetary terms.

－ Energy supply affects environment, public and society

through various paths other than market. (Externality)

→Investment for research and development can be justified

from the expected effect to the future society.

Future energy must respond to the

demand of the society.

Evaluation of Energy International Symposium on Global Sustainability

Institute of Sustainable Science

risk of energy generation

No. 1, 2, 3 in operation,

No. 4, 5, 6 inspection/maintenance

14:46 3/11 Great East Japan Earthquake

All reactors stopped. External power lost.

Emergency Core Cooling System Activated

Tsunami(~15m) attacked

15:41 Emergency powers lost,

16:36 Cooling lost. After heat of fuels damages the core.

20:50 Evacuation started

Reaction with fuel and water generate Hydrogen.

15:36 3/12 Hydrogen explosion destroyed the building of No1 reactor.

11:01 3/14 Hydrogen explosion destroyed the building of No3 reactor.

06:10 3/15 Building of No2 reactor exploded.. Fire at No4 reactor

Damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Materials by Dr. S. Machi

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/photos/110505/dst11050503130002-p1.htm

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/photos/110505/dst11050511500008-p3.htm

Source: The 2011 Pacific Coast of Tohoku Pacific Earthquake and the Seismic Damage of the NPPs, p9, Report to IAEA from NISA and JENES, 4th April, 2011

Overview of Mark-I Type BWR (Fukushima Unit-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)

Reactor Building

(R/B)

Pressure

Containment

Vessel (PCV)

Dry Well

Spent Fuel Pool

Reactor Pressure

Vessel (RPV)

Suppression Chamber Source: http://nei.cachefly.net/static/images/BWR_illastration.jpg


Major Events at Unit No.1 (4/4)

-Injection of Seawater using by Fire Pump

-Venting of S/C for Depressurizing PCV

Venting of S/C in order

to depressurize the

PCV

Seawater was poured

into the RPV using by

the exiting fire pump


Accident Situation at the Spent Fuel Pool

Lack of Cooling Capability

Decrease of Water Level

in the Spent Fuel Pool

Exposing of Fuel Rods

Generation of Hydrogen and Explosion

Fuel Failure

R/B Isolation Cooling Water

System

Effect is evaluated as dose(Sv)

e.g. 1 mSv/y normal, public

20mSv, 100mSv…

Facility controls

radioactive

emission (Bq/y)

Radioactive Emission control

Ground water

soil plant

plume

environment

confinement

facility dose

Back ground

Site boundary Sea water

fish

Minimize unnecessary dose

As Low As Practically Achieved


Analyzing plume International Symposium on Global Sustainability Institute of Sustainable Science

Tokyo

0.04

(220km) Fukushima

1.49

(61km)

Radiation level in atmosphere by prefecture

May 8, 2011 （Unit : μSv/h）

Hokkaido

0.04

(630km)

Miyagi

0.078

(90km)

Sources : Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and

Technology

Fukushima prefectural government

FukushimaⅠ

NPS FukushimaⅡN

PS

Osaka

0.08

(400km)

Iwaki

0.25

(43km)

200km

100km

Background level; Tokyo:

0.028-0.079

Activity on the surface

Surveyed.

Nuclides analyzed.

Cumulative external dose

Estimated.

(life style considered.)

- Children dose <10mSv

Nuclides in the environment • Behavior of radio-nuclides is well understood for fission facilities, mainly by plume model. • Radio activity is released by the accident • Nuclides diffuses as “plume” and deposit and go away. External dose estimated. • Some nuclides are enriched by biological process and

food chain. • Dose is estimated from the activity. • Risks on the health is estimated from the collective dose. Radiation may kill. But how likely is it?


Radiation risk

• We (life-forms ) on the earth have lived with radiation for billions of years.

• Radiation safety is well controlled, but

• Modern science and technology have significantly changed our dose.

…..fusion may change it again.


Environmental tritium, history

1.Natural production by cosmic ray

Discovered in 1949 in the environment

2.Atmospheric nuclear tests in 1950s to 1960s

First bomb in 1945（Nevada）、first fusion bomb in 1954

Atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty in 1963

（global fallout, tracer for air mass, seawater etc）

3.Peaceful use of nuclear energy

Nuclear power station in Japan（55）、world（434）、nuclear fuel treatment facility

4.Nuclear fusion reactor （a huge amount, local emission）

15 Prof. Momoshima Kyushu University


EBq=1018

1000MW

(～5kg)

4. Fusion

reactor

Environmental tritium

O+n —> H+

1．Cosmic ray

1-1.3 EBq

14 N+n —> 3 H+ 12 C 16 3 14 N

16

3. Nuclear stations

0.02 EBq y-1

(0.01-0.02)

Earth crust

6 Li+n—> 3 H+ 4 He

238 U+n—> 3 H+Products

2. Nuclear bomb

240 EBq (185-240)

3. Consumer products

0.4 EBq y-1

(0.3-0.4)

Natural T≒2.7 kg

World inventory (2010)

1-1.3 EBq (1) + 17 EBq (13-17)

Prof. Momoshima Kyushu University


0

50

100

150

200

250

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Bq/L

Tritium in the Water in Japan

17

Fallout from

nuclear

detonation

We experienced

200 times high

Tritium level.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1980 1985 1990 1995 Tri

tiu

m c

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(B

q/L

)

Fukuoka, Japan

year



4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

44424038363432

1982 river 1983 lake 2005 river 2005 lake

co

ncen

tra

tio

n（B

q/L

)

latitude

Tritium in the Water in Japan 2



19

Fukuoka,

japan

1

10

100

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

Cedar Wine Rain

Co

ncen

trati

on

(B

q/L

)

Year

Environmental tritium is trapped by plants, Prof. Momoshima Kyushu University

Effect is evaluated as dose(Sv)

e.g. 1 mSv/y normal, public

20mSv, 100mSv…

Facility controls

radioactive

emission (Bq/y)

Radioactive Emission control

Ground water

soil plant

plume

environment

confinement

facility dose

Back ground

Site boundary Sea water

fish

Minimize unnecessary dose

As Low As Practically Achieved


Nuclides in the environment

• Behavior of radio-nuclides is well understood for fission facilities • Major concern is accident • Nuclides diffuses as “plume” and deposit and go away. • Some nuclides are enriched by biological process and

food chain. • Dose is easily estimated from the activity. • Isotopic contents in the environment is not usually a

problem. (---All different for tritium!)

Tutorial course International Symposium on Global Sustainability


Impact pathway of nuclides

Cause cancer?

F A C I L I T Y

D I F F U S I O N W I N D

S H A L L O W S O I L

D E E P S O I L

D O S E E F F E C T

I N H A L A T I O N

S K I N A B S O R P T I O N

I N J E S T I O N

F I S H

N O R M A L / A C C I D E N T A L

NUCLIDE

R E L E A S E

P L U M E

A T M O S P H E R E A T M O S P H E R E

S U R F A C E S O I L P L A N T

BODY P L A N T SURFACE

G R A Z I N G A N I M A L

H U M A N B O D Y

E F F E C T I V E D O S E E Q U I V A L E N T

D R I N K I N G W A T E R

D R Y

D E P O S I T I O N

W E T D E P O S I T I O N W A S H O U T

H U M A N B O D Y DNA

S U R F A C E W A T E R

Understanding the impact pathway

Is required to evaluate the effect.


Tritium in the environment • Tritiated water is a major concern • Many of the facilities discharge by normal operation. • Tritium is diluted by natural water. • Biological processes changes chemical forms. i.e. H2 – HTO – OBT (organically bound tritium) • Natural background and environmental recycling

• Specific for food, environment, culture and habits • Dose may not be a good measure of damage --range of beta is very short. (~0.5mm)


Radiation dose

World average Japanese average

medical

natural

Fall out

jett flight etc.

natural

medical Fall out

Power plant etc.

other.

Fall out : falling radioactive materials from

nuclear detonation test


(mEURO/kWh) （ExternE 1999）

Risk of generation technology International Symposium on Global Sustainability Institute of Sustainable Science

Annual deaths worldwide from

various causes

Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2006

“environmentally friendly” energy kills.

Source: IEA World Energy Outlook

2006

Distances

travelled to

collect

fuelwood in

rural Tanzania;

the average

load is around

20 kg

がん死亡のリスク

• radiation comes from medical and natural sources.

• controlled risks cannot be the major reason of cancer

Cause of cancers

Dolland Peto, 1981

Cancer risk International Symposium on Global Sustainability Institute of Sustainable Science

Cause of cancer deaths

Geophysical (incl. radon)

medical treatment

Industrial

products

pollution

occupation

al birth

Food additives

Food

infection

smoking

alcohol

Carcinogenic foods

• carcinogenesis is evaluated experimentally, with analysis

based on LNT.

Foods can cause cancers by their ingredients

Ames and Gold, 1998

Mainly natural

Foods can also prevent cancer, that is not considered here.


Comparison of risk

Actions to increase the death risk by 1/1000000

wilson, 1979

Wine ５００ｃｃ hepatocirrhosis

2 days in New York Air pollution

１６ｋｍ by bicycle accident

４８０km by car accident

１６００km flight accident

１００００km flight Cosmic ray

2 months in brick building Radon (natural)

X-ray examination Radiation dose

2 months Living with smoker cancer

30 cans diet coke cancer

150 year living in ３０ｋｍfrom

Nuclear plant Radiation dose

2 months living in Denver, CO. radiation

1 year drinking tap water halogen

1.4 cigarette cancer

3 hours in coal mine accident

One safe action

can cause

another risk.

Some of the

safety

measures are

unreasonable.

Artificial risks

are well

controlled now.

Fukushima accident 100~1000 times larger


Risk of Generation Technology

• Hydro：Dam construction.

Dam distruction in China(1975)。

• Fire：Explosion, drop,

mechanical. Coal mining.

Pollution.

• Biomass：Air Pollution, timber.

• Nuclear:Mihama,5. Uranium

mining, Radon from U.

Chernobyl 28+19, cancer 15.

possible cancer 100000?

• Solar:drop from roofs

Electricity Kills Coal – world average 161

Coal – China 278

Coal – USA 15

Oil 36 (36% of world energy)

Natural Gas 4

Peat 12

Solar (rooftop) 0.44

Wind 0.15

Hydro 0.10 (europe)

Hydro - world 1.4

(171,000 Banqiao dead)

Nuclear 0.04

(incl. Chernobyl 1986

assuming 4000 death)

[death/Twh] (by WHO data,etc.)


Risk for death

• 1/3 died of cancer

• Suicide and accident, other

than sickness

• Young people are killed by

accident, and themselves

（in US, murder is a major

cause.）

Causes of death in Japan

Institute of Sustainable Science Institute of Advanced Energy, Kyoto University

Deaty per year per 100,000

厚生労働省、人口動態統計

1980 2002 tuberculosis 5.5 1.8 cancer 139.1 241.7 diabetes 7.3 10 cardiac 106.2 121 hipertension 13.7 4.5 stroke 139.5 103.4 pneumonia 28.4 69.4 asthma 5.5 3 Stomach ulcer

4.8 3.9

hepatitis 16.3 12.8 Renal failure 6.1 14.4 senility 27.6 18 accident 25.1 30.7 traffic 11.4 9.3 suicide 17.7 23.8 total 621.4 779.6

Death risk

Actions to increase the death risk by 1/1000000

Institute of Sustainable Science Institute of Advanced Energy, Kyoto University

wilson, 1979

Wine ５００ｃｃ hepatocirrhosis 2 days in New York Air pollution １６ｋｍ by bicycle accident ４８０km by car accident １６００km flight accident １００００km flight Cosmic ray 2 months in brick building Radon (natural) X-ray examination Radiation dose 2 months Living with smoker cancer 30 cans diet coke cancer 150 year living in ３０ｋｍfrom Nuclear plant Radiation dose 2 months living in Denver, CO. radiation 1 year drinking tap water halogen 1.4 cigarette cancer 3 hours in coal mine accident

One safe action

can cause another

risk.

Some of the

safety measures

are unreasonable.

Artifical risks

are well

controlled now.

risk of energy supply

Shortage / blackout risk Strict electricity saving and peak shifting are planned.

Blackout is unpredictable, but demand/supply balance is

reported by real time announcement.

Local generation / Storage will mitigate the difficulty.

Long term strategy Renewables are expected and will be strongly supported.

Use of fire-power is not favored.

Vulnerability increases. Robust grid is needed by supporting

instability of the sources.

Energy supply Issue International Symposium on Global Sustainability


Electric Grid in Japan –Structure –

Hokkaido 5,345MW

579MW

Tokyo 64,300MW

1,356MW

Chubu 27,500MW

1,380MW

Hokuriku 5,508MW

540MW

Kansai 33,060MW

1,180MW

Chugoku 12,002MW

820MW

Shikoku 5,925MW

890MW

Kyushu 17,061MW

1,180MW

Tohoku 14,489MW

825MW

600MW

600MW

300MW

West Japan Grid 60Hz, ~100GW

Utility Name Max. demand (~2003) Largest Unit (Nuclear)

DC connection

East Japan Grid 50Hz, ~80GW

Comb structure due to geographical reason

~50GW


Physics Today, vol.55, No.4

(2002)

Giga Blackout

-0.35

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

time(sec)

frequency(H

z)23MW/sec

77MW/sec

230MW/sec

All the generators on the grids are synchronized

→ Exactly same amount generated as demanded.

Sudden increase of demand or unstable generator

• Demands exceed generation capacity

• Frequency drops (~0.1%)

• Load to the generators

• Generator disconnected

Chain reaction kills the grid.

→unstable renewables can

initiate the blackout.

Frequency drop by load

Small grid, large load,

Fast change should be

Avoided.


Fire

Hydro

Nuclear

Fire(Coal)

0 6 12 18 24(h)

variable

.

• For near term, leveling of

the load is important.

• Local generators, co-

generation and batteries

preferred.

• Increased renewable

jeopardizes grid

• For future, substitute of

fire power needed.

→only load leveling power

is preferred.

Hydro

Solar

Wind

Load

Leveling

needed

Daily Peaks

Hydro

Base

load


・unpredictable change of generating power of renewable is large

・time constant of seconds

・controlled power to compensate this change needed

・connecting to grid decreases amplitude but not time constant

・fire power can provide only slow change (~5%/min)

4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.85/14 (Cloudy)―　Insolation Intensity

―　DC Power

DC

Pow

er

[kW

]

Inso

lation Int

ensi

ty [

kW/m

2]

Inso

lation Int

ensi

ty [

kW/m

2]

Time

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

4/15 4/30 5/15 5/30 6/14 6/290

20406080

100120140160180200220240

Spring (4/1-6/30)

Date

Ele

ctrica

l Ene

rgy

[kW

h/da

y]

Change of solar in a day

Required Stabilizing

power

Fluctuation of renewable

Daily change of solar


Future low carbon Systems

Battery

Large scale grid

Fuel Cells

generators

Local systems

Solar cell

Fuel

Electricity must be powered by

Carbon-free sources nuclear

Both large grid and local

systems are needed.

Fire

(fade out)

fusion

PHV,EV

Battery, generators and

fuel cells Stabilizes

fluctuation by renewables.

Large scale supply of fuels for

Fuel cells needed.


Power

[kW]

Max.pow

er[kW]

capacity[

kWh] units area[m2] Vol.[m3]

Solar 633 566.2 - - 4740 -

NaS-1 364.7 420 2625 7 - 16.7 SOFC - 988 - - - 5.6

計 998 1974 2625 7 4740 22.2

0 4 8 12 16 20 24-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time [h]

SOFC+NaS+Solar①, Summer, Fine

Large scale grid

SOFC

NaS-2

NaS-1

Solar

Ele

ctrica

l Ene

rgy

[kW

h/h]

0 4 8 12 16 20 24-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Time [h]

SOFC+NaS+Solar①, Summer, Rain

Large scale grid

SOFC

NaS-2

NaS-1

Solar

Ele

ctrica

l Ene

rgy

[kW

h/h]

Carbon-free elcecticty systems International Symposium on Global Sustainability


・All the risks and benefits of the technology can be analyzed from the Externality aspects.

・Many of those effects are predictable, and converted to monetary terms.

・Some of the risks are evaluated as the death probability from statistics.

・Investment for technology development must consider the effect of the product from this risk and benefit analysis, and risk mitigation cost.

・Reasonable investment for the development and mitigation/prevention can be evaluated quantitatively.

Externality analysis

For the governance of technology

Technology and its effect are predictable, and reasonable investment can

be planned,

However, many of the development and risk mitigation are far from it.

we can find many bad examples.

Governing risks of technology International Symposium on Global Sustainability


advanced energy technology for sustainable development. part 5

Education

sustainability science

institute of advanced

energy technologies

risk of energy generation

tritium level

global sustainability4

building of no1 reactor

building of no3 reactor