PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Krypton-85

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bandidoz
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2705
Location: Berks

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 12:22 am    Post subject: Krypton-85 Reply with quote

Interesting......

http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk/blogs/ministerial_blog/archive/2007/05/02/8567.aspx#comments

Dr David Lowry wrote:
Last weekend I attended an international conference in Stockholm, Sweden, where arguments for and against the Swedish nuclear strategy were presented by radiation protection and nuclear waste managment officials, and countered by various environmental and technical groups such as FMKK and MKG.

One of the surprising points raised came in a presentation by Gunnar Lindgren of Milkas (Milj?r?relsens k?rnavfallssekretariat)- the Swedish environment movement's nuclear waste secretariat - when he argued that the emission of one radioactive gas from nuclear operations, is a possible contributor to acceleration of climate change.

The gas in question is Krypton-85, the release of which has risen some 200,000 times since 1945, whilst carbon dioxide releases over the same time period has increased a substantial, but much smaller, 30 times globally.

He asserted that Krypton-85 could be responsible for creating mid-ocean perturbations, triggering much bigger storms and hurricanes such as Katrina that devastated the coastline of America's Gulf shore, New Orleans included, in August 2005.

I am no atmospheric scientist, but have heard this argument over the impact of increasing krypton-85 releases, put forward by Dr Peter Taylor at a Conference on the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) at Sellafield, held at Liverpool University in 1988.

Thorp's operators, BNFL ( now managing the reprocessing plant under contract for the atomic quango, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority) were told to build into Thorp during construction in the 1980s a krypton-85 filtration plant, but they declined to do so due to excessive costs. Could that decision be proved very short sighted?
It may be counter-intuitive, but just maybe going nuclear might exascerbate climate change, not mitigate it, as the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)scientific panel has argued today (4 May) in Bangkok in Thailand.

I suggest that anyone wanting to follow-up this issue further contact MILKAS directly - they have several very good English speakers - at informilkas@gmail.com, or telephone : +46 31 42 46 64, or visit their web site at www.milkas.se

Dr David Lowry
environmental policy and research consultant
Stoneleigh
Surrey

_________________
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
STG



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 89

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find this rather strange information:

Carbon dioxide is a very good IR-absorber due to it's rotational spectra, which is created by it's linear geometry. While krypton is a pure noble gas, which means monoatomic...So it doesn't posses any rotational spectra, and by this isn't much contributing to global warming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
goslow



Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 705

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, there must be some alternative scientific explanation, but I can't think what it could be!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
STG



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 89

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

goslow wrote:
yeah, there must be some alternative scientific explanation, but I can't think what it could be!


No there isn't an other scientific explanation, I just argumented against Krypton being a greenhouse gas. And it doesn't matter if it is Kr-85 or Kr-84 because they are chemically identical.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
goslow



Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 705

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes of course! This is intruiging, perhaps I will try to read up on it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
goslow



Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 705

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

quick google:

"Increases conductivity of lower atmosphere, with possible implications for earth's electric field and precipitation from convective clouds."

but also

"importance of influence is highly speculative."

Conductivity????? Does that make any sense to you? Krypton should be quite hard to ionise, but not as hard as the smaller noble gases.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
STG



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 89

PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kr-85 is radioactive (I assume a beta-emitter), so it ionizes the air a little bit more compared to the background radiation. But this increase in activity is only small compared to the background, so I assume there is nothing to worry about that...because the nitrogen is still the main compound of air and therefor the one which will determine the conductivity most.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group