Monthly Archives: September 2019

Water Towers, usually a good thing.

Leave a reply

Most towns have at least one water tower. Oakland county, Michigan has four. When they are sized right, they serve several valuable purposes. They provide water in case of a power failure; they provide increased pressure in the morning when people use a lot of water showering etc.; and they allow a town to use smaller pumps and to pump with cheaper electricity, e.g. at night. If a town has no tower, all these benefits are gone, but a town can still have water. It’s also possible to have a situation that’s worse than nothing. My plan is to show, at the end of this essay, one of the ways that can happen. It involves thermodynamic properties of state i a situation where there is no expansion headspace or excess drain (most towers have both).

A typical water tower — spheroidal design. A tower of the dimensions shown would contain about 1/2 million gallons of water.

The typical tower stands at the highest point in the town, with the water level about 170 feet above street level. It’s usable volume should be about as much water as the town uses in a typical day. The reason for the height has to do with the operating pressure of most city-level water pipes. It’s about 75 psi and each foot of water “head” gives you about 0.43 psi. You want pressures about 75 psi for fire fighting, and to provide for folks in apartment buildings. If you have significantly higher pressures, you pay a cost in electricity, and you start losing a lot of water to leaks. These leaks should be avoided. They can undermine the roads and swallow houses. Bob Dadow estimates that, for our water system the leakage rate is between 15 and 25%.

Oakland county has four water towers with considerably less volume than the 130 million gallons per day that the county uses. I estimate that the South-east Oakland county tower, located near my home, contains, perhaps 2 million gallons. The other three towers are similar in size. Because our county’s towers are so undersized, we pay a lot for water, and our water pressure is typically quite low in the mornings. We also have regular pressure excursions and that leads to regular water-boil emergencies. In some parts of Oakland county this happens fairly often.

There are other reasons why a system like ours should have water towers with something more like one days’ water. Having a large water reserve means you can benefit from the fact that electric prices are the lowest at night. With a days’ volume, you can avoid running the pumps during high priced, day times. Oakland county loses this advantage. The other advantage to having a large volume is that it gives you more time to correct problems, e.g. in case of an electric outage or a cyber attack. Perhaps Oakland thinks that only one pump can be attacked at one time or that the entire electric grid will not go out at one time, but these are clearly false assumptions. A big system also means you can have pumps powered by solar cells or other renewable power. Renewable power is a good thing for reliability and air pollution avoidance. Given the benefits, you’d expect Oakland county would reward towns that add water towers, but they don’t, as best I can tell.

Here’s one way that a water column can cause problems. You really need those pressure reliefs.

Now for an example of the sort of things that can go wrong in a water tower with no expansion relief. Every stand-pipe is a small water tower, and since water itself is incompressible, it’s easy to see that a small expansion in the system could produce a large pressure rise. The law requires that every apartment hose water system has to have expansion relief to limit these increases; The water tower above had two forms of reliefs, a roof vent, and an overflow pipe, both high up so that pressure could be maintained. But you can easily imagine a plumber making a mistake and installing a stand pipe without an expansion relief. I show a system like that at left, a 1000 foot tall water pipe, within a skyscraper, with a pump at the bottom, and pipes leading off at the sides to various faucets.

Lets assume that the pressure at the top is 20 psi, the pressure at the bottom will be about 450 psi. The difference in pressure (430 psi) equals the weight of the water divided by the area of the pipe. Now let’s imagine that a bubble of air at the bottom of the pipe detaches and rises to the top of the pipe when all of the faucets are closed. Since air is compressible, while water is not, the pressure at the bubble will remain the same as the bubble rises. By the time the bubble reaches the top of the pipe, the pressure there will rise to 450 psi. Since water has weight, 430 psi worth, the pressure at the bottom will rise to 880 psi = 450 + 430. This is enough to damage pump and may blow the pipes as well. A scenario like this likely destroyed the New Horizon oil platform to deadly consequences. You really want those pressure reliefs, and you want a competent plumber / designer for any water system, even a small one.

Robert Buxbaum, September 28- October 6, 2019. I ran for water commissioner is 2016.

Recycle nuclear waste

3 Replies

In a world obsessed with stopping global warming by reducing US carbon emissions, you’d think there would be a strong cry for nuclear power, one of the few reliable sources of large-scale power that does not discharge CO2. But nuclear power produces dangerous waste, and I have a suggestion: let’s recycle the waste so it’s less dangerous and so there is less of it. Used nuclear fuel rods, in particular. We burn perhaps 5% of the uranium, and produce a waste that is full of energy. Currently these, semi-used rods are stored in very expensive garbage dumps waiting for us to do something. Let’s recycle.

I’ve called nuclear power the elephant in the room for clean energy. Nuclear fuel produces about 25% of America’s electricity, providing reliable baseline generation along with polluting alternatives: coal and natural gas, and less-reliable renewables like solar and wind. Nuclear power does not emit CO2, and it’s available whether or not the sun shines or the wind blows. Nuclear power uses far less land area than solar or wind too, and it provides critical power for our navy aircraft carriers and submarines. Short of eliminating our navy, we will have to keep using nuclear.

Although there are very little nuclear waste per energy delivered, the waste that there is, is hard to manage. Used nuclear fuel rods in particular. For one thing, the used rods are hot, physically. They give off heat, and need to be cooled. At first they give off so much heat that the rods must be stored under water. But rod-heat decays fractally. After ten years or so, rods can be stored in naturally cooled concrete; it’s still a headache, but a smaller one The other problem with the waste rods is that they contain about 1.2% plutonium, a material that can be used for atomic bombs. A major reason that you can’d just dump the waste into the ocean or into a salt mine is the fear that someone will dig it up and extract the plutonium for an a- bomb. The extraction is easy compared to enriching uranium to bomb-grade, and the bombs work at least as well. Plutonium made this way was used for the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki.

The original plan for US nuclear power had been that we would extract the plutonium, and burn it up by recycling it to the nuclear reactor. We’d planned to burry the rest, as the rest is far less dangerous and far less, long-term radioactive. We actually did some plutonium recycling of this sort but in the 1970s a disgruntled worker named Silkwood stole plutonium and recycling was shut down in the US. After that, political paralysis set in and we’ve come to just let the waste sit in more-or-less guarded locations. There was a thought to burry everything in a guarded location (Yucca Mountain, Nevada) but the locals were opposed. So the waste sits waiting to leak out or be stolen. I’d like to return to recycling, but not necessarily of pure plutonium as we did before Silkwood: there is no guarantee that there won’t be other plutonium thieves.

Instead of removing the plutonium for recycling, I’d like to suggest that we remove about 40% of the uranium in the rod, and all of the “ash”, this is all of the lighter atom elements created from the split uranium atoms. This ash is about 5% of the total. The resultant rods would have about 2% plutonium, 97.5% enriched uranium (about 1% enriched at this stage) plus about 0.5% higher transuranics. This composition would be a far less dangerous than purified plutonium. It would be less hot and it would not be possible to use it directly for atom bombs. It would still be fissionable, though, at the same energy content as fresh rods.

There is an uncommonly large amount of power available in nuclear fuel

Several countries recycle by removing the ash. Because no uranium is removed, the material they get has about half the usable life of a fresh rod. After one recycle, there is not much more they could do. If we remove uranium material is a lot more easily used, and more easily recycled again. If we keep removing ash and uranium, we could get many, many recycles. The result is a lot less uranium mining, and more power per rod, and fewer rods to store under guard.

The plutonium of multiply recycled rods is also less-usable for fission bombs. With each recycle, the rods build up a non-fisionabl isotope of plutonium: Pu 240. This isotope is not readily separated from the fissionable isotope, Pu 239, making multiply used rods relatively useless for fission bombs.

Among the countries that do some nuclear waste recycling are Canada, France, Russia, China, and Germany. Not a bad assortment. I would be happy to see us join them.

Robert Buxbaum September 9, 2019