Bush Admin. signs agreement to develop next generation nuke energy systems

http://www.caprep.com/0305005.htm

WASHINGTON (03/02/05) -- Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman recently joined representatives from Canada, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom to sign the first multilateral agreement in history aimed at the development of next generation nuclear energy systems.

The work of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is essential to advancing an important component of the Bush Administration’s comprehensive energy strategy, the development of next generation nuclear energy technologies. The GIF is composed of 11 countries including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, France, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

"Each of our nations recognizes that developing new nuclear power technologies will be indispensable in meeting our growing energy needs and support continued economic growth," said Secretary Bodman. "This research agreement will accelerate an international effort to develop Generation IV nuclear energy systems nuclear energy technology that will be safer, more reliable, cost-effective, and more proliferation-resistant than any technology available today."

The GIF partners have identified six next generation technologies for development including: the Gas Cooled Fast Reactor; the Sodium Fast Reactor; the Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor; the Molten Salt Reactor; the Supercritical Water Reactor; and the Very High Temperature Reactor. The last technology concept forms the basis of the U.S. research program to develop an ultra-safe (???), economic nuclear system that will be designed to produce electricity and hydrogen with substantially less waste (???) and without emitting air pollutants or greenhouse gases.





The Bush administration's nuclear program is a shell game with their ambitions hidden within the Energy and Defense bills, most under the guise of research. Their proposals originated in a position paper which is referenced in the Energy Policy Act of 2003, entitled, "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010". http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf

The nuclear industry, along with government supporters, developed a roadmap for the realization of these goals. They intend to portray nukes as a safe, clean alternative to CO2 based plants. The bill references the "Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program." http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap

This is a determined, deliberate hard sell to get the nation back in the nuclear game. The nuclear provisions in the Energy bill, now in congressional conference are a tough read but they are designed to confuse. http://energy.senate.gov/

The legislation designates INEEL, The Idaho Engineering and Environmental Laboratories, as the lead facility for nuclear R&D. This has been the nation's primary lab for all of the nuclear madness since 1952. INEEL's primary function since the mid 70's was the clean-up of their own toxic waste. This clean-up is still going on. There is money allocated in this bill for that.

At the end of the decade support for nuclear energy was on the decline because of waste and safety issues and disarmament. Right before Bush II got in office, the industry, still fat from clean-up money sought to bolster their flagging industry. (INEEL gets 70% of their funding for waste disposal)

Waste storage had become so controversial that it had soured the public to the idea of more nukes and more nuke plants. (Yucca Mountain, storage sites in New Mexico, transportation, safety issues, etc.).

So, they began promoting the view that the 'spent' nuclear fuel from decommissioned weapons and nuclear power plants could be broken down and reconstituted for weapons (depleted uranium) and a new generation of nuclear plants which would accommodate (recycle) and use the waste instead of immobilizing it in glass and storing it. http://www.nci.org/0new/wpu-immob-dp52001.htm

The industry makes the dubious claim that the recycled waste keeps it out of the hands of terrorists and makes proliferation more difficult. It will more likely disperse the waste and create more opportunity for abuse or mishap. http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/briefs/0004.asp

We import the spent fuel from Russian nukes and process it for the remaining uranium powered electric plants in the U.S. and abroad. The program has been successful in the elimination of some 4,000 Russian warheads, but has created a dependence on the Russian uranium to power the U.S. plants; prompting the Energy Dept. to explore and pursue new sources of nuclear fuel for these plants.

New plants are contemplated in the Energy and Defense legislation which would utilize the new generation of recycled nuclear fuels (MOX mixed-oxide, hydrogen based, depleted uranium, etc.). These centers will almost certainly be formatted to accommodate the next generation of nuclear weapons, such as, mini tactical nukes and bunker- busters. http://www.greenpeace.org/~comms/nukes/nukes.html

INEEL will undoubtably be at the center of this effort.

The INEEL is operated for the DOE by Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC. Members of the LLC are Bechtel National, Inc., BWX Technologies Co. and INRA. INRA is a consortium of eight regional universities. The DOE field office is the Idaho Operations Office.

The INEEL consists of the eight major facility areas scattered across an 890-square-mile area in southeastern Idaho typically referred to as the "site." The ninth area includes several laboratories located approximately 30 miles east in the city of Idaho Falls.

INEEL's Facilities:

The Test Area North - TAN consists of facilities for handling, storage, examination, and research of spent nuclear fuel. TAN also houses the Specific Manufacturing Capability Project, which makes armor packages for Army tanks.

The Test Reactor Area - TRA is described as the world's most sophisticated materials testing complex and has extensive facilities for studying the effects of radiation on materials, fuels, and equipment.

The Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center - INTEC provides interim storage for government-owned spent nuclear fuels. INTEC currently develops new approaches and technologies to prepare spent fuel and other nuclear materials for eventual disposal in a national repository. It also is the center for the INEEL's high-level Waste treatment program.

The Waste Reduction Operations Complex/Power Burst Facility is housed in an area formerly used for reactor operations. WROC/PBF provides treatment, storage, and recycling of the INEEL's radioactive, mixed, and industrial/commercial wastes.

The Radioactive Waste Management Complex - RWMC studies the strategies for waste storage, processing, and disposal. Some 32,000 drums containing waste are stored at this facility.

The Naval Reactors Facility - NRF is the birthplace of the U.S. Nuclear Navy. NRF receives and examines Naval spent fuel, and works together with other INEEL facilities to improve and expand nuclear propulsion systems.

The INEEL Research Center - IRC is located in Idaho Falls, and is INEEL's primary research complex with applied R&D in science and engineering critical to national and DOE missions.

The Argonne National Laboratory-West - ANL-W is part of Argonne National Laboratory operated by the University of Chicago, conducts research and development and operates facilities for DOE in areas of our national concern including energy, nuclear safety, spent nuclear fuel, non proliferation, decommissioning and decontamination technologies, and nuclear material disposal.

President Bush signed into law a Defense bill for 2004 which includes $9 billion in funding for research on the next generation of nuclear meddling. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031124-2.html

Please take some time to visit the INEEL site and familiarize yourself with our government's nuclear ambitions as outlined in their 'roadmap'. Whether you aprove or disapprove of nuclear energy production, this administration's nuclear appropriations are designed to accomodate their desire for new, 'useable' nuclear weaponry, from the construction of plutonium pits which are a necessary component in nuclear weapon production, to the accomodation of these new plants and the new, 'blended' nuclear fuels for weapons production.

http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf
http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/

Related:

US reverses weapons plutonium policy-
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1833

Go-ahead expected for controversial nuclear fuel plant-
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991276

Plutonium disposal, Nuclear Control Institute
http://www.nci.org/nci-wpu.htm

City of Santa Fe Resolution against the Modern Pit Facility
http://nukewatch.org/mpf/MPFSFRes.pdf

Nuclear Watch New Mexico's comments on the Modern Pit Facility.
http://nukewatch.org/mpf/NWNMMPFComments82503.pdf

The Leaked Department of Energy Modern Pit Facility Site Screening Report
http://nukewatch.org/importantdocs/resources/plutopit10-18-02v2.pdf

Nuclear Watch Plutonium Pit Fact Sheet
http://nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/Overview_of_Pits.pdf

Greenpeace Scoping Comments
http://nukewatch.org/importantdocs/resources/PitEIS10-15-02v2.pdf

A New Advanced Plutonium Lab For Los Alamos?
http://nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/CMRreplacement052803.pdf

nuke push in this administration? They'll eventually get their nukes because of the lack of protest. Our party is the only thing standing in their way. For the life of me, and everyone elses, I can't understand why we can debate everything under the sun here, but are seemingly bored with any discussion of nuclear weapon production in our own country. I would think that with the prospect of military action with Iran there would be some interest in pressuring our own government on their plans for new nuke production and an interest in making certain that whatever program they manage to fund with our tax dollars is safe and doesn't lead to a new nuclear arms race.

Boom! There goes our world. Too bad we didn't see it coming. Or did we, and just didn't care enough to involve ourselves in the debate? One of the first major protests I attended was the No Nukes rally in D.C. We really used to give a damn. I really see almost no real concern from this generation. Is it apathy? Is it too hard to read? Is it just that there are more interesting things to talk about? The new nukes are creeping in. This administration is counting on our apathy and distraction as they sneak them through in the Defense and Energy bills. This is the most dangerous undertaking by this administration, this foolish ignorant cabal of military industry executives. We have hundreds of unmet needs and they are spending billions on new destruction. Billions of our hard earned contributions. All of this money will go into these defense industry executives pockets and make us more insecure, threatening generations to come. Bechtel, Lockheed, Raytheon . . . they don't deserve the money, yet we just let it go. The Generation IV inituitive is working as planned. Complicated, but not impossible to track down and oppose. Not impossible to demand answers. Not complicated to demand some clarity.

But, we just let them go. We just let these warmongerers have their way. I would never have expected such low interest from members of my party. I guess we will continue to creep into a new generation where nuclear war is a reality again. Mutual assured destruction is a joke. Don't count on it to save our asses. These neonuts won't stop their nuclear meddling and other countries won't stop trying to find ways to counter our meddling with their own nuclear defenses. That's how we started the Cold War. That will be the legacy of this era unless we demand a stop to the madness.

I'm so angry and disillusioned by the lack of interest to my efforts to raise this issue here in the past two years that I could cry. Hope those who are fighting this in our party can hang on.

WHO TOLD THESE INDUSTRY EXECUTIVES TO SPEND OUR MONEY ON THIS NUCLEAR MEDDLING? BUSH HAS BARELY MENTIONED NEW NUCLEAR WEAPON PRODUCTION, IF HE HAS AT ALL. WHERE WAS THE DEBATE? WHERE WAS THE DISCUSSION. NOWHERE.

YET, THEY ARE POISED TO SPEND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS TO FACILITATE AND USHER IN A 'NEW GENERATION OF WEAPONRY AND A NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR PLANTS, WITH NEW, UNPROVEN BLENDED NUCLEAR FUELS.

WHERE IS THE DEBATE? WHERE IS THE DISCUSSION?

So why can't we?

Don't know. But, if you're curious about the technology, they are called "pebble bed reactors". They use helium instead of water as a coolant and, if I recall, use uranium inside of graphite spheres. If there's a breach of the pressure vessel and the helium leaks out, there's no loss of fissile material and thus no environmental impact. It's basically impossible for the reaction to run out of control.

Of course, we Americans probably wont go this route because there's probably some goddamn corporate interest in producing unsafe reactors.

WHY THE HELL SHOULD WE TRUST THIS ADMINISTRATION WITH ANYTHING THAT THEY COULD TURN INTO A GODDAMN BOMB?????!!!!

As for waste, check some of the links I provided. Don't forget the arguments about increased risk of proliferation and the formatting of these plants for the next generation of new 'useable' nuclear weapons. That's one of the contemplated uses for the new 'blended nuclear fuels; weapons production:



Go-ahead expected for controversial nuclear fuel plant
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1276

"Expensive and dangerous"

Frank Barnaby, from the Oxford Research Group, an independent group of scientists studying nuclear issues, argues that the case against MOX fuel is overwhelming. "It is more expensive and more dangerous than ordinary fuel," he says. "If it gets the go-ahead, I shall marvel at the stupidity of it."

Barnaby, a nuclear physicist who worked at the nuclear weapons laboratory at Aldermaston in Berkshire in the 1950s, has previously shown how easy it would be for terrorists to make MOX fuel into an atomic bomb. This is denied by BNFL, which says that the risk of the fuel being stolen is "minimal".
________________________________________________

The Chemical and Metallurgical Research Building Replacement Project
A New Advanced Plutonium Lab For Los Alamos?
http://nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/CMRreplacement052803.pdf

Nuclear Watch of New Mexico maintains that there is still no need for such a facility. The CMR Building replacement serves to further new regressive U.S. nuclear weapons policies. These policies were first formalized under the Bush Jr. Administration’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (for more on the Nuclear Posture Review, see www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/nprbulletin.pdf) and most recently Congress’ approval of research and develop-ment funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and the overturning of the decade old prohibition against mini-nuke research and development. The mission of the CMR replacement will be in direct support of efforts to fully modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, resume nuclear weapons production, and design new weapons. Not only are these efforts in contravention to international treaties in which the U.S.unequivocally committed to full and complete disarmament, such as the 1970 NonProliferation Treaty, but they will further help to destabilize nuclear weapons arms control and could lead to a new nuclear arms race. Concerned about the intent of these new U.S. efforts, Russia and China have already begun to examine meth-ods to modernize their own nuclear weapons stockpiles.
_________________________________

DUAL CAPABLE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/nukes.html

The real risk of further proliferation of nuclear weapons remains with countries who have or who are developing a civil nuclear power industry. As advanced civil nuclear technology is traded from the established nuclear civil power nations, countries developing nuclear power are striking for independence in the fuel cycle, building up their own domestic nuclear fuel industries. These plants, including uranium conversion and enrichment facilities, research and power reactors, and reprocessing plants, are all capable of producing the military grades of fissile materials required for nuclear warheads. Several countries, excluded from the 'club' of nuclear weapons nations, now have the technology of nuclear weapons material production that has been safeguarded by the nuclear weapons nations for the last 40 to 50 years. Like the nuclear plants and fissile materials, the intellectual know- how needed to design and assemble a nuclear warhead, also of 50 years vintage, has also slipped through the non-proliferation safeguarding system.

The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) system would utilize depleted uranium. I believe this is just a shifty way to justify it's production and use elsewhere.

The Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR) would "adopt" uranium/plutonium fuel, another fuel that is contemplated for use in new nuclear weaponry. I believe that this is just another slippery justification for the production of such blended fuels as their main purpose would be for weapons production.

The Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) also utilizes mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel which is contemplated for use in new nuclear weaponry.

New plants are contemplated in the Energy and Defense legislation which would utilize the new generation of recycled nuclear fuels (MOX mixed-oxide, hydrogen based, depleted uranium, etc.). These centers will almost certainly be formatted to accommodate the next generation of nuclear weapons, such as, mini tactical nukes and bunker- busters. 169

INEEL will undoubtably be at the center of this effort.

There are more than 100 operating nuclear power plants in America and 16 non-operational power plants. The electricity produced by these plants provide the U.S. with only 20% of our electricity needs. That 20% could easily be made up by any combination of alternative sources.

Most of the supporters of nuclear energy would be loath to place their own homes and their families directly in the way of the negative effects of production.

By the time the fuel is converted into some neat package, millions in the community, in the nation and even the world could suffer the negative effects of its production.

We go to a gas station for our fuel. On the land where it is produced, the effects are devastating. One accident can mean death and destruction to the people or to the environment.

This is no idle musing. Nuclear power is not inherently safe, as the industry supporters claim. The waste is not manageable in a way which will protect future generations from the effects of exploitation, misuse, or mishaps. As I stated above, we are still cleaning up the waste from the '50's, at the same area that they are contemplating building new ones. Why should we trust the same industry that has so far been so irresponsible with the waste produced in the past. Trust us, seems to be the mantra here. I don't trust the industry whose bottom line has never been safety. Their bottom line has always been their profit margin. And this administration has a myopic ambition for destruction and mayhem.

It's hard to be intellectual about nuclear energy when so many innocent people suffer the effects of its production. These plants are placed in areas where the people are poor and unable to defend against the intellectuals and space buffs.

These plants are presented as job creators for these community's weak economies. They become dependent on the revenue, and can't count on the proponents who sold them these nuclear plants to regulate them in a way that would put the public's welfare ahead of profit.

Try to shut down a plant once it is in operation. Try to stop the exploitation of the material after it is produced. Try to clean up the inevitable mess to the environment. How about we don't do this dance again? How about putting the nuclear monster back into Pandora's Box? This raw ambition for nuclear power meshes perfectly with conservative tripe about the primacy of industry: "Damn the public. To hell with land, I don't live there. To hell with the people, they aren't me."

In the communities where the land has been poisoned, the people who have to live there and work in these plants know full well that the risks of nuclear production outweigh any benefit from electrical power.

The Government Accountability Project contends that 67 workers were exposed between January 2002 and August 2003 to toxic vapors escaping from tanks that hold radioactive wastes from the production of nuclear weapons.

The watchdog group reports that scores of Hanford nuclear reservation workers have been exposed to toxic vapors as the government pushes for faster and cheaper cleanups of wastes.

Until there is a change in the White House or in the control of Congress, it is folly to expect that the worst won't happen, or that we will be able to stuff all of the planned nuclear expansion back into some benign box.

It is immoral and wrong for this administration to hide their nuclear ambitions and proceed as if they had won the debate over the acceptability of nuclear power, when in fact no such public debate has occurred.

I would oppose any money for new construction which would serve to refurbish or expand our existing supply of nuclear weaponry. Similarly, I would support provisions which intend to dismantle such weaponry if the intention and result is for the disposal of these harmful weapons and their radioactive waste in a safe and effective manner.

Also I would oppose any money for new construction of any nuclear plants which are designed for energy production, or any money for construction intended to preserve any existing power plants which utilize nuclear material.

I strongly favor the existing practice of immobilizing the nuclear waste in glass and storing it, as the previous administration advocated.

I would similarly oppose any money for research or development of any new nuclear fuels, or nuclear fuel blends, or the recycling and utilization of any 'degraded' nuclear material for use in new or existing weapons or for use in any new or existing power plant, as is outlined in the document "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010" and in the Generation IV Roadmap. I would oppose any monies which intend to preserve the Uranium Transfer Program.

As laudable as the realized goal of the reduction of the Russian nuclear arsenal may be, in reality, the transfers depend on a faltering contract and support an electric supply that provides only 20% of our nation's electricity needs. This 20% could be made up by any combination of renewables.

The uranium program should be allowed to sunset. The focus should be on the replacement of the uranium industry with a more sustainable supply of energy. There is also the concern that U.S. Energy Corp. redistributes much of the blended uranium outside of the country (up to 40%), inviting more opportunities for exploitation and abuse.

I would oppose any money expended to support, enhance or expand the construction of any nuclear centrifuge facility for demonstration, research, or production of thermonuclear weaponry. I would similarly oppose any money which would support or encourage any such thermonuclear program abroad.

Finally, I would oppose any expansion, enhancement, or renewal of the Price-Anderson Act which would further encourage public or governmental involvement in nuclear production. And I would encourage the expansion of any law or regulation which would hold those in the nuclear industry accountable for the safety of their workers and the environment.

In respect to all of these issues, I feel that the nuclear ambitions of the Bush administration are a foot in the door for those who would expand our existing nuclear program and would draw our nation into a new nuclear arm's race; exacerbating the problems of proliferation; threatening the safety and the health of workers, the community and the environment.

The alternative to nuclear is coal. It's that simple: if we shut down nuclear, instead of getting 50% of our power from coal, it would by 70%. If you think solar will take up the slack, you're in fantasy land: a 1 gigawatt solar station would consist of 60 square miles of collectors -- perhaps the largest engineering project in human history. Wind might play a greater role, but there are nimby issues with wind which limit its availability; plus wind is intermittent.

By continuing to rely on coal, we are continuing to rip apart the landscape, especially in West Virginia, where the custom is to sheer entire mountains off to expose a coal seam, then fill the neighboring valleys with the rubble. The resulting land is unusable for agriculture or anything else; a fact which is obscured by the planting of a worthless weed as a groundcover. (This also leads to more property loss in floods, affecting the poor people of Appalachia who cannot afford to leave nor afford to sue mining companies.)

And of course, coal is a horror show for global warming. Only the coal industry still argues that global warming is of no concern.

Carbon sequestration is the process of permanently storing CO2 gas in geologic or ocean reservoirs. If proven to be safe, permanent, and environmentally benign, sequestration could be used to reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions from burning coal and other fossil fuels, potentially making them more acceptable sources of hydrogen or electricity in the short term. However, producing hydrogen from coal can never be an option unless the carbon from coal can be stored safely for the long-term without other adverse environmental impacts. The safety and long-term viability of storage is uncertain, and the adverse environmental and health impacts of coal mining, mountain top removal and power plant waste disposal are still a problem with even the most advanced coal fired power plant and carbon sequestration technology being considered.

Nuclear power could also be used to produce hydrogen, but there are unresolved safety and disposal issues that have not been adequately addressed. Nuclear power plants are also vulnerable to potential terrorist attacks. Still, the Bush administration is seeking more than a billion dollars to develop a new nuclear power plant designed to produce hydrogen.

There is another way to produce hydrogen -- one that uses no fossil fuels or nuclear power in the process. Renewable sources of energy -- photovoltaic solar cells, wind, small sustainable hydropower, geothermal, and even wave power -- are technologies that are available today and are increasingly being used to produce electricity. That electricity, in turn, can be used, in a process called electrolysis, to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Once produced, the hydrogen can be stored and used, when needed, to generate electricity or be used directly as a fuel. Storage is the key to making renewable energy economically viable. That's because when renewable energy is harnessed to produce electricity, the electricity flows immediately. So, if the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, or the water isn't flowing, electricity can't be generated. But, if some of the electricity being generated is used to extract hydrogen from water, which can then be stored, for later use, society will have a more continuous supply of power.

Clean biomass, which includes non-genetically modified sustainably grown energy crops and sustainably retrievable agriculture wastes, could also be an important near-term source of hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation. Clean biomass is a proven source of renewable energy that is utilized today for generating heat, electricity, and liquid transportation fuels. Clean biomass can be used to produce hydrogen through a process called gasification in which the biomass is converted to a gas and hydrogen is extracted.

Virtually no net greenhouse gas emissions result because a natural cycle is maintained in which carbon is extracted from the atmosphere during plant growth and is released during hydrogen production. Replanting and reforesting are prerequisite for maintaining a renewable hydrogen supply from biomass.

more:
http://www.greenhydrogencoalition.org/

Seriously, this is one area where I might just disagree with many of my fellow DU'ers.

Since we're decades away from fusion power plants, what do we have that is both reasonably safe and cost effective? I'm not talking about Republican-style cost effectiveness, I simply mean something that we can all live with. And I am sure someone will pounce on me with link after link showing stupid shit like "Dr. Ballsenshaft at the University of Humpenlegge has clearly shown that fairy dust and cannabis have the potential to provide electricity for thousands of years! The future is PDP (pixie-dust and pot) reactors, dudes!"

I am going to have to disagree with the three anti-nuclear links (Greenpeace? God bless 'em, but you know their side of the story beforehand!). They are doing precisely what both themselves and similar groups taught the Rebublicans to do... stir up the fear pot with their misinformation stick.

Fission reactors are dangerous. I don't like them one bit. But here we have the opportunity to utilize fissile materials from no-longer-needed nuclear weapons for the creation of relatively cheap and far-more environmentally sound power,l

Shit, these people can flip out about anything... "The terrorists can build a bomb with this! It's easier to refine! Light-water! Weapons grade anus and stuff!" Honestly, it's like they think the fuel spheres will just tumble out the back of the truck while the drivers hauling them stop at McDonalds and "the terrorists" will be there to collect them like loose change...

Of course, I should expect nothing less from some folks here. A couple of months back I posted a message linking to a CNN poll on the Cassini mission to Saturn on the day we landed on Titan where, I felt, too many people were voting for the "waste of money" response. Naively, I assumed that we would all be excited about this success. Instead I was verbally lambasted for supporting scientific progress. I was absolutely floored that so many people were on the NASA hate-wagon here. Science and knowledge be damned because, "oooh noooo we did put a nuker ship into spaaaaace and we all r gonna die!"

For progressives, there sure are a lot of regressive attitudes towards so many things here...

Have you seen the reports about lack of security at these power plants? Earthquake fault lines are becoming less stable in the U.S. Did you know that we have built nuclear power plants on fault lines?

If our economy was good, I would be excited about the Cassini mission. Unfortunately, our economy is bad. At this point in time, I consider the Cassini mission to be a waste of rare resources (money).

JOVIAN SPACE NEWS SERVICE- Interplanetary Edition
Serving the Jovian moons of Ganymede, Callisto and Europa.

Space Travelers Come in Peace; Turned Back, Nonetheless.

(Europa) Today marked two historic firsts for Europa. Space travelers from a distant planet, believed by many to be uninhabitable because of its toxic atmosphere, locked into our planet's orbit and were quickly intercepted by our interplanetary space patrol.

The travelers are apparently the first-ever recorded visitors to Europa from a planet far beyond our tri-moon system.

The travelers reportedly communicate by projecting the air into the other's orifices in modulated waves. All attempts by the patrol to connect with their inner voice have encountered only static and clutter, making communication difficult if not impossible.

The interplanetary patrol also experienced another first in their encounter with the travelers which was met with much alarm as the patrol reported their discovery to the interplanetary council.

Apparently, the traveler's spacecraft is powered, in part, by a nuclear reactor system. According to Europan law, concentrated radioactive devices have been extremely prohibited since the planet lost its natural atmosphere from the misuse of these materials.

The travelers were regrettably forced out of orbit and are assumed to be returning to their native planet, perhaps to perish in the toxic haze which covers their dying home.

Second of all, pebble-bed reactors would make the issue of faultlines almost moot since, according to established principles and a dose of theory, the reaction would not spiral out of control in the event of coolant evacuation. Anyhoo...

if Bechtel wasn't the company hawking it.

In both the Bush Administration and the Republican-dominated 108th Congress, NEI's expensive lobbying campaigns appear at last to be paying off. The controversial Bush energy policy specifically plugs "pebble bed modular reactors," a dubious design concept that Bechtel is involved in. Energy legislation currently before the U.S. Senate would promote the construction of new nuclear reactors and offset the prudent disinterest of investors by offering federal financing that could leave taxpayers liable for an estimated $30 billion. If this ill-conceived program is approved by the Congress, Bechtel would presumably be a leading candidate for design and construction contracts for new government-subsidized reactors.

Bechtel's Weapons of Mass Destruction
With the future of the commercial nuclear industry uncertain, Bechtel has not left all its atomic eggs in one basket. The company is also a major government contractor on the military side of the nuclear coin. It is ironic, in fact, that Bechtel has been awarded a contract in connection with the Iraq war - fought ostensibly to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction; because back home in the U.S., Bechtel Nevada (a team consisting of Bechtel Nevada Corporation; Johnson Controls Nevada, Inc.; and Lockheed Martin Nevada Technologies, Inc.) has received $1.9 billion to date to manage the Nevada Test Site74, where the federal government has exploded 1,000 nuclear bombs.75 Now Bechtel Nevada is helping the government to conduct sub-critical nuclear tests (i.e. atomic explosions in which the detonation does not reach the climax of a self-sustaining chain reaction) and other nuclear weapons activities at the site. Opponents contend that these activities threaten global security, undermine the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and further contaminate the environment.

A safety inspection in 2002 uncovered several violations at the Bechtel Nevada-managed site. For instance, the inspection found improperly labeled explosives and combustible material dangerously stored next to high explosives. Inspectors also reported that Bechtel Nevada failed to conduct periodic tests of lightning monitors and protection for their storage facilities. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6975#76

Like Yucca Mountain (which is located on the edge of the Nevada Test Site) Bechtel's test site operations are on ancestral lands of the Western Shoshone, and Native Americans continue to be disproportionately impacted by radioactive contamination at the site.

In addition to its direct role in the U.S. nuclear weapons program at the Nevada Test Site, Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC (a joint venture of Bechtel National, Inc. and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) is also a contractor at the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee that, among other ventures, produces weapons components. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6975#77

Their motives are clearly spelled out in their manifestos, from PNAC to the Nuclear Policy Posture review. They are responsible for the cynicism. Cassini would be fine in a perfect world where there were no neocons spelling out plans for space based platforms that would support space based lasers.

It should be remembered that there is no pot of money sitting around unneeded to dip into for these space projects. No starry-eyed mission to the moons of Pluto can be sustained without the military bonanza of nervous cash; and you can't easily turn this industry off once you've given them the money and licence to fiddle.

In response to the call from some in the Clinton-era's Republican Congress for the rapid acceleration of national missile defense development, "leading to deployment of a defense system as soon as possible," the United Missile Defense Company (UMDC) was formed in 1997 as a joint venture; equally owned by Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW.

In fiscal years 1996 through 1998, the Republican congress authorized and appropriated a total of $1,174 million more for missile defense than President Clinton's budget requested for those years.

Despite President Clinton's opposition, a multimillion dollar contract was signed in 1998 for a "Space-Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator" with Lockheed Martin, TRW, and Boeing as the contractors.

On the 25th of April 1997 the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization announced that two contracts for the concept definition study phase of the National Missile Defense (NMD) Lead Systems Integrator were awarded to United Missile Defense Company, Bethesda, MD, and Boeing North American Inc., Downey, CA.

According to a 1997 U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command news release, the then- commanding general of the Training and Doctrine Command, Gen. Hartzog, and the then- commander of the SSDC, Lieut. General Anderson signed a memorandum of agreement to recognize SSDC as the Army's specified proponent for space and missile defense.

The MOA also permitted SSDC to establish the Space and Missile Defense Battle Lab.

The Space and Strategic Defense Command was set up as the Army's specified proponent for space and national missile defense and an "integrator" for theater missile defense issues - recognized by the military establishment as a "one stop shop".

The Space Battle Lab is intended to develop "warfighting concepts, focus military science and technology research, conduct warfighting experiments, and support exercises and training activities, all focused on space and missile defense."

Lockheed Martin Space Systems and Northrop Grumman Space Technology ended up with the contract for the Space Battle Lab.

Today the Lockheed Space Systems website describes the corporation's ambitions in "space-based telecommunications; remote-sensing; missile systems; and the capability to integrate these complex elements into a total "system of systems," as an enterprise built by heritage aerospace companies including Lockheed, Martin Marietta, RCA, GE and Loral.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems is one of the major operating units of the Lockheed Corporation. It designs, develops, tests, manufactures and operates a variety of advanced technology systems for military, civil, and commercial customers.

Chief products include space launch and ground systems, remote sensing and communications satellites for commercial and government customers, advanced space observatories and spacecraft, fleet ballistic missiles and missile defense systems.

Everything for the next-generation of meddling in space. Everything for a down-on-his-luck weapon's manufacturer to get his blood money-grubbing career back on track.

Specific defense projects for the Lockheed Space Battle Lab:
-Global Positioning System IIR (GPS).
-Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
-Space Based Infrared System (Space-Based Lasers)
-International Space Station
-Theater High-Altitude Area Defense
-Airborne Laser
-Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile: The D5 is the latest generation of submarine launched ballistic missiles

-Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile: (UK FBM). The D5, built by LM Space & Strategic Missiles, is the cornerstone of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense's strategic nuclear fleet.

A senior U.S. military officer warned in October of this year that, "Space may become a war zone in the not-too-distant future," in an apparent reaction to China becoming the third country besides the U.S. and Russia to put a man in space.

"In my view it will not be long before space becomes a battleground," Lieutenant General Edward Anderson, Deputy Commander, United States Northern Command, and Vice Commander, U.S. Element, North American Aerospace Defense Command, said at a geospatial intelligence conference in New Orleans.

"Our military forces depend very, very heavily on space capabilities, and so that is a statement of the obvious to our potential threat, whoever that may be," he said.

Anderson has served on the Army staff in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition in the Pentagon as a space acquisitions and appropriations warrior.

"They can see that one of the ways that they can certainly diminish our capabilities will be to attack the space systems," said Anderson, who was formerly with the U.S. Space Command.

"Now how they do that and who that's going to be I can't tell you in this audience," he warned ominously.

In a Reuters article published in the same month as Anderson's remarks, Rich Haver, former special assistant for intelligence to Donald Rumsfeld, said he expected battles in space within the next two decades.

"I believe space is the place we will fight in the next 20 years," said Haver, now vice president for intelligence strategy at Northrop Grumman Mission Systems. (sincere, concerned look on his face as he speaks)

"There are executive orders that say we don't want to do that," Haver explained. "There's been a long-standing U.S. policy to try to keep space a peaceful place, but ... we have in space assets absolutely essential to the conduct of our military operations (and our portfolios), absolutely essential to our national security. They have been there for many years," he asserted.

"When the true history of the Cold War is written and all the classified items are finally unclassified, I believe that historians will note that it was in space that a significant degree of this country's ability to win the Cold War was embedded," Haver extolled.

Responding to a question about the implications of China sending a man into space, Haver said: "I think the Chinese are telling us they're there, and I think if we ever wind up in a confrontation again with any one of the major powers who has a space capability we will find space is a battleground."

The Pentagon's 2004 budget request includes $8.5 billion for unclassified space programs, an increase of about $600 million more than 2003, including funding increases for work on an advanced network of laser-based communications satellites.

The request also includes $274 million for a space-based radar system which the U.S. Air Force hopes to launch in 2012 to track moving ground targets at all times regardless of weather conditions. That marked a sharp rise from $48 million in 2003.

Peter Teets, undersecretary of defense, and former Lockheed president, is a major promoter of the Rumsfeld Commission's January 2001 report on the Military in Space, which warns of a "space Pearl Harbor" if the U.S. does not thoroughly "dominate all aspects of space."

"Clearly, space is the high ground, and we need to capture that high ground and then exploit it," said the former chief executive of the aerospace contractor. Teets has said that winning approval to increase funding for the radar program would be "one of the real tests" for future space programs.

Defense officials plan to spend about $4.4 billion in the next five years on the program, which will provide data to both military and intelligence agencies.

The GAO report faults the stepped-up schedule proposed by President Bush for premature integration. "As a result, there is greater likelihood that critical technologies will not work as intended in planned flight tests," the GAO said, which could force the Pentagon to spend more funds than expected or "accept a less capable system".

Despite the GAO report, the Defense Department has budgeted approximately $10 billion a year over the next five years to fund the missile defense program, and appropriators approved $9.1billion to be spent next year on the system.

Of course, there exists the possibility that President Bush actually assembled the Pentagon's recent pack of aerospace executives to run his foreign policy in his own anticipation of a credible 'space threat', to deter a future assault on our nation's security. What foresight he must have had from his Texas ranch. What of it, if executives and shareholders in the space industry happen to rape of our treasury to fulfill their own hunger to dominate military and commercial space?

There seems to be no limit to aerospace ambitions. The administration is pushing ahead with the expansion of the military space program, despite the limitations of the nation's weak economy and the adoption of many other costly ‘priorities' for the armed forces.

Dayton-based Mission Research Corp., has been tasked recently for a $12 million defense research project. The project is designed to build an experimental system that will track moving ground targets and utilize low-cost weapons to engage them.

The described goal of Mission Research Corp. is to develop a system that will have long-duration surface tracking capabilities, improved sensors, and the ability to use a variety of munitions available in-theater.

Mission Research will provide the technology used for the long-duration surface target tracking, along with Alphatech of Burlington, Mass., and Sandia National Laboratories of Albuquerque, N.M (owned and operated by Lockheed). The principal contractor for the project is the Northrop Grumman Corp. of Melbourne, Fla.

MRC's major clients include the: Air Force Research Laboratory; Electronic Systems Center; Office of Scientific Research; Edwards Flight Test Center Space Systems Division; Army Research Laboratory Space and Strategic Defense Command; Missile Command; Restone Technical Test Center; Navy Research Laboratory; Naval Surface Warfare Center Naval Air Warfare Center Defense Special Weapons Agency Defense; Advanced Research Projects; Department of Energy; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Sandia National Laboratories; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and NASA.

The majority of MRC Microelectronics Division programs are performed through task order contracts and multiple company teams. Typically, MRC is the Prime Contractor.
Other companies include: Honeywell; BAE Systems; Raytheon; Intersil; Texas Instruments; Aerojet; Boeing; TRW; General Electric; Hughes; Orbital Sciences Corporation; and others.

Mission Research Corp.'s annual sales are about $80 million.

NASA’s Chief Administrator, Sean O’Keefe, who just happened to serve as Navy secretary, as well as comptroller and chief financial officer at the Defense Dept., was quoted declaring that NASA and the Pentagon were practically inseparable.

Bruce K. Gagon, Coordinator of the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space quotes O’Keefe’s declaration that, it is “imperative that we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA.” O’Keefe continues, “Technology has taken us to a point where you really can’t differentiate between that which is purely military in application and whose capabilities are civil and commercial in nature.”

NASA's new mission claims to place a high priority on the search for life beyond Earth. NASA touts recent discoveries on Mars and the moons around Jupiter, which they say indicates that there may be or have been habitable environments on these worlds that supported the development of life.

That's the official story.

What's actually behind the White House's hawking of this space mission is their desire to promote and legitimize the industry's new nuclear propulsion technology needed to support such missions. These would be added to a long list of moneymaking boondoggles for the aerospace industry.

NASA, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy are currently working together to develop the technology base for what they term, Space Nuclear Reactor Power.

This program will develop and demonstrate in ground tests the technology required for space reactor power systems from tens of kilowatts to hundreds of kilowatts. The SP-100 nuclear reactor system is to be launched ‘radioactively cold.' When the mission is done, the reactor is intended to be stored in space for hundreds of years.

The reactor would would utilize new blends of "recycled" uranium fuel.

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology, manages the Mars Odyssey mission for NASA's Office of Space Science. Additional science partners are located at the Russian Aviation and Space Agency and at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, is the prime contractor for the project to develop and build the orbiter. Mission operations are conducted jointly from Lockheed Martin and JPL.

Included in NASA plans for the nuclear rocket to Mars; a new generation of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) for interplanetary missions; nuclear-powered robotic Mars rovers to be launched in 2003 and 2009. NASA touts future mining colonies on the Moon, Mars, and asteroids that would be powered by nuclear reactors.

To develop and demonstrate these new nuclear power and propulsion technologies, President Bush's budget proposes $279 million; ($3 billion over five years) for Project Prometheus, which builds on the Nuclear Systems Initiative started last year.

Project Prometheus includes the development of the first nuclear-electric space mission, called the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. 135 This mission will conduct extensive, in-depth studies of the moons of Jupiter that may harbor subsurface oceans. Only advanced nuclear reactors could provide the hundreds of kilowatts of power the craft would need.

The Prometheus Project is based on an archaic notion that began in the '50's with a space project named Orion. Project Orion was a propulsion system that depended on exploding atomic bombs roughly two hundred feet behind the space vehicle. Orion was developed at the old General Dynamics Corporation, under the guidance of several former Manhattan Project scientists. Cassini is not the same, and may be safer. Fine, but . . .my point:

In the late 1950's, Freeman Dyson, physicist, educator, and author, joined the Orion Project research team. The project's participants proposed exploding atomic bombs at regular intervals at very short distances behind a specially designed space ship in order to propel it to the Moon and other planets in the Solar System far more quickly and cheaply than with chemical-fuel rockets.

The motto for Orion was, 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'; hauntingly reminiscent of the administration's line about Project Prometheus exploring Mars and Europa's moons.

Orion ran out of money and needed the government's help. The military agreed to take up the project, but only on the condition that it adapt itself to a military purpose. The project was later abandoned because of uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of nuclear energy, and the high cost of the speculative program. Also, because the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 outlawed it.

"Technology must be guided and driven by ethics if it is to do more than provide new toys for the rich," Dyson, 76, said, as he received the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion 2000.

Dyson once commented that, "Project Orion is a monument to those who once believed, or still believe, in turning the power of these weapons into something else."

Mum to all of that, the White House wants you to know that the nuclear space project will prove new technologies for future NASA missions. Like space-based weaponry.

The decision by U.S. President George W. Bush to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty allows research beneficial to orbiting space-based lasers as part of a global missile defense shield to resume; orbiting space lasers on permanent space platforms.

Despite the administration and industry talk of Europa's moons, the Prometheus Project will pave the way for the original Pentagon plan to mount nuclear reactors on space-based platforms to power their nuclear lasers. And of course, as the Space Command also asserts, ". . . the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms, for military purposes" Enough!

This Promethus project is a cynical attempt to commit the nation to Rumsfeld's Star War's nonsense. Bush and Europa's moons: I don't believe them!

A space-based laser system would only encourage other nations to build space-nukes to counter ours. The move to expand this type of weaponry will almost certainly provoke a space-based weapon war.

Maybe we can shoot this crazy laser down before then.

At the military industry conference hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, defense policy advisor Richard Perle mused that, "It would be better if we simply handed the money to the defense industry and let them invest it themselves, . . . but Congress likes to control that . . . , but it gives the impression that the merchants of death are unduly licenced."

Perle then made a weak plea for less regulation of arms exports ($140 + billion since 1992), and suggested that export licencing be consolidated into one agency. I wonder who the administration executives will suggest to head that office. Industry lawyers; resumes at the ready!

You can hear the regret in his statement. If we would only just give the industry the money they want, no strings attached; they would provide for the nation's defense needs.

The industry wants us to believe that they are the best judges of what the next generation's needs are in terms of weaponry.

But the existence of these corporations and their new hi-tech boondoggles will not make us anymore secure than the existence of these same executives in our government have kept our sons and daughters from dying in senseless wars.


This diatribe contains excerpts from my book, 'Power of Mischief- Military Industry Executives Are Making Bush Policy And The Country Is Paying The Price'
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0974735205/002-0073119-5222456?v=glance&s=books

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=104&topic_id=3224566&mesg_id=3224566

Otherwise known as the Doomsday Clock.

The only realistic alternative to nuclear is coal. We get 50% of our electricity from coal. This is very bad: nobody but the coal industry claims otherwise.

I went to a small college which happens to have a TRIGA Mark IV reactor (built by General Atomics). This is in surburban Portland, Oregon. No one worries about it because it is inherently incapable of melting down: if all the control rods were removed and the primary cooling water was gone, it still would not meltdown (thermal expansion would limit the density of the core and limit the reaction).

energy supply, according to the DOE.

"The future belongs to renewable energy," said Brad Colllins, the executive director of the American Solar Energy Society, a Boulder, Colorado-based nonprofit. Scientists and industry experts may disagree over how long the world's supply of oil and natural gas will last, but it will end, Collins said.

While renewable energy is generally more expensive than conventionally produced supplies, alternative power helps to reduce pollution and to conserve fossil fuels.

"People sometimes get caught up in cost-effectiveness," said Paul Torcellini, a senior engineer at the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. "But it can be a question of values and what we spend our money on."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1028_041028_alternative_energy.html

A question of values.

This is the crux of the argument. This or that alternative is always labeled as unrealistic or not cost-effective, but if we would put our resources and committment behind alternatives then we could come up with a solution. I refuse to be cowed into accepting nuclear options just because the existing industry says it would be too hard to move to alternatives. Committment is the key.

As for the safety of these nuclear plants, there is more than enough evidence that nuclear power carries with it unacceptable risks from production to waste disposal. There are issues of groundwater seepage to worker, and community exposure. Your TRIGA Mark IV reactor (built by General Atomics) may be operating safely, but it doesn't operate in a vacumn. There are countless demonstrated risks from the nuclear resource. I don't think we have to accept these risks just because of some argument that alternatives are unworkable, expensive, or accept the straw man of alternatives presented which may have their own inherent risks and environmental consequences, such as coal.

I believe that a combination of clean alternatives, like solar, wind, biomass, combined with conservation efforts could more than make up for the 20% or so that is provided by nuclear energy. 20%. That's not such a great hurdle for a committed nation.

but alas, they aren't in a position to unseat our primary reliance on coal, nor will they be anytime soon.

I certainly do support aggressive research and subsidy of renewables -- I could be wrong!

It should also be emphasized that all sources of energy involve risk and expense. With coal, it's global warming, radioactivity in the environment (coal contains a nontrivial amount of uranium, etc), other forms of air pollution, and the truly nasty mining practices that have already torn up a huge portion of the Appalachians.

I'll mention how/why I became pro-nuclear. Years ago, I went on a reading binge on energy. I was curious what was going on with cold fusion -- did anyone think it was real? After some reading (on the web) I came to the conclusion that cold fusion wasn't a realistic prospect. So I wondered, what's going on with old-fashioned hot fusion? This turns out to still hold promise, but as the cliche goes, it's always four decades off in the future. But what surprised me is some of the fusion researchers were saying that if we really want to solve our energy problems now, we can do so using fission power. I read a lot of stuff, written by nuclear engineers at various universities, that convinced me that nuclear is a viable solution -- these guys outlined credible solutions to each of the problems associated with nuclear (safety, waste, fuel availability). These weren't industry shills, you could tell they both knew what they were talking about and were genuinely enthusiastic about it.

By the way, fusion power is looking better these days; word is that the scientists involved with the ITER (the big test fusion reactor to be built next decade) have become confident that their physics is good and that the ITER will achieve the true holy grail of ignition. (Plasma physics has made great progress in the last few years, partly because computational power has increased tremendously.) Then (yes, 40 years from now) the first power plant will be constructed. I might not live to see the day, but we can hope that all of our energy problems come out in the wash when it happens.

These programs don't happen in a vacumn. From Bechtel, to Lockheed, to Raytheon, to Boeing, to General Dynamics, and on, there is a determination to use nuclear energy to support industry efforts to get a larger share of the 60% of our hard earned contributions to government that goes to the defense industry, as well as a significant portion that flows through the Energy dept. Military adaptation is either an ourgrowth or a consequence of the inflating of these company's bankrolls through our congressional appropriation's process, facilitated by a nest of former military industry executives, in the administration and in Congress.

This "holy grail' is only an option because that is where the money and other resources is directed. Its no accident that the same corporations that are in charge of inflating our nation's defenses are the same ones who stand to directly benefit from the largess.

As far as I see, the notion that these energy sources are benign and safe are as speculative as the program is yet unproved, as opposed to other proven safe, renewable sources of energy. They are, in effect, boondogles which drain much needed dollars and resources and unnecessarily encourage an already bloated and dangerous glut of weapons and militarization. I not as sanguine about the results and consequences of these technologies and I am resolved against any escalation of weapons and weaponization, and the further enrichment of the sources of these ambitions.