Redacted DOE report gives details on MOX boondoogle (MOX=Nuclear fuel with plutonium)

[kristopher]

Redacted DOE report gives details on MOX boondoogle


The Savannah River Site, with the unfinished MOX facility in the foreground. In the background is Georgia's Vogtle reactor complex, where two new reactors are under construction. With the likely demise of the MOX project, their power won't be needed at SRS. Photo by High Flyer, special to SRS Watch.


For decades, some in the U.S. government backed by a few in the nuclear industry and perhaps more in what I call the “nuclear priesthood”–those who have conducted their careers in the shadows of the nuclear industry and in academic settings where they can promote all things nuclear–have espoused the idea of reprocessing used fuel rods (also known as high-level radioactive waste) and creating MOX (plutonium-based) fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors.

It’s always been a stupid idea environmentally–reprocessing is perhaps the dirtiest of all nuclear industry processes–and an even stupider idea economically. That’s because reprocessing is so expensive that mining and enriching uranium from scratch is still cheaper and always will be. Use of plutonium fuel would also exacerbate nuclear accidents, another trait that makes it undesirable, even for most of the nuclear industry.

For some years, NIRS ran a NIX MOX campaign, that was fairly successful at keeping the MOX concept in the dark corners of the priesthood. But the idea keeps coming out again and again for air, and thanks primarily to the determined efforts of some South Carolina Congressmembers–who can count only money and a few jobs and refuse to acknowledge both the short-term dangers to their state and the long-term environmental devastation a major MOX program inevitably would deliver–the government began construction of one of the pillars of a MOX facility at the Savannah River Site several years ago.

Almost since the first shovel of construction dirt was turned, the government–particularly the Obama administration–has tried to kill the project, knowing that it is both unnecessary and unaffordable. And yet, those South Carolina Congressmembers keep the money flowing in. Not enough to actually build the thing, but that’s not the point for them. The point for them is money, pure and simple. It’s the flaunting of pork barrel politics at its most basic level.

A new report, commissioned by the Department of Energy (where the MOX program still has some backers), was “released” Friday. You’ll see below why we put “released” in quotes....

http://safeenergy.org/2015/05/11/redacted-doe-report/

[madokie]

1. Kick

Good to see you Kris

[kristopher]

11. Just passing through

But thanks for the thought.

[NNadir]

2. An antinuke trying to talk about nuclear engineering is rather like...

Last edited Thu May 21, 2015, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

...a right wing religious fundamentalist trying to discuss the molecular biology of nucleic acids.

One thing that unites every single anti-nuke on the planet, all of whom are responsible to huge destruction to the environment and tremendous loss of human life, is that they know nothing at all about nuclear engineering, nuclear chemistry, nuclear physics but hate the these subjects anyway.

As opposed to junk from the huge circular references of one anti-nuke to another, we have in the primary scientific literature:

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power

Fear and ignorance has always led to huge tragedy and the current times are no exception.

At this point, such ignorance is a crime against humanity.

Have a nice day.

[hunter]

3. But fossil fuels are "natural," don't you know?

It makes me crazy.

Every day a new fossil fueled horror...



http://www.democraticunderground.com/112785780

It's like the guy who crosses the center divider of the highway into oncoming traffic because he's terrified by a bee in his car.

[NNadir]

4. Don't worry. Be happy. The 1.8 trillion dollars we spent between 2004 and 2014 on so called...

..."renewable energy" will soon have everyone driving wind powered Tesla cars and I3 BMW electrics.

Oil will be superfluous.

I know it must be true, since I've been hearing it for years.

The fact that we are burning more oil, more coal and more gas than at any time in history is just an illusion.

[hunter]

5. The dirty fracking gas industry wets their pants in glee...

... because anti-nuclear activists, "renewable energy" and hydrogen fuel fetishists, so often do their work for free.

Barry Commoner, a man I shook hands with and spoke with a few times had this idea of a great international "natural" gas network similar to Buckminster Fuller's international HVDC electrical network. Money based on kilowatt hours. (I was introduced to and shook hands with Buckminster Fuller. I've also dined with Helen Caldicott and Hans Bethe. Bethe was a sweetheart, even to a young misfit like me.)

In Commoner's grand vision most of this gas was actually natural.

All these fine dreams of a young man were subverted by the dirtiest fossil fuel industries and the politicians in their keep.

Bad situations I've run away from.

[NNadir]

6. Dining with Hans Bethe must have been amazing.

Helen Caldicott...well the less said, the better.

The closest I've come to that was a couple of hours chatting with Freeman Dyson in his office.

He's in his 90's. The amazing thing is that you can mention almost any topic on any subject in science, and he'll just run with it and tell amazing stories.

It was one of the most amazing opportunities in my life.

Dyson is, of course, the inventor of uranium hydride fuel. Well, not really he told me. He says all the credit belongs to UCSD Professor Massoud Simnad, who was (gasp) Iranian by birth. Imagine that today, an Iranian handling uranium. Dyson said he "just crunched some numbers" and Simnad did the hard part.

Just about every major research/isotope reactor in the world used that fuel. There's no telling how many lives have been saved by such access.

But we can say good bye to all of that, now that we have wind powered brain scans and solar powered cancer therapy.

And believe me, there's a lot of wind in the brains of the wind power folks.

[hunter]

7. I like Dyson.

One of my paleontology professors, the one who helped me back into university after I'd been "asked" to take leave twice, adores Dyson.

There's a lot of Dyson in my own personal cosmology.

I first met Hans Bethe when I was an intrepid undergraduate university student and school newspaper science reporter. He was doing an expensive event for UNICEF and he invited me to attend. His guest. Free. Never turn down a free dinner. I enjoyed more "face time" with him at that dinner than some mega-millionaire elites, in spite of my lowly undergraduate status.

I'm sure I wasn't anyone important, but I like to believe I was entertaining.

[NNadir]

8. Dyson's amazing.

The conversation at one point turned to biochemistry and I raised the topic of Stuart Kauffman's work on self ordering systems and damn! He not only knew all about the topic but had personal stories to tell about Kauffman as well.

I asked him a question about the phase systems of plutonium and he cut me off saying, "that's classified."

That was fun. I would have liked to have had the question answered, but well, I understand.

The guy's in his nineties. I wanted to stay longer, but I could see that he was tired, and the sun was going down and he didn't turn on the lights. So I excused myself after my son took some pictures.

Actually there's a lot of people around here who have met him. He's accessible, not a whiff of imperiousness about him.

One of the cool things about his office is the huge pile of books on his floor (as opposed to the huge collection on the shelves). Apparently all sorts of people send their books to him hoping that he'll read them. He says he would never have that much time. So he asked us each to take a book off the pile and bring it home. (One of the books on the floor was by a friend of mine, but I didn't take that one.)

He says, by the way, he learned Calculus on his own when he was a kid by reading the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I will remember that late afternoon for the rest of my life, and I'm sure my sons will remember for the rest of their lives too.

[kristopher]

9. The difference between those who embrace nuclear power and those who reject it

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern environmental behavioral intentions.

Drawn from:
The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientationsand Risk Perception
Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x/abstract

Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy. Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.

[NNadir]

10. I have a completely different view of the difference between antinukes and people...

...with science educations and critical thinking abilities.

The anti-nukes, in my opinion - and note there's no cut and paste here - don't give a rat's ass about climate change, the future of humanity, and the 7 million people who die each bleeping year from air pollution.

The seven million figure is reported here on page 2238 in table 3: Lancet Vol 380, pp.2224-2260 The title of the paper, written by a large international team of epidemiologists and medical professionals is: "A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010."

Despite many insipid statements about "risk" from people who can't do math, nowhere on the list of 67 factors is exposure to nuclear power operations.

An anti-nuke talking about "risk" is rather like the Pope discussing the merits of different brands of condoms.

By contrast with the absence of nuclear power with the 67 major health factors discussed in the Lancet report, fossil fuels - which anti-nukes couldn't care less about arresting - kill 3.2 million people per year, "renewable" biomass, another 3.4 million, and ozone, about 150,000, which rounds up to around 7 million. That means that every 7 or 8 years, as many people are killed by anti-nuke ignorance as died in World War II.

The difference between people who support the life saving nuclear technology and those who hate it despite knowing nothing at all about it, is that, well, the supporters know what they're talking about, whereas anti-nukes merely repeat sloganeering nonsense year after year, decade after decade, this while the planet dies.

We squandered 1.8 trillion bucks in the last decade on insipid renewable energy scams, and have nothing to show for it. Nothing, except glib glee from the squad of bourgeois consumers who are behind this tragic waste, cheering for it, who couldn't care less about future generations.

For 1.8 trillion bucks we could have given every man, woman and child in India around $1200 bucks, nearly doubling their per capita income.

[kristopher]

12. Nuclear has had 50 years of full support from the government and the utilities

All it got us was more coal. That's because they both work on precisely the same set of economic drivers - build more and bigger plants that are - by design - the heart of a system to drive energy consumption and make more money. The problem for nuclear in that structure is that coal is more profitable. But as far as the energy system goes they are functional twins.

Just released.

Solar energy holds the best potential for meeting humanity’s future long-term energy needs while cutting greenhouse gas emissions — but to realize this potential will require increased emphasis on developing lower-cost technologies and more effective deployment policy, says a comprehensive new study, titled “The Future of Solar Energy,” released today by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI).

https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/mitei-report-future-solar-energy-0505

Report:
https://mitei.mit.edu/futureofsolar

Your claims that you care about anything except the technology itself is belied by your continued false attacks on renewable energy sources based on specious reasoning and overt misrepresentation of the facts.

The base of support for nuclear is the same as for fossil fuels - those with traditional values placing priority on energy security.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

We've covered this territory before. That poll supports the Whitfield paper perfectly. And the Whitfield paper provides the insight needed to understand your bizarre antisocial behavior on an energy forum serving liberal Democrats.

52% traditionalist, 40% altruist. Given their values, we could expect to see an overlap is in the area of support for renewables. The traditionalist is primarily concerned about security and stability for home and country so the main concern they want addressed is "steady power" otherwise referred to as "energy security". That results in a 'let's pursue all alternatives' strategy on their part.

The 40% that are altruists reject coal and nuclear because of their high external costs. They do not trust the nuclear industry to tell the truth about the problems associated with nuclear any more than they expect the coal industry to tell the truth about coal.

"Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power."

The results reported in this line tell us that concern for climate change is offset by the lack of belief in nuclear power's ability to solve the problem without creating another mess. Among this group renewables are perceived (correctly) as a superior alternative to nuclear. They also are arriving at their conclusions independently since whether or not they trust environmental institutions has no bearing on their conclusions.

What is truly interesting is what this tells us about the beliefs behind your posts. You attack renewable energy without fail - one of a very, very small minority to do so.

I would posit that the poll gives evidence that your beliefs and values as you have displayed them here are not rational if we judge them by the values in this survey that we've so far looked at.

In point of fact, however, there are 4 categories included in the survey: traditional, altruistic, open-to-change, and egoistic. I interpret your unceasing attacks on renewables, in spite of the clear and unequivocal evidence of their worth argues that your values are grouped in the egoistic area, probably with emphasis on the facet of "wealth, material possessions, and money".

Also note that: "Individuals with lower scores on the NEP (New Environmental Paradigm) scale (i.e., with less concern for the biosphere) have greater trust in nuclear organizations." p.433

Traditional values
Family security, safety for loved ones
Honoring parents and elders, showing respect
Self-discipline, self-restraint, resistance to temptation

Altruistic values
Respecting the earth, harmony with other species
Protecting the environment, preserving nature
Equality, equal opportunity for all
Social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak
Unity with nature, fitting into nature
A world at peace, free of war and conflict

Openness to change values
An exciting life, stimulating experiences
Curious, interested in everything, exploring
A varied life, filled with challenge, novelty, and change

Egoistic values
Influential, having an impact on people and events
Authority, the right to lead or command
Wealth, material possessions, money p.430


You attempt to ally yourself with altruistic values, however that simply isn't consistent with your rejection of renewables and is more likely a ploy motivated by your embrace of the other egoistic values - (you want to be influential, to have an impact on people and events; you believe you should have authority and the right to lead or command on the issue) and if that takes espousing values on an internet forum that are contradicted by your actual stance, then you will do it.

The monetary motive seems probably due to the conflict between this appeal to altruism and your rejection of renewable power as even an "all of the above" choice, since either renewables are almost certainly going to crowd out nuclear, or nuclear is almost certainly going to crowd out renewables. If you were just looking to influence people for ego gratification, you wouldn't reject renewable energy, you would embrace it. So the monetary value seems most likely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=260147&mesg_id=260328

[NNadir]

13. Nuclear produces about 25 exajoules of energy. What does the 1.8 trillion dollar per decade...

Last edited Fri May 22, 2015, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

...so called "renewable energy" scam produce of the 550 exajoules humanity consumes each year produce?

Nuclear energy is still the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy, despite decades of insipid attacks by people who can't understand the contents of a science book.

Is the fact that the fastest growing form on this energy is dangerous natural gas the fault of nuclear power plants operating at 90% of capacity utilization or wind plants operating at 30% and solar plants operating at 20%?

I note, with due respect, that the 1.8 trillion dollar figure for renewables in the last decade does include the cost of the dangerous natural gas that is required to back this expensive wasteful scam up on hot summer nights during the doldrums.

We hear anti-nukes discussing nuclear engineering with obvious ignorance. Do they discuss dangerous fossil fuels? Are they interested in dangerous fossil fuels?

Their behavior suggests otherwise.

Here, is what the 1.8 trillion of wasted resources on so called "renewable energy" produced: >403 ppm, April 2015. Last week, the weekly data for dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere established an all time record, 404 ppm.

Do we hear anti-nukes complain about dangerous fossil fuel, or do we see them posting illiterate junk about nuclear engineering from their circle of nonsense mongers quoting one another?

The slick so called "renewable energy" industry, funded and supported by the dangerous fossil fuel industry and the mining industry, got the money with your slick and insipid marketing, and the future will pay. History, should it survive, will record anti-nukes rather like historians now regard the crusaders, the ignorant seeking to conquer the wise.

[kristopher]

14. You are still both clueless and dishonest.