DOE to award up to $266M to small modular nuclear reactor project; targeting commercial operation around 2025

DOE selected an SMR project with the B&W mPower reactor in 2012. The nuclear core and steam generators are integrated in a single vessel. Source: B&W. Click to enlarge.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) issued a new funding opportunity announcement (DE-FOA-0000800) for up to $266 million to help US industry design and certify innovative small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs)-defined for this FOA as reactor units with nominal output of 300 megawatts electric (MWe) or less that are able to be factory fabricated and transported to the site for assembly of components and operation. With a 50% cost-share, total funding for the selected project will be around $462 million.

DOE will solicit proposals for cost-shared SMR projects that have the potential to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and achieve commercial operation around 2025, while offering innovative and effective solutions for enhanced safety, operations and performance. Selected projects will span a five-year period with at least 50% provided by private industry.

The scope of this FOA focuses on SMR designs (that provide unique and innovative features that can serve to improve nuclear safety, operability, efficiency, economics, security, and performance over existing plants and previously certified nuclear plant designs.

These SMRs should be designed to reduce core damage frequency, increase post-accident coping periods, provide features and characteristics that minimize the release of radionuclides under severe accident conditions, maximize resistance to hazards presented by natural phenomena, and present a credible case to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reduce emergency preparedness zone requirements.

The designs should provide diverse and redundant safety systems that include capabilities and design features that aid in managing the consequences of severe accidents similar to the Fukushima events. This may include ability to effectively deal with off-site power loss, ability to augment cooling water reservoirs from external sources, incorporating air and water sampling capabilities, or other innovative instrumentation and diagnostics that support accident management.

Under this cost-shared partnership, DOE intends to award a cooperative agreement(s) to support first-of-a-kind engineering (FOAKE) development, experiments, analysis, and other work to progress the design toward completion and culminates in the approval of design certification applications by the NRC, including work associated with the resolution of NRC requests for additional information during the review process.

In April 2012, DOE issued an FOA to support cost-share development of SMR development. (Earlier post.) Building off the cost-share agreement announced in November 2012 with a project led by Babcock & Wilcox (earlier post), this follow-on solicitation is open to other companies and manufacturers and is focused on furthering small modular reactor efficiency, operations and design.

The Babcock & Wilcox-led project is intended to accelerate commercialization of a small modular reactor design that targets a 2022 deployment date. Under that agreement, DOE will share costs on the design, certification and licensing of the B&W mPower small modular reactor design, with B&W providing at least 50% of the total cost. The Tennessee Valley Authority plans to deploy two 180 MW small modular reactor units for commercial operation in Roane County, Tennessee, by 2021, with as many as six mPower units at that site.

Subject to congressional appropriations, federal funding for this solicitation and the project announced last year will be derived from a total $452 million identified for the Department's Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support program.

Small modular reactors-approximately one-third the size of current nuclear power plants-have compact, scalable designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, construction and economic benefits. The Energy Department is seeking 300 MW or smaller reactor designs that can be made in factories and transported to sites where they would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival.

The smaller size reduces both capital costs and construction times and also makes these reactors ideal for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/03/dorsmr-20130312.htm

Russian nuclear industry wants to expand, despite Fukushima - Rosatom, ARMZ and Uranium One

The Fukushima nuclear meltdown and explosion were the worst nuclear disaster ever, worst than even Chernobyl.  So, the result should have been a lesson to all of us to phase out the use of Nuclear power and look for safer energy sources, that are also clean and renewable, right?  It seems that the Russians didn't get that memo, and instead are doubling down on pushing for nuclear "investments" at home and abroad.

The press release below is probably the tip of a nuclear iceberg looking to continue the buildout of nuclear plants in Russia and elsewhere.

It concerns a group of companies, one of whom has the ominous name 'ARMZ', and their plans to continue building nuclear power plants and uranium based fuels.  They say "Global demand for nuclear power and for Russian nuclear power plants (NPPs) has remained strong despite the Fukushima disaster" and so therefore business must keep doing business.

Rosatom has signed agreements with China and Slovakia to develop nuclear infrastructure, and signed a road map agreement with India over their civilian nuclear program.  Rosatom also purchased a majority stake in Uranium One, a Canadian Uranium producer with mining operations around the world.

From reading the press release you could think they're talking about any widget.  It's just a business of buying mines that produce resources, processing those resources, to generate a product from those resources, and people who are paying for that product.  It's just a business.

A business that deals in metals that produce death to all who touch the metal, metals that are known to blow up, cause fires, and are extremely poisonous.

 

Russia Nuclear Industry Optimistic - Despite Fukushima

LONDON, October 24, 2011/PRNewswire/ -- The global nuclear industry remains buoyant despite the Fukushima disaster, and Russia is looking to Western partners as it expands its nuclear investments both at home and abroad, Sergei Kirienko, the former Prime Minister of Russia and director general of Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, told investors today in London.

"Our goal is to open up the sector to broad, free dialogue with the Western investment community," Mr Kirienko told an audience at The Savoy hotel at an event arranged by Canaccord, the investment bank. "We took a vital step towards this goal with our purchase of a majority stake in Uranium One (TSX:UUU)."

"We set out to win the trust of shareholders and show the global investment community that a Russian state company knows and can play by the 'rules of the game' for global public companies," Mr Kirienko said. "The past year and a half have shown that we are succeeding."

Mr Kirienko thanked Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer for making the acquisition a success, with Uranium One shares outperforming peers since the acquisition and holding their value amid global market turbulence. "Personal dialogue and mutual trust between us and the board of directors of UraniumOne, and Ian Telfer personally, have been extremely important," he said.

Global demand for nuclear power and for Russian nuclear power plants (NPPs) has remained strong despite the Fukushima disaster in March. All six NPP construction contracts signed by Rosatom in 2010 and 2011 remain in place.  Rosatom has also signed agreements with China and Slovakia to develop existing nuclear infrastructure, and a "road map" with India for its civilian nuclear programme.  "The Fukushima factor has had almost no effecton global demand for nuclear power," Mr Kirienko said.  "Most countries do not plan to replace their current nuclear capacity with other types of generation in the foreseeable future," noting that nuclear is among the safest, greenest and most economical sources of power.

"Only a very few countries with small nuclear capacity can afford to reject nuclear plants in favour of energy from fossil fuels or alternative sources," Mr Kirienko said.

The uranium market has also remained relatively stable, Mr Kirienko said. But he said that prices, which have stabilised at around US$50 per pound after falling to $40 in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, need to rise to ensure that supply remains healthy:  "In our opinion, to ensure enough supply to satisfy growing demand over the next decade, the price needs to be stable at around US$70 or US$80."

Rosatom and ARMZ are now looking to strengthen their international presence further, using Uranium One as a spearhead. "The acquisition of Mantra Resources in Tanzania was the first significant step in diversifying Uranium One's production outside Kazakhstan," Mr Kirienko said. "In our opinion, southern Africa is a future growth 'hot spot' for the uranium sector, which is why the acquisition was extremely important for us."

Notes:

Rosatom acquired a 51% stake in Toronto-listed Uranium One in 2010through its 100%-owned subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. (Atomredmetzoloto).

About Rosatom

The State Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOM incorporates more than 250 enterprises and scientific institutions, including all civil nuclear companies of Russia, nuclear weapons facilities, research organizations and the world's only nuclear-propelled fleet. ROSATOM is the largest utility inRussia and produces more than 40 % of electricity in the country's European part. ROSATOM holds leading positions in the global nuclear technology market: 1st in the world simultaneous nuclear build abroad; 2nd in uranium reserves; 5th in uranium mining; 4th in nuclear electricity generation; while providing 40% of the world uranium enrichment services and 17% of the world nuclear fuel market.

ROSATOM is also tasked to fulfil Russia's international obligations in the field of the peaceful uses of atomic energy and the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

http://www.rosatom.ru/en

About ARMZ

ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. (JSC Atomredmetzoloto) is one of the leaders in the world uranium mining industry. It is among top five uranium mining companies by uranium output and ranks second by reserves (726,500 tons as of January 1, 2011). ARMZ is the primary supplier of uranium feedstock to the Russian nuclear industry and in 2010 it produced 5173.4 tons of uranium af tacilities in Russia and Kazakhstan.

JSC "Atomenergoprom" [http://www.atomenergoprom.ru/en ] controls 80.37 %of Atomredmetzoloto's shares.

ARMZ together with its affiliates and subsidiaries employs over 10,000 people.

Today, ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. is the successor to the world's largest uranium production complex built by the Soviet Union. In 2008, all uranium mining companies in Russia, as well as a number of uranium joint ventures inthe CIS and abroad, were brought together under ARMZ, after the restructuring of Russia's nuclear industry had been completed. In 2010, JSC Atomredmetzoloto acquired 51.4% of shares of Uranium One, Inc., a public Canadian uranium mining company.

http://www.armz.ru/eng

About Uranium One

Uranium One Inc. is a Canadian-based company and is one of the world's largest publicly traded uranium producers with a primary listing on theToronto Stock Exchange and a secondary listing on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The Company has a globally diversified portfolio of assets located in Kazakhstan, the United States, Australia and is operator of the Mkuju River Project in Tanzania. With a 51% ownership stake, Uranium One's major shareholder is JSC Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian State Corporation for Nuclear Energy.

For further information please contact: Stuart Leasor   M:Communications   +44(0)20-7920-2317   leasor@mcomgroup.com

http://www.uranium1.com

Source: Rosatom

Deepwater Oil Spills and Nuclear Meltdowns will continue due to lax of safety regulators? (Rachel Maddow)

Last nights Rachel Maddow Show featured a jaw-dropping piece of exclusive investigative reporting where the take-away is we can only expect more oil spills and nuclear accidents because the regulators are refusing to regulate. What follows is over 20 minutes of video bouncing back and forth between the Deepwater Horizon oil spill from last year, and this years nuclear meltdown accident at the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. Oh, and along the way there are several phrases used that abbreviate to B.P. for some reason.

She makes a very interesting analogy with air bags. They which don't make cars safer, but limits the damage if accidents occur. Government regulations require that car makers must include effective air bags because they've been proven to increase survival rates and they've been proven to work.

The analogy is between air bags, blowout preventers, and the diesel backup power system at the nuke plant which should have kept the plant from overheating. In all three cases they are backup safety systems which, if they work correctly, are to limit the damage if an accident occurs.

We see every day on the roads that air bags work - because, unfortunately, car accidents happen so often that it's not even news. We saw last year with the oil spill what happens when the blowout preventer does not work. And we see this year what happens when the nuclear plant cooling system fails because the backup power system fails.

What has Rachel's hair on fire is information in an initial report made by DET NORSKE VERITAS who, under a Coast Guard contract, studied the blowout preventer from the Deep Horizon well. The report goes over the likely cause of the accident, leading to the explosion, death of drilling crew, and the oil spilled which poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. (the report is linked below)

The information? It's her reading that the report finds that blowout preventers simply cannot work. It's bad enough that studies have shown they fail 40% of the time, but when it's in an accident situation where it really needs to work it simply won't do the job of closing off the well.

Further - the U.S. Government is in a process of rapid approval of drilling permits. She says they've approved at least 5 permits this month alone. FWIW A couple weeks ago President Obama held a press conference in which he talked about having approved many drilling permits as proving that his Administration is not putting themselves in the way of expanding oil drilling (see: Pres. Obama talks about petroleum reserves, energy security and resiliency, Obama's plan for energy security and the green economy, Obama proposes nuclear power expansion while Japan has nuclear crisis).

The thing about this is that on that the government knows very well that the blowout preventer doesn't work, that the basic riskness of this situation has not changed, so why the heck is the government approving any oil drilling permits?

Part of her proof she cites is that among the approved permits is one for Noble Energy, Noble essentially being BP (the oil giant whose oil well blew up last year). The safety plan Noble filed dates from Sept 2009, meaning that the government cannot be doing much to insist that these oil companies change their practices if the plan they accepted was written before the most recent oil drilling accident.

With the nuclear accident they (scientists and governments) are claiming that "they" will be "learning from this" and "applying lessons learned" to better safety standards in the future. With this as an example of what really happens, can we really expect that anything will actually be learned? I expressed this doubt a couple days ago: This world doesn't have to become an uninhabitable nuclear radiation poisoned wasteland

It's clear from a quick glance over the report (linked below) that it's an extensive study, and that it's not quite as simple as blowout preventers cannot work. It does say "forces from the flow of the well pushed the tool joint into the Upper Annular element" and "created a fixed point arresting further upward movement of the drill pipe" and "Forces from the flow of the well induced a buckling condition on the portion of drill pipe between the Upper Annular and Upper VBRs" and "drill pipe deflected until it contacted the wellbore just above the BSRs" and "the drill pipe was positioned such that the outside corner of the upper BSR blade contacted the drill pipe slightly off center of the drill pipe cross section" and "a portion of the drill pipe cross
section became trapped between the ram block faces, preventing the blocks from fully closing and sealing" and "trapping of the drill pipe would have occurred regardless of which means initiated the closure of the BSRs".

In other words - a pipe dislodged itself getting trapped and kept the system from fully closing. Because the blowout preventer didn't close the oil of course kept leaking out. I didn't read far enough to see if her claim (that the blowout preventer was unable to work at all) is true.

Video below.

What are your thoughts? Let me know in the comment box below.

Deep Water Oil Drilling permits issued with no lessons learned

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bob Cavanaugh - oil industry veteran

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Links: 

FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF DEEPWATER HORIZON BLOWOUT PREVENTER - VOLUME I FINAL REPORT

Links: 

FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF DEEPWATER HORIZON BLOWOUT PREVENTER - VOLUME II APPENDICES

This world doesn't have to become an uninhabitable nuclear radiation poisoned wasteland

While writing my previous blog post on Natural Remedies For Your Thyroid and Kidneys due to the Japan nuclear emergency I had a moment of realization or awakening. Namely, the truth that I was writing about something I thought I would never have to write about: A real honest to goodness nuclear emergency, the likelihood of further nuclear emergencies, and how would we be dealing with them. The sad truth is that world leaders are going to treat this like a blip on the road of progress. They're going to say the sheep got scared because a few radioactive clouds escaped, they'll slow down nuclear reactor construction for awhile, but eventually we the people are expected to forget about this and they'll be able to go back to the game plan of building more nuclear reactors.

If that's the route our society takes then we can only expect more nuclear accidents to occur, and an ever-increasing level of radioactive poisoning of the environment. My reasoning is simple. These are human made machines and they break or the humans operating them make mistakes. Over time we can only expect more nuclear accidents.

Oh, yes, the powers-that-be are making a show of "we will learn from this" and apply the learnings so that the machines will be run more safely in the future. Do you really believe that? The history of deploying technological wizardry shows us this sort of assurance isn't always followed. Lessons are not always learned, even when learned people study failures with the intent to learn from them. Denial is rampant.

Some of the things technology has wrought are finicky, fragile, full of dangerous substances, prone to break spectacularly, etc. Yes some of the most dangerous things also bring the most positive benefits, but do the benefits negate the risk?

I started this with the suggestion that our world doesn't have to end up as a poisoned wasteland. I am sad that our people seem dedicated to a path which will convert our beautiful planet into a poisoned wasteland, especially since I feel deep inside me that there is another way.

Other choices can be made.

See also:

• Change starts "here"; Change starts with "you"; Change starts with "me"
• Stand up for Real Change
• This world doesn't have to become an uninhabitable nuclear radiation poisoned wasteland
• Higher Purpose: Japans earthquake and nuclear crisis asks us what we really want
• General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S
• Can we trust the official story about the nuclear catastrophe in Japan?
• Obama proposes nuclear power expansion while Japan has nuclear crisis
• Rachel Maddow: Nuclear Plants Threatened by Earthquake

See also:

Do the nuclear reactors in Japan have a flawed design? (Democracy Now)

Today's episode of Democracy Now (Mar 17, 2011) contains some, uh, explosive claims from Karl Grossman and Paul Gunter. What they say is that nuclear fuel rods are themselves designed with explosive materials. Not the "fuel" (uranium) inside the fuel rods, but the rods. The design of the fuel rods themselves requires being under water to prevent explosions. It's probably better if I quote from the report rather than try to replicate it with my words:

Interviewed were: Karl Grossman, investigative journalist and professor of journalism at SUNY College at Old Westbury. He is author of several books on the nuclear industry. Paul Gunter, reactor oversight project director at nuclear watchdog group Beyond Nuclear. He is the co-founder of the Clamshell Alliance anti-nuclear group.

The main thrust of the story was that nuclear officials were warned and knew of design flaws and the level of danger. But the powers that be deployed the risky design that, as we'll see in a minute, is explosive by nature. However as I noted yesterday just because the powers that be screwed up doesn't absolve us from our own responsibility in this. It is our purchase of electricity which causes the electricity companies to exist. (see: Higher Purpose: Japans earthquake and nuclear crisis asks us what we really want)

JUAN GONZALEZ: Japan is facing an unprecedented triple crisis caused by the earthquake, tsunami and the partial nuclear meltdown. The official death toll has now risen to above 5,000, while 9,400 people remain missing. Fears of radioactivity have severely hampered relief efforts in parts of northern Japan, which was hit with a snow storm on Wednesday.

We should remember that the nuclear radiation emissions so far essentially haven't caused any deaths. It is the flooding and earthquake. The level of fear our society has over anything nuclear is obvious here. The earthquake and tsunami would itself be a big story with lots of coverage (e.g. the Haitian earthquake last year) but it's the nuclear issue that's getting the coverage.

PAUL GUNTER: Well, Unit 3 is burning what they call plutonium oxide. They like to call it MOX as an acronym rather than POX, but in fact it’s plutonium oxide. This fuel has a lower melting point, for one, and it’s just loaded with plutonium, which is highly toxic at micro levels.

Eep...

KARL GROSSMAN: What has happened here is an enormous nuclear power tragedy, and we’re on the cusp, I fear, of an even more horrific tragedy, with a loss of cool down accident—and we have multiple loss of cool down accidents underway—and, importantly, breach of containment. And as Paul said, that’s quite possible now. Just the most enormous disaster, except for a loss of water accident in a spent fuel pool, where you have tons upon tons of nuclear poisons—no containment, except for some corrugated steel ceiling. That stuff gets out in a loss of water accident, and it would get out explosively, because of the fuel rods being made of zirconium. And I could explain that. It will just burst into the environment, become airborne, affect not only Japan but much of the world.

Here's where he's setting up the the fuel rods being explosive claim. But, let's unpack this paragraph a bit. There are two sets of nuclear rods - those in the reactor being actively used to generate power - and those in the spent fuel pond. See Rachel Maddow compares the Japan nuclear disaster to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl for some insight into the distinction. As Rachel reported, the spent fuel pool has lost its cooling water. Also the spent fuel pool doesn't have the same quality of containment as the reactor core. The reactor core on these plants has three layers of building and a gigantic steel vessel. The spent fuel pool is simply a pool of water in a simple building, and in these reactors this pool is part of the outer containment building and hence as the containment building has blown up the spent fuel pools are now essentially open to the atmosphere with zero protection.

KARL GROSSMAN: Yeah. They have known the consequences all along. This is a report—it’s called "Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences 2"—done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not Greenpeace, and it projects peak early fatalities, peak injuries, peak cancer deaths, scale cost in billions in terms of property damage, and a large hunk of the earth being rendered uninhabitable for millennia. And just, for example, for the Indian Point 3 nuclear plant, which is about 35 miles from where we sit now in New York, 50,000 peak early fatalities; 167,000 peak early injuries; cancer deaths, 14,000; scale cost of billions, they say $314 billion—in 1980s dollars, we’re talking about a trillion.

As to the likelihood of a severe core melt accident, in 1985 the NRC acknowledged that, over a 20-year period, the likelihood of a severe core melt accident to be basically 50/50 among the 100 nuclear power plants—there’s 104 now—in the United States. They’ve known all along here in this country that disaster could come, and there’s a good likelihood of it coming, and they’ve known the consequences.

The danger has been known for years - and essentially ignored.

KARL GROSSMAN: ... "What does the NRC and its staff believe the likelihood to be of a severe core meltdown?" So, you know, when you hear these lines about, "Oh, the chances of a severe core meltdown, infinitesimal," and if there is, like you’re hearing these reports out of Japan, an accident, "Oh, just some minor effects among the population"—not at all.

You go to the documents. And many of them were, well, secret for years. In my book—I did a book in 1980, Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know about Nuclear Power—there’s a line in a Atomic Energy Commission report, "WASH-740-Update": "The possible size of the area of such a disaster might be equal to that of the State of Pennsylvania"—in other words, covering the whole state of what would be the state of Pennsylvania, which almost occurred with the Three Mile Island accident. We’re talking about huge disasters here. ...

And just let me mention one other thing. Everybody should, when you hear about these hydrogen explosions, understand that the fuel rods are composed of a substance called zircaloy. It’s based on something called zirconium. And way back in the late '40s and ’50s, they were looking for something to build these—not control rods—fuel rods with, and they decided to use zirconium, because it allowed the neutrons to move from fuel rod to fuel rod and keep the chain reaction going. Problem was zirconium, the other major industrial use is the speck on a flashbulb. Zirconium is explosive; at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, it explodes. Before that, it emits hydrogen gases, which have exploded in several of these plants. There's, in a nuclear plant itself—this is in my book—20 tons of zirconium. At spent fuel pool, you’re talking about, because there’s all these old fuel rods, hundreds of tons. That stuff, again, as things get hot, explodes.

That's where it gets to the claim that the reactors were designed to be explosive. This was an accident waiting to happen.

The fuel rods are long tubes - 12 feet or more long - made of zircaloy, as he says. The fuel (uranium) is made of pellets inserted into the rods. The rods are gathered into bundles and lowered into the reactor.

The thing is that zircaloy itself is explosive. As it breaks down it emits hydrogen (the explosions at the plants were said to be hydrogen gas explosions) and the zirconium itself is explosive. If/when the rods reach 2000 degrees F.

UPDATE: A friend pointed out this may have been a bit over the top.

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.

Links: 

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/17/serious_danger_of_a_full_core

Rachel Maddow compares the Japan nuclear disaster to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl

Rachel Maddow has done some stunningly amazing coverage of the nuclear emergency in Japan. Explaining in clear terms the reality of what's happening, and bringing on nuclear scientists to explain clearly the physical characteristics of the nuclear meltdown as it's occurring day-by-day. The concern today is the spent fuel in the cooling ponds on-site. These cooling ponds are located in the upper portion of the outer containment structures. It's those outer containment structures which have blown up, and obviously there is no effective containment of the spent fuel rods. The critical thing is to keep the spent fuel pools cool, and filled with water, but it appears at least two of the pools are empty of water. Dry. Which will mean they have zero cooling, could catch on fire.

In one video today she gave us clear comparison with the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. At Chernobyl there were 180 tons of nuclear fuel which blew up and burned. On site at these Japanese plants, between the various spent fuel ponds is more tonnage of spent fuel.

As we can see in the videos below, aerial pictures have been taken of the plant site, and we can see just how bad is the damage to the containment buildings. On Reactor 4 the walls are just gone, period.

This sort of reporting is to be valued and treasured - clear eyed presentation of the truth as it is, along with honest analysis. (see Rachel Maddow: Nuclear Plants Threatened by Earthquake for the story she told on Monday)

Understanding the concern about spent fuel pools

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

How much radioactive material is at the Fukishima plant

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Assessing and strategizing against a nuclear emergency

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Japan warned over nuclear plants, WikiLeaks cables (and other Japan earthquake news)

Japan warned over nuclear plants, WikiLeaks cables show 15 Mar 2011 Japan was warned more than two years ago by the international nuclear watchdog that its nuclear power plants were not capable of withstanding powerful earthquakes, leaked diplomatic cables reveal. An official from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in December 2008 that safety rules were out of date and strong earthquakes would pose a "serious problem" for nuclear power stations.

Two of the 'Fukushima 50' missing in reactor as new fire breaks out 16 Mar 2011 They are known as the "Fukushima 50" and two of them are missing after an explosion and fire at one of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant yesterday and a new fire there today. The latest fire, in No 4 reactor, is out but now Japan has temporarily suspended operations to save its stricken nuclear power plant from meltdown after a sudden spike in radiation made it too dangerous for the engineers to remain at the facility, the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano says.

Fukushima workers evacuate after radiation spikes --The workers were ordered to leave the facility after the level of radiation at the plant soared to 10 millisievert per hour - above the level considered harmful to human health 16 Mar 2011 Workers battling to prevent nuclear meltdown at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi plant were temporarily evacuated on Wednesday morning after radiation levels became too dangerous for them to remain... Its operator, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco] said it was considering using helicopters to spray the crippled No. 4 reactor with water and boric acid - a fire retardant - in an attempt to prevent more radiation leaks. The 50 or so engineers, working around the clock in harsh conditions, spent the morning trying to put out a fire at one reactor and to cool others at risk of overheating and reaching criticality.

Staff Evacuated From Japanese Nuclear Plant 16 Mar 2011 Japan has withdrawn all of its workers from the Fukushima nuclear power plant - saying it is too dangerous after a surge in radiation. The decision comes after a second fire broke out in a reactor after a prior blaze had not been properly extinguished. On Tuesday all non-essential staff were evacuated from the complex but 50 other had remained behind to attempt to cool down the reactors by injecting water.

Last Defense at Troubled Reactors: 50 Japanese Workers [Truth be told, Scott Walker - and the GOP - would have their benefits cut.] 16 Mar 2011 A small crew of technicians, braving radiation and fire, became the only people remaining at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station on Tuesday -- and perhaps Japan’s last chance of preventing a broader nuclear catastrophe... They are the faceless 50, the unnamed operators who stayed behind. They have volunteered, or been assigned, to pump seawater on dangerously exposed nuclear fuel, already thought to be partly melting and spewing radioactive material, to prevent full meltdowns that could throw thousands of tons of radioactive dust high into the air and imperil millions of their compatriots... The workers are being asked to make escalating -- and perhaps existential -- sacrifices that so far are being only implicitly acknowledged: Japan’s Health Ministry said Tuesday it was raising the legal limit on the amount of radiation to which each worker could be exposed, to 250 millisieverts from 100 millisieverts, five times the maximum exposure permitted for American nuclear plant workers.

Russia says Japan may face meltdown at six reactors 15 Mar 2011 Russia's nuclear chief warned on Tuesday that all six reactors at a stricken Japanese nuclear plant could melt down unless the authorities scrambled to cool down the nuclear fuel rods. Japan is grappling with a nuclear disaster after the quake-crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant exploded in the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Soviet Ukraine. Sergei Kiriyenko, who holds sway over most of the former Soviet Union's nuclear facilities, told Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that under the worst case scenario all six reactors could melt down.

Tokyo Electric Says 2 Nuclear Reactor Cores May Be Damaged 16 Mar 2011 fire and aftershocks struck the crippled Fukushima Dai-Ichi power plant today, as officials battling to prevent a nuclear meltdown said fuel rods at two reactors may have been damaged. Clouds of white smoke or steam started rising from reactor buildings at 10 a.m. and moving westward inland. Japan Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said radiation levels at the plant rose at that time but have since fallen. About 70 percent of the uranium-plutonium fuel rods at the plant’s No. 1 reactor and a third of the No. 2 reactor’s fuel may have been impaired, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said.

Fukushima No. 3 reactor's container feared damaged: gov't spokesman 16 Mar 2011 Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Wednesday that the container of the No.3 reactor of the troubled Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant might have been damaged and leaked radioactive steam. According to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, hourly radiation near the plant was measured at 6.4 millisievert at 10:45 a.m. local time (0145 GMT). Earlier in the day Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) said that a fire had broken out at the No.4 reactor building at the scene of a blaze Tuesday at the plant where high amounts of radiation have been detected.

Panicked residents start to flee Tokyo as radiation levels rise after THIRD blast at stricken nuclear power plant --Radiation leaking directly into the air from stricken Fukushima nuclear plant --Power station has now suffered three reactor explosions and one fire --One reactor core 'exposed to the atmosphere' through crack in containment wall --Radiation levels up to ten times higher than normal in Tokyo 15 Mar 2011 Scores of terrified residents began to flee Tokyo today as a nuclear power plant destroyed by the tsunami threatened to send a cloud of radioactive dust across Japan. The Fukushima Dai-ichi plant suffered a third reactor explosion last night, another reactor on the site caught fire - and officials today announced the wall of one reactor was cracked. Radiation levels have soared across the country as radioactive material spewed directly into the atmosphere while emergency crews fought to avoid a catastrophic meltdown. Levels of radiation were ten times higher than normal in the capital today, as experts warned that people in Japan could face an increased cancer risk even if the crisis does not deteriorate.

Japanese nuclear plant hit by fire and third explosion --Radiation around Fukushima Daiichi plant has reached levels damaging to health 15 Mar 2011 Japan is facing the world's biggest nuclear crisis for decades as engineers struggle to regain control of the Fukushima plant following another explosion and a fire that caused a spike in radiation to harmful levels. Amid growing fears that the situation is heading for catastrophe, 70 technicians are still battling to cool reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi facility but non-essential personnel have been ordered to leave and the Kyodo news agency reported that radiation levels have become too high for staff to remain in control rooms.

Japan safety agency: roof cracked at Fukushima No 4 reactor 15 Mar 2011 Two workers are missing after Tuesday's explosion at one of the reactors at a crippled Japanese nuclear plant, the country's nuclear safety agency said. The agency did not identify the missing workers, but said they were in the turbine area of the No.4 reactor at the Fukushima nuclear plant, which was damaged by last Friday's earthquake and tsunami. Agency official also told a news conference there was a crack in the roof of the reactor building.

Japan plans to bulldoze access route to damaged nuclear plant 16 Mar 2011 Japan's nuclear safety agency said on Wednesday that operators of nuclear power plant that was critically damaged by an earthquake and tsunami last week plan to bulldoze an emergency route to the facility to allow access for fire trucks. The Daiichi plant in Fukushima, northern Japan, was billowing smoke or steam on Wednesday after fire broke out at the crippled facility.

Military Rescuers Brace for Japan Radiation in U.S. Aid Flights 15 Mar 2011 Low levels of radiation exposure probably will become "a fact of life" for U.S. military forces flying relief and rescue missions to aid victims of Japan’s earthquake as they near areas affected by leaks from a damaged nuclear plant, according to a U.S. Navy spokesman. "Having crews return with detectable levels of radiation is going to be a fact of life with this mission for the foreseeable future," said Lieutenant Anthony Falvo, a spokesman for the Seventh Fleet in Japan... The Navy treated two Seventh Fleet air crew members with potassium iodide pills as a precaution this week after they became contaminated with radiation emitted from the damaged nuclear plant at Fukushima.

U.S. Navy Detects Radiation 200 Miles From Japan Nuclear Plant 15 Mar 2011 The U.S. Navy said Tuesday that very low levels of airborne radiation were detected at Yokosuka and Atsugi bases, about 200 miles to the north of the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Fox News has confirmed that a small number of U.S. service members have been exposed to radiation Tuesday and are being treated with potassium iodide pills.

EU orders urgent checks at all nuclear stations 16 Mar 2011 Nuclear power stations in Europe are to be subjected to safety tests, it was announced last night, as Japanese engineers continued their desperate fight to prevent an atomic catastrophe after the devastating earthquake and tsunami. The European Commission ordered stress tests to be carried out on all EU plants as it reacted to dramatic developments in Japan, where it was revealed four explosions had rocked a nuclear power station that was leaking radiation.

Number two House Democrat opposes moratorium on new nuclear facilities 15 Mar 2011 The number two House Democrat, Steny Hoyer, whose Maryland district includes a nuclear power facility, told reporters Tuesday he doesn't support a moratorium on construction of any new nuclear facilities in the United States, a proposal some Democrats are pushing in the wake of the nuclear crisis in Japan. "I don't agree on a moratorium if a moratorium means that we simply stop in place," Hoyer told reporters Tuesday. "I've been and continue to be a proponent of nuclear power," Hoyer said.

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S

Many of the reactors in Japan were designed by General Electric (a major nuclear plant vendor) and widely built across the U.S. 23 of the 104 nuclear plants in the U.S. are GE boiling-water reactors with GE's Mark I systems for containing radioactivity. They are in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Vermont.

They quote GE Hitachi Nuclear saying: "The BWR Mark 1 reactor is the industry’s workhorse with a proven track record of safety and reliability for more than 40 years. Today, there are 32 BWR Mark 1 reactors operating as designed worldwide. There has never been a breach of a Mark 1 containment system."

GE and the nuclear power industry of course wants to downplay dangers of this, and make it look like it's all nice and safe. One key factoid of the failure is that it's due to a failure of the cooling system, and that came because they'd located on-site backup diesel electricity generators on low-lying ground because they thought the seawall would withstand a tsunami. Unfortunately this tsunami was tall enough to overwhelm the seawall, swamp the generators, and the cooling system had no electricity to keep the reactor pile cool.

Every step of this accident follow from that failure.

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service contends that the Mark I design has design problems. Their fact sheet is embedded below.

The MSNBC report linked below has a lot more useful information. The data comes from the NRC database of nuclear power plants linked below.

NIRS Fact Sheet on Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

Links: 

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S

Links: 

http://www.nirs.org/

Links: 

The NRC database of nuclear power plants

Japan radiation leaks feared as nuclear experts point to possible cover-up

An earlier post based on information reported this morning on Democracy Now raised the question Can we trust the official story about the nuclear catastrophe in Japan? Basically there is a history of lying and downplaying the true severity of the situation. This happened before many times - people are referring to attempted coverups surrounding the Chernobyl accident but we can think of many other cases, such as the initial response to the SARS outbreak. It's understandable in a way, nobody likes to admit failure, especially in front of a world stage, and there are questions of liability. A company who admits to how serious is the damage from their actions can be held legally liable for huge compensation payments. For example during the oil spill disaster last year it was clear BP was downplaying the damage, and that way to keep the compensation payments lower.

The Guardian (London) is making a similar report (see link below). "Nuclear experts have thrown doubt on the accuracy of official information issued about the Fukushima nuclear accident, saying that it followed a pattern of secrecy and cover-ups employed in other nuclear accidents."

"They have evacuated 180,000 people but say there is no radiation." Meaning, the Japanese must know what's actually going on, and have evacuated that many people for good cause, hence we can only assume they're covering up?

They refer to a diplomatic cable coming from the recent WikiLeaks release saying that responsible Japanese government officials have been "covering up nuclear accidents and obscuring the true costs and problems associated with the nuclear industry".

Links: 

>Japan radiation leaks feared as nuclear experts point to possible cover-up

Links: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/175295

Can we trust the official story about the nuclear catastrophe in Japan?

The fifth most powerful ever recorded earthquake struck off the coast of Japan last Friday, measuring 8.9 on the Richtor scale. It triggered a massive Tsunami that completely overwhelmed the anti-Tsunami infrastructure installed along Japan's coast line. The Tsunami even caused damage along the California coast, thousands of miles away. That much is bad enough, but it's being compounded by a nuclear catastrophe triggered when the Tsunami struck nuclear power plants on the coast. Todays episode of Democracy Now includes in-depth coverage of the issue including a lot of information demonstrating long-running official prevarication and denial.

The official line is that "we will learn from this" and "disseminate the lessons" to nuclear plants world-wide. (see: Obama proposes nuclear power expansion while Japan has nuclear crisis) Obama is simply the latest of U.S. Presidents to propose nuclear power to replace the use of fossil oil fuels. This should be seen as evidence of the high-level support for the expansion of nuclear power, risks be damned.

The crisis at the Japanese nuclear plants should be seen as evidence of to be more careful about nuclear power than we have so far, and perhaps to simply ban its use. Three or more nuclear reactors are in some degree of nuclear meltdown, with nuclear waste ponds in contact with the open air, and a likelihood of the nuclear core also becoming exposed to the air. It's plausible we'll see a radioactive plume spewing into the air, which will go out over the ocean, enter trade winds and spread around the Pacific Ocean.

Here's a few excerpts from the show, you'll find video and a link to the full transcript below. Also have a followup article covering a report in The Guardian: Japan radiation leaks feared as nuclear experts point to possible cover-up

Amy Goodman: ... While Japanese officials are playing down any health risk, Pentagon officials reported Sunday helicopters flying 60 miles from the plant picked up small amounts of radioactive particulates, suggesting widening environmental contamination. And the U.S. Navy moved one of its aircraft carriers from the area after detecting low-level radiation 100 miles offshore. The New York Times reports radioactive releases of steam from the crippled plants could go on for weeks or even months. Tens of thousands of people have been evacuated from the area around the plant. At least 22 people have tested positive for radiation exposure, with the number expected to rise. ...

YURIKA AYUKAWA: ...The latest one is the threatening of meltdown by nuclear reactor 2 at Fukushima 1 site. So, this is the third reactor that’s going to be in a very critical situation. All of the fuel rods seems to be out of water, and they are pouring in seawater, but they couldn’t detect how much water they’ve put in, in the beginning, and now they said it’s going in, but still there is a lot of—the whole rod is exposed. And the latest news is that they found some radioactive materials, like—they didn’t say the name, but I feel it’s like cesium—around the site. So, there must be melting going on inside the reactor.

HARVEY WASSERMAN: Well, it’s hugely significant, and it’s a very, very dangerous situation. I should note that the first reactor at Fukushima is identical to the Vermont Yankee plant, and which is now up for relicensing and which the people of Vermont are trying to shut. And we should also note that this kind of accident, this kind of disaster, could have occurred at four reactors in California, had the 9.0-Richter-scale earthquake hit close to Diablo Canyon at San Luis Obispo or San Onofre between L.A. and San Diego. We could very well now be watching Los Angeles or San Diego being evacuated, had this kind of thing happened in California. And, of course, the issue is the same in Vermont. There are 23 reactors in the United States that are identical or close to identical to the first Fukushima reactor....

YURIKA AYUKAWA: What the government and the Tokyo Electric is saying is what—just as just Kevin explained. They are trying to downgrade the critical situation and make the people don’t get worried or—so, we are totally not sure. There’s no transparency about the information that they are saying. They don’t give enough—what—actually, maybe they don’t actually know precisely what to say, but nothing concrete is being announced. So, we don’t know what is really going on. So, there’s no transparency in what they’re speaking....

You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed_show_v2/300/2011/3/14/story/japan_facing_biggest_catastrophe_since_dawn"></script>

Links: 

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/14/japan_facing_biggest_catastrophe_since_daw...

Rachel Maddow: Nuclear Plants Threatened by Earthquake

Yesterday a massive earthquake struck Japan (8.9 Richtor) and one of the effects was to trigger a nuclear emergency at a couple of Japan's nuclear power plants. There are fears of a nuclear meltdown because of the severe damage. To put this in perspective, this is worse than the Three Mile Island accident but has not yet reached the level of the Chernobyl accident.

This is Rachel Maddow's excellent report on the danger, including an interview of Union of Concerned Scientists Senior Scientist Edwin Lyman.

Article Reference: 

Rachel Maddow: Nuclear Plants Threatened by Earthquake

extvideo: 

Sorry, you need to install flash to see this content.

Explosion at Fukushima nuclear plant due to 8.9 Richtor earthquake on March 11, 2011

A massive earthquake struck Japan yesterday. One of the effects was to trigger a "Nuclear Emergency" at two or more of Japan's nuclear power plants. At one of the plants, Fukushima, there was an explosion shown in the video below.

Article Reference: 

福島第一原発 爆発の瞬間 Explosion at Fukushima nuclear plant

extvideo: 

Sorry, you need to install flash to see this content.

Amory Lovins: Expanding Nuclear Power Makes Climate Change Worse

Amory Lovins has a very intriguing proposal... Increase of Nuclear Power use would cause an increase in Global Warming. That's kind of a puzzler but it turns out he has an interesting analysis. And, to be real, Officialdom is presenting increased nuclear power as a method to solve some of the 'energy' problems the U.S. is facing. Not just Washington Officialdom but some head scratchers like Stewart Brand and other environmentalists have been suggesting nuclear power because it doesn't emit carbon. Since nuclear power doesn't emit carbon it's thought to be a safe energy source in terms of global warming. But of course nuclear power has tremendous problems with disposal of the left over nuclear material, and increased use of nuclear power would lead us to perhaps using nuclear weapons again.

Before Amory Lovins began talking they quoted President Bush, and Senators McCain and Obama, all talking about the need to invest in (or explore investing in) new nuclear power plants. This makes it appear that no matter who is chosen President this year, we will have Nuclear Power on the table for discussion, debate, and possible approval by Congress.

First point

electricity and oil have essentially nothing to do with each other, and anybody who thinks the contrary is really ignorant about energy. Less than two percent of our electricity is made from oil. Less than two percent of our oil makes electricity.

Yup.. there are very few nuclear powered vehicles. Except in the military, who have nuclear powered ships of various kinds. But there are a couple ways nuclear power could help offset the use of oil..

I looked into this a couple years ago -- Examining nukes to replace oil -- The electricity or heat from a nuclear reactor can be used to extract hydrogen from water, or can be used to drive a coal-to-liquids plant. Coal-to-liquids is specifically a curious technology in that it's a way to make a liquid fuel starting from what are essentially rocks (coal). The Germans used this technology during WWII to drive their war machine even though they had no indigenous oil supplies. There happens to be huge coal deposits in the U.S. and further the same technology can be used with tar sands and other very sludgy oil deposits, and there are large tar sands deposits in Canada (Alberta).

This means there are a couple ways to make liquid fuels by way of using nuclear power to drive the machines that do so.

President Bush was quoted discussing "You know, one of these days, people are going to be using battery technologies in their cars." ... uh, yeah, look at my driveway. Since nuclear power creates electricity the use of electric cars could be powered by nuclear reactors. In todays arrangement most vehicles are driven by liquid fuels (oil) but if most vehicles were driven by electricity the electricity could come from a wide range of sources. Solar panels, wind power, tidal power, biomass, and, uh, ah, nuclear power.

But let's move to his next point:-

The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street Journal recently reported that they’re about two to four times the cost that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you’re going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of central plans, in the marketplace.

If you have 'n' dollars to put into climate change and environmental benefits don't you want the best return on investment? That's where Amory Lovins has been working for years.

It's cheaper to not build a power plant which isn't needed because efficiency improvements caused a decrease in what would have been the power demand. Amory Lovins invented this term negawatts which is power which isn't needed to be generated because of efficiency improvements.

Another thing he points at is how improvements in wind and solar power technology has made them far more economically attractive than nuclear power. Nuclear power plants have a very high cost to build (that is, to build safely) and wind/solar technology has been improving to the point where it's directly competitive with the usual technologies. The market is responding, as he points out, by investing in wind and solar power plants while ignoring investment in nuclear power plants. Wind/solar installations have increased at a huge rate while nuclear installations have been essentially flat.

He claims this is due to costs and the unwillingness of "Wall Street" to make investments in costly power systems. Uhm, that is probably true, that Wall Street isn't investing in nuclear power due to the costs, but isn't there also a moratorium in the U.S. against nuclear power? It might not be an explicit moratorium, but ever since 1978 when the Three Mile Island power plant almost melted down the U.S. public has been against building more nuclear power plants.

That's what the cost difference means.. if you spend dollars to build nuclear plants you'll get less power per dollar spent than if you instead use the dollars to build wind power plants.

The way this turns investments into nuclear power would increase global warming...? It's that because there are 'n' dollars and there is a certain sized problem to solve, the U.S. will solve that problem more slowly if we depend on nuclear power to solve it. Likewise if we use technologies like solar or wind power the problem would be solved more quickly than if we depended on nuclear power.

The core problem is the ever-increasing demand for power. The numbers I've seen indicate huge huge huge needs for massive investment in new power plants. If those investments are primarily in coal, well, that means burning a lot of coal and we've seen the result of that. The choice in technologies to invest in to provide that power will be with us for decades into the future. We must make this choice with the long view in mind.

NO NUKES!!!

Article Reference: 

Amory Lovins: Expanding Nuclear Power Makes Climate Change Worse

The Rocky Mountain Institute

http://media.switchpod.com/users/democracynow/ftp/dn2008-0716-1.mp3

http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2008/july/video/dnB20080716a.rm&pr...

extvideo: 

Is Thorium better for nuclear reactors than Uranium?

It's so tempting to just shout NO NUKES in a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion of any sort of nuclear power. Nuclear anything produces radiation and is dangerous, or so goes the stereotypical claim. But...

Th Better than Uranium discusses the advantages of Thorium over Uranium. It comes down to the side effects that come from using one over the other. Uranium run through nuclear reactor systems converts to a variety of other elements, some are benign while others are dangerously poisonous for 10's of thousands of years. To adequately protect ourselves from the latter elements we have to think about building facilities like the Yucca Mountain storage facility, where the location is hopefully geologically stable over a drastically long period of time. Thorium on the other hand has byproducts that become safe within a relatively short period, and some of the byproducts are directly usable in commercial products.

The blog Energy from Thorium is said to be eminently useful to understanding the issues.

This is a great example of a general concept I'm thinking about. Our society often does not consider the byproducts of our actions, we just act. We, as a society, accept that fossil fuel oil is the only way to power our cars etc, and don't consider the side effects. And that's just one example, if you reflect on how we live you can see many examples where society at large simply goes about living and consuming products without considering the environmental, physical, emotional, mental or spiritual side effects. There's so many things we, as a society, do where the action has poisonous and polluting side effects.

Railnews :: News :: NO FRENCH TRAINS WILL USE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2026, SAYS PRESIDENT CHIRAC

Why can't we make a bold project like this in the U.S.??? Why instead do we have to beat up smaller countries for their oil??? NO FRENCH TRAINS WILL USE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2026, SAYS PRESIDENT CHIRAC French President Chirac has declared that France will move towards electric trains, and biodiesel powered trains. That they'll improve their nuclear plants going to a third and fourth generation design. That they'll accelerate development of solar energy, biomass fuels, etc. And that the result will be zero usage of fossil fuels to run the train system.

Whew! Go, France, Go!

The US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

There's been a continuing confrontation between the U.S., the E.U. and Iran over Iran's nuclear power program. Iran has been building nuclear reactors, some of which weren't initially disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Commission, and whose designs could be used to build weapons grade nuclear material. They've promised up and down, those reactors were purely for "peaceful" purposes, but then why would they choose a nuclear reaction that produces weapons grade material if they had a peaceful purpose? Especially as they hid the existance of the reactors?

Coincidentally Iran's plan helps justify the neocon plan to rearrange the political map of the Middle East. So it shouldn't be surprising the Bush administration has been taking a hardline stance towards Iran. The neocon agenda is to create a war against Iran, and taking a hardline stance is the way to gaurantee a war. It worked in Iraq didn't it?

This has been developing for awhile, and as I've posted before it appears to be following the same pattern as was used to cook up justification to attack Iraq. Pressure has been kept hard on Iran, and the Bush Administration rhetoric has been that "all options are on the table" just as they said with Iraq.

In the case of the attack on Iraq, all the justifications given by the administration have been proven to be false. And it's clear that the administration knew the falsity of most of their statements while they were claiming up and down it was all true. In other words, they were lying. And lots of people around the world, including the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, have said the war in Iraq is illegal etc.

On the other hand the allegations against Iran are largely true. Iran itself has admitted to having this nuclear program. And it is a worry to have nuclear weapon capabilities proliferate beyond the set of countries that currently have that capability. So it's a puzzle where to stand. The Bush Administration has a very poor track record, and are obviously holding an agenda dating back to the mid-90's (or further) to destroy Iran's government.

In any case, right now there are some serious rumors being published in Germany saying the U.S. is clearly planning to launch an attack on Iran.

Here's some pointers to discussion:

The US and Iran: Is Washington Planning a Military Strike? (December 30, 2005, Der SPIEGEL ONLINE)

US planning strike against Iran (Dec. 31, 2005 19:33, By JPOST.COM STAFF)

Rumors Of War (January 01, 2006, Past Peak blog)

Attacking Iran (December 31, 2005, John Robb's weblog)

The source is an article in the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel. I don't have a link to that article (and no doubt it's in German) but the Der Spiegel article is a good substitute:

In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

... According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.

... But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.

Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.

So the Der Spiegel article is not claiming outright there's a war being prepared. But it points to evidence something is going on, even if it's being kept secret enough we aren't knowing what it's about. The Jerusalem Post article is, then, overhyping the truth for some reason. Perhaps the people in Israel are more alarmed by Iran, because the President of Iran has made repeated speeches recently calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, claiming the Holocaust was a hoax, etc.

Iran rejects Russia nuclear plan (Jan 1, 2006, BBC): Russia apparently proposed doing nuclear processing on their terroritory, so that Iran wouldn't be doing the processing. I think the worry is about the expansion of the number of countries who have nuclear weapons capability. In the Der Spiegel article it quoted some General saying that the time to act is "now" because if we wait too long Iran will have their nuclear capability and it will be too late. But Iran rejected the Russian plan.

Iran vows 'crushing response' to attack by U.S., Israel (Haaretz): Tough talk between Iran and Israel just proving they don't like each other. The article provides an interesting overview of the tensions.

US planning to strike Iran's nuke facilities: Report (January 01, 2006 19:36 IST, rediff.com): Describes the proposed attack on Iran as just to destroy the nuclear facilities, rather than an all-out war. I suppose they might be hoping for something like Israel's 80's attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities. But in todays Middle East I suspect it would only fan the flames further, seeing the U.S. as an occupying power.

A 2006 U.S. plan to attack Iran detailed (12/31/2005 10:20:00 PM GMT, aljazeera.com): Details the same story as above, but adds to it a statement by Cheney in Jan 2005. He made a vague statement to MSNBC that Israel might be doing the dirty work (bombing Iran's nuclear facilities) leaving the rest of the international community to clean up the consequences later. Hurm.

Safe Haven | The Potential Emerging Energy Crunch

It's interesting to look at an investors viewpoint on "energy" and the oil supply issue. The Potential Emerging Energy Crunch (by Sol Palha) He lists several potential energy sources and points out how they all have problems preventing wide use right now. The issue is the high oil prices we saw over the last year, and he is trying to say the energy prices will continue to be high for the forseeable future, and that there is one solution: Uranium and Nuclear Power.

Hurm. Apparently Uranium is a hot thing to invest in right now ... my office-neighbor who's a serious day trader type of investor, he's really focussed on Uranium right now.

His reasoning about Uranium is there's a serious growth in Uranium demand around the world, not only from new reactors but also from stockpiling activities.

That may be, but I find his reasoning overall suspicious. First, Uranium and Nuclear Power is not a substitute for oil. No-way-no-how will you ever drive up to a fueling station and ask to fill-er-up with Uranium.

Uranium and Nuclear Power can only provide heat, from which they make electricity. Hence, Nuclear Power can run our homes and factories, but not our cars unless we convert to electric cars.

The energy price problem of the last year is oil prices. It is for oil we are fighting the wars in the Middle East. That's because the U.S. has stupiedly made a dependency on oil to run our economy.

In fact all the energy alternates he discusses produce electricity and aren't suitable for vehicles unless the U.S. were to convert to electric cars.

He does miss out on one glaringly important alternate energy source that's currently a rising star: Biodiesel. Biodiesel has an interesting advantage that it can be grown "anywhere", is simple to make, and can easily drive a diesel engine.

Now, back to the author of the post above. He's clearly an investment advisor. It's well known that investment advisors are more often than not pushing "products" which will drive investment transactions regardless of how sound an investment they are.

Depleted Uranium is safe, according to the U.S. DoD

Here's a pointer to several studies and claims around depleted uranium. The most interesting is a U.S. Defense Department study concluding there's little harm from using DU weapons. Of course, what else do you expect from the people who are most liable for damage caused by the weapons.

Depleted Uranium All That Deadly? (defensetech.org November 21, 2005)

Their claim is that DU weapons show little increase in cancer among military personell.

Okay, that may be true. However it's clear the issue doesn't stop with the military folk. Once the battle is over, what happens to the battleground? People will move back to their homes, but now their homesites are littered with the dust made when DU weapons hit their targets. Hence, the people are moving back to a place infested with radioactive dust.

Let's be clear - the radiation emitted by depleted uranium isn't very harmful. It is primarily alpha particles, which have little penetrating power, and therefore are not harmful unless you "eat" the depleted uranium. If DU dust enters the bloodstream the alpha particles can cause a lot of damage, but the damage occurs only if it enters the body.

And that's the point. When a DU weapon hits a target, it tends to turn into dust. The military might "clean up" the battlefield after the battle is over, but how can they clean up the dust? Hence there will be a residue left afterwards, and that residue will mix with the environment, and enter peoples bodies as, for example, they eat food grown on the ground of the former battlefield.

Clearly DU weapons are excellent at what they're designed to do - namely to penetrate armor and other kinds of fortified positions. That's why the military uses them.

Here's some alternate viewpoints:

Campaign Against Depleted Uranium: http://www.cadu.org.uk/

Poisinous Legacy: http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Uranium Medical Research Center http://www.umrc.net/

Depleted Uranium: How the Pentagon Radiates Soldiers & Civilians with DU Weapons http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/mettoc.htm

New U.S. nuclear strategy brings nukes to the table in preemptive war

Our dear president has been pushing a general strategy of preemption. That was the justification for invading Iraq, that there was a perceived threat, a possibility that Iraq was a danger, and hence they were a worthy target. But we know what happened there, it has become a total boondoggle, the perceived danger was nothing but lies spun by Iraqi dissidents who hadn't set foot in the country in decades, the U.N. Secretary General has declared this an illegal war, and the President deserves impeachment.

In the movie Minority Report we saw a demonstration of the fallacy of preemptive enforcement based on a prediction of aggression. In the movie they had psychics predicting when murders would happen, and sure enough the murder rate went to zero. But the movie presented us with a conundrum, if you can't accurately predict the future then how can you enforce the law based on a fallable prediction? Do you lock someone up just because they're thinking about murder? Or do you wait for the murder to happen?

But this is just what the Bush Administration has been pursuing. The doctrine of preemptive war based on the prediction on whether some country or another will become an agressor. Uh, excuse me but by crossing that line then haven't we become the agressor? So by that logic shouldn't we then attack ourselves in order to stop our agression?

In any case let's get to the current story.

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan; Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons (By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer,Sunday, September 11, 2005)

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations

Nuclear Doctrine

Nuclear Weapons Policy

Draft US Defense Paper Outlines Preventive Nuclear Strikes

New U.S. doctrine proposes nuclear strikes

What's happened is that the DoD has been studying its navel and redesigning the nuclear strategy. "A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction." (washington post)

The new strategy outlines several instances under which commanders can request the use of nuclear weapons. The instances include preemtive strikes against countries or organizations that are possible threats.

The code phrase "all options" is used, and we've seen how "all options" really means they're planning to do it.

The plan is being distributed in draft form and published on a Defense Department website (see here for links). I've attached a copy of the plan to this page.

Early in the document the strategy is described as having four key goals. These are "steadfastness of purpose", "dissuading adversaries", "deterring agression and coercion" and "decisively defeating enemies". Essentially the strategy is the best defense is a good offense. The deterrence part is simply to deter agression by threatening everybody with a big stick, namely the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

And, of course, for the U.S. nuclear arsenal to have value, the number of nuclear armed nations must be kept to a minimum. Hence the current threats being made against Iran and North Korea. But it's puzzling why Pakistan isn't also being threatened, because Pakistan was actively proliferating nuclear technology. But then we know that Pakistan is a critical player in bring Central Asian oil to the world market.

Read it and weep my friends.

Attachment	Size
jp3_12fc2.pdf	1.76 MB

An interesting opposition view to the U.S. nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

As I write this, the U.S. has invaded Iraq in a boondoggle of a war that supposedly was meant to remove "Weapons of Mass Destruction" from Iraqi hands. This weekend is also the 60th anniversary of the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, done by U.S. hands supposedly to hasten the end of WWII.

I suppose the power of official propoganda is shown by: Why was the atomic bomb dropped in 1945? A Greenpeace background briefing summarising the American debate on the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (by Bill Totten) For his blog posting, he is referencing the following Grean Peace report: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7147.pdf

What Bill Totten reports is that the official story we were told concerning the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not quite truthful. If you recall, the justification we, the populace of the U.S., were given is that there were several choices to finish the defeat of Japan. One choice would be to invade the Japanese mainland to deliver the final blows which would cause the Japanese surrender. Such an invasion, you can expect, would cost many more lives.

The other choice was to use this new weapon. To demonstrate American might and cause the immediate surrender of the Japanese forces, that was the goal.

However, Bill Totten relates that many in the Truman administration openly opposed using this weapon. For example:

A few years after Hiroshima in 1950 Admiral William Leahy, US Chief of Staff under both Roosevelt and Truman, publicly declared his opposition to the dropping of the atomic bomb:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarious weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender ...

"My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Further he tells of Trumans actual thinking, revealed in recently declassified documents. Namely, the global geopolitical position with Russia was in Trumans mind. He wanted a way to contain Russia's rise to superpower status. Of particular importance was the meeting at Potsdam, and Truman especially wanted to demonstrate to the Russians the nuclear weaponry developed by the U.S. to have the upper hand in the Potsdam negotiations.

It's very enlightening to think of the current lies we've been told about Iraq, and put them in light of the previous near-lies about Hiroshima.

As background material, he references these books:

Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman and the Surrender of Japan

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb

A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and Its Legacies

The Atomic Bomb: The Critical Issues

American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer

Living With the Bomb: American and Japanese Cultural Conflicts in the Nuclear Age

Rethinking Cold War Culture

Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial

Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb

Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of the Atomic Bombs Against Japan