Nuclear Reactors to Propel Rockets into Space; Will Leave Waste Floating

[bigtree]

This is another attempt to justify the continued production and utilization of uranium, and pressuring the public to build more nuclear plants and develop more radioactive fuels out of waste fuels instead of immobilizing the waste and storing it.

Most of the money for the construction of new nuclear plants is in the Energy Bill. http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/nuclear_matters.pdf


Boeing Selects Leader for Nuclear Space Systems Program-
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03p.html

Boeing has selected Dr. Joe Mills to lead the company's effort on the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) program, part of a NASA initiative to develop nuclear power and electric propulsion technologies to revolutionize space exploration.

The JIMO Phase A contract is valued at $6 million, with a $5 million option for further work, and runs through fall 2003. Led in this phase by Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced R&D unit, the JIMO team will study technology options for the reactor, power conversion, electric propulsion and other subsystems of the JIMO spacecraft meant to explore the Jovian moons of Ganymede, Callisto and Europa.

NASA currently plans to select an industry prime contractor in fall 2004 to work with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif., to develop, launch and operate the spacecraft. The proposed Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter has been identified as the first space science mission to potentially incorporate this new capability.

Mission Fact Sheet:
http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/JIMO.pdf

How will the system be used?:
http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/fissiontech.pdf

Claims of nuclear space saftey:
http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/fissiontechsafety.pdf


Here's an excerpt from the NuclearSpace website about the system. http://www.nuclearspace.com/use_in_space.htm

NASA Plans to Develop a Space Nuclear Reactor Power System

NASA, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy are currently working together to develop the technology base for Space Nuclear Reactor Power. This program will develop and demonstrate in ground tests the technology required for space reactor power systems from tens of kilowatts to hundreds of kilowatts.

The SP-100 reactor power system is designed to be launched radioactively cold. After mission completion, the reactor will be shut down and stored in space for hundreds of years to ensure fission products decay to safe levels. In the event of accidental reentry, the reactor system will enter intact and remain subcritical so that fission products will no longer be generated or released.

The reactor can be built using different forms of uranium fuel (see Energy Bill now in conference- http://energy.senate.gov/ http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/CMTitleIV.pdf
During the fusion process the neutron strikes a uranium atom, causing it to release energy as it splits into smaller atoms.

The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, a more heavily instrumented craft traveling farther from the Sun, would power its ion thrusters with a nuclear fission reactor and a system for converting the reactor's heat to electricity. This could give the craft more than 100 times as
much power as a non-fission system of comparable weight.


An effort to roll back the system:

WASHINGTON, DC, July 28, 2003 (ENS) - The House turned back an effort Friday to fully fund the Bush administration's 2004 request for the Superfund program, opting not to divert $115 million from an initiative to develop nuclear powered space flight in order to fund additional efforts to clean up hazardous waste sites.

Aerospace giants Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman have each been awarded multimillion dollar contracts to develop design studies for the orbiter.
http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2003/2003-07-28-10.asp


New Thread on the Energy Bill:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=393201

[wuushew]

1. As someone who is interested in the future of space exploration ..

I must defend the use of ion and nuclear thermal rockets in both manned and unmanned space exploration. Chemical rockets are too slow and its unfortunate that the public's hysteria over nuclear anything provents genuine peaceful applications of nuclear technology from being developed.

[bigtree]

2. Uranium is not safe or readily available

The use of new blended, or regenerated nuclear material is a slippery slope to new nuke plants and new nuke weapons in space.

It seems to me that we can do without exploring Jupiter's moons and try to put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. The space community is being had by the Energy Dept. and the nuclear industry cronies. Don't be a dupe and allow for more uranium production. Don't give the them an excuse to reinvigorate nuclear power. Let it die.

We don't need nukes in space or on the ground.
Nuclear energy accounts for only 20% of our nation's electricity needs; 30% worldwide. This can easily be replaced by any combination of renewables.

No Nukes in Space!

[leesa]

3. I don't believe their safety promises. Can you share with us exactly

what happens to the nuclear material left in space, what impact it has on surrounding bodies, what happens when things don't go just right and it re-enters the atmosphere. What are the proofs since know one knows for sure how this will all play out. After all, these are people that think it's OK to send nuclear bunker-buster bombs into the moon.
Is the speed worth the potential disaster?

[mddemo]

4. nukes in space

personally im all for it, would love to see space tamed in my lifetime, only worry if something goes boom on the launchpad. As to nuclear material in space being an issue, theres plenty of nucleur stuff up there already, lots of gamma rays etc, and isnt the sun nothing more than a giant hydrogen reactor.

[bigtree]

6. Space lovers will let the nuke industry off the hook ?

You want to tame space. Fine. But, can you justify the need to continue and expand our nuclear program in a way which outweighs the concerns about nuclear safety, for workers, communities and the environment. Will we be able to control the ambitions of the nuclear energy industry and their supporters in govermnent and restrict the expansion into alternative, reusable nuclear fuels to the peacable rocket propulsion systems? Can we trust this group? Abraham, Bush?

Here's their nuclear plan:

The pending Energy bill references the "Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program" This is a determined, deliberate hard sell to get the nation back in the nuclear game. http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/

In December 2002 the United States Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV International Forum issued "A Technology Roadmap for the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems." http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf


They aren't talking about a benign nuclear presence. This program will expand and fold nicely into star wars; a military industry boondoggle.

How do you feel about the new nuclear fuel blends and the new nuclear plants which will support these space reactors?

Certainly you understand that the nuclear plants they envision are to be dual-use; for energy and new weapon systems. Don't let them off of the hook!


US reverses weapons plutonium policy
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991833

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

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

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

[chascarrillo]

8. What about safe nuclear propulsion?

No, no one can justify "the need to continue and expand our nuclear program in a way which outweighs the concerns about nuclear safety, for workers, communities and the environment." However, there's absolutely no reason not to develop nuclear propulsion systems that do take safety in the highest regard.

This isn't some rotten bill of goods that scientists have been sold. It's common knowledge that - right now - nuclear propulsion systems are the most efficient way to travel large distances. NASA is still putting money into developing non-nuclear systems that could supercede nuclear systems, but at the present this is the best we have. It's not some lie. Call up your local university's astronomy department and ask them their opinion.

[jobendorfer]

9. if you want to explore the outer planets ...

... you have to power the vehicle somehow. Solar panels
simply aren't workable that far from the sun. You have to
use radioisotope thermal generators to generate electrical
power.

The benefit that you get with the ion drives is more thrust
for a given amount of fuel, which means more of your vehicle's
mass budget gets spent on instruments and less gets spent on
fuel.

Yes, there is a small risk in launching a probe from earth
with one of these drives on board. But honestly -- the
chances of a serious accident are 1 in many thousands, and
I'd be a lot more worried about hazards that are dead certain
to be impacting our health and life: air pollution, water
pollution, toxic waste, abuse of pesticides, etc. Bad
diet, poor exercise habits, and polluted air have killed
millions more than ion drives on spacecraft ever will.

J.

[bigtree]

12. I don't want to explore space

And, I don't think the public should pay for it or should be put at risk from it.

Space travel is benign enough, but where and how is the fuel produced?

We go to a gas station for our fuel. On the land where it is produced, the effects are devestating. One accident can mean death and destruction to the people or the environment. But, presumably you accept that risk.

Will you be directly in the way of the negative effects of production? How can you be so obtuse to the risks? By the time the fuel is converted into some neat package, millions could suffer the negative effects of its production. This is no idle musing. Nuclear power is not safe. The waste is not managable in a way which will protect future generations from the effects of exploitation, misuse, or mishaps. Perhaps I would be more convinced of your position if you would intend to put yourself in the way of these destructive influences.

It's hard to be intellectual about nuclear energy when so many innocent people suffer the effects of its production. These plants are placed in areas where the people are poor and unable to defend against the intellectuals and space buffs. These plants are presented as job creators for these community's poor economies. They become dependent on the revenue, and can't count on the proponents who sold them these nuclear plants to regulate them in a way that would put the public's welfare ahead of profit. Try to shut down a plant once it is in operation. Try to stop the exploitation of the material after it is produced. Try to clean up the inevitable mess to the environment. How about we don't do this dance again?

How about putting the nuclear monster back into Pandora's Box? Look at how you are justifying this nuclear fuel. "It will help us explore space." What happened to putting people first? This raw ambition for nuclear power is not a liberal ambition. It meshes perfectly with conservative tripe about the primacy of industry: Damn the public. To hell with land, I don't live there. To hell with the people, they aren't me.

Go to the communities where the land has been poisoned and ask someone who lives there whether the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks. Stop acting like an elitist and advocate for the people. Leave the industry to justify the risks and don't let them off of the hook when they throw you a 'green' bone. Don't be so swayed by the toys and goodies. The industry and this administration does not care what happens to the public. They are concerned only with profit and power. You don't have an infrastructure of oversight that can be effective in controlling the worst of their nuclear ambitions. Until there is that balance- whether it involves a change in the White House or in Congress- it is folly to expect that the worst won't happen, or that we will be able to stuff all of the nuclear expansion back into some benign box. Can't we keep their hands out of this nuclear buisness? Are europa's moons really so important that we would risk letting this reckless nuclear regime out of the box?

[DODI]

14. What about coal?

Coal has killed about 1,000,000 minors in this country, coal plants release more radiation than a nuclear power plant does with no regulation. Nuclear releases no green house gases. Is nuclear the answer to global warming? There is no form of energy we can produce that has no environmental/human impact. Wind farms take up land/water spaces disturb wildlife/fisheries, coal destroys ecosystems, releases green house gases, kills workers, oil -- well we all know about oil, hydro also destroys ecocsystems and communities. There are no easy answers to any of this. One thing I like about many of the Dem candidates is the discussion of new technologies and increasing efficencies(sp?).

As for nuclear plants are put in poor communities and can't be shut down once operational -- wrong. Shoreham on Long Island was shut down after one day of operation. The Millstone plants in CT are not in poor areas,. Nuclear is not going back in a bottle anytime soon. We need to grab the energy bull by the horns and consume less -- no SUVs, more efficient homes, businesses, etc.

P.S. there are many in the industry that care about the people element and they work very hard to protect them and do a damn good job.

[bigtree]

18. This administration doesn't care

Why are you willing to trust them with restarting the nuclear madness? What is reasonable or rational about this administration's nuclear ambitions?

Statement of Administration Policy on Energy Conference:
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/admin_state_on_conf.pdf

[MadHound]

39. Well, if you don't want to explore space . . .

Don't blame us when this country's technolocgical innovations start to slip. Like that computer you're posting on? Thank our space program. Like those trendy fabrics that are everywhere these days? Thank our space program. Like that satelite reciever hooked up to your TV? Thank the space program. Look, the space program has been a huge impetus behind much of the technological innovation in the past fifty years.

As far as nukes in space, don't dismiss them so quickly. If a space shot could be guaranteed to not blow up upon launch, I think dropping our nuclear waste into the sun would be ideal. I would also be in favor of nuclear powered spacecraft, if, once again, it could be 100% guaranteed not to go up in a suborbital blast. But that, of course, is the kicker. Nothing is 100%, and we as a world really can't afford the kind of exposure that a sub-orbital blast would bring.

[Throckmorton]

41. Can you offer any proof of these claims,

I know it is popular to credit the space program with all sorts of wonders, but is there any real proof that much of what you claim is true?

”Like that computer you're posting on? Thank our space program. “

Oh, so microprocessor based home computers are the result of the fallout from the space program, you mean that same far reaching program that now buys spare parts from E-Bay sellers?

“Like those trendy fabrics that are everywhere these days? Thank our space program. “

You mean like rayon, polyester, Dacron, nylon, and their derivatives? You know, the ones exhibited at the 1939 World’s Fair.


“Like that satellite receiver hooked up to your TV? Thank the space program. “

You mean the one pointed at the satellite launched into orbit on the latest derivative of the Titan Missile, you know the one designed to launch peaceful Thermonuclear warheads at the Soviet Union in the 1960's.

” Look, the space program has been a huge impetus behind much of the technological innovation in the past fifty years. “

OK, can you offer any proof that any meaningful advances in technology that have occurred in the past ten years are a result of the civilian space program?

“As far as nukes in space, don't dismiss them so quickly. If a space shot could be guaranteed to not blow up upon launch, I think dropping our nuclear waste into the sun would be ideal. “

Oh yes, there we go, lets launch a few thousand tons of spent nuclear fuel, per year, into the sun, that’s the ticket. Let’s see, one space craft failure in how many launches would you find acceptable? How many spent fuel fragments at 2,000 to 3,000 R on contact do you want raining down onto your house?

Now, to be sure, space based reactors that are launched as sub-critical, never burned assemblies, are tremendous power sources, and not a source of high level activity. You could take them critical for the first time in high earth orbit, or even lunar orbit if you wanted to “almost” guarantee that the reactor core would not fall to earth. This being the case, can you live with the possible alpha contamination that a launch failure would create? Fine then, by all means, full speed ahead, lets build these space based reactors, it would be great for my bottom line, these PWRs are getting old anyway. However, I for one, shudder at the idea of a Challenger type accident with hundreds pounds of Uranium or Plutonium on board, gently raining down across several thousand square miles. No thanks, I’ll wait for our old clunky chemical fueled, radio-isothermic powered, craft to get wherever they are going. Its not perfect, but a few dozen pounds of radioactive material, with no moving parts, still carries the day for me. Perhaps we should be looking elsewhere for the power solution, rather than back to failed technology from the 1960’s.

[MadHound]

45. Do you ever read, be it my post or history?

If you read my post, you would see that I said that I would be in favor of shooting nuke waste into the sun IF there was 100% guarantee that it wouldn't explode in sub orbit.

And yes, the computer, satellites, various fabrics, etc etc are byproducts of the space program. Go read your history OK. If you want something from the past ten years, gee, let's see, how about Ytterbium micro spheres. Go look it up, it might save your life some time.

[bigtree]

13. "nuclear systems are the most efficient way to travel large distances."

Come back to Earth. The nuclear fuel must be produced. Nuclear production and it's exploitation, abuse, and mishandling has left an enduring legacy of death and destruction. This is not the time to look the other way and start looking for more applications. It is time to take more responsibility for the waste we have already created. That will provide opportunities well into the next century. Not as much fun as space travel, but more enduring with regards to our survival and well-being, nonetheless.

[jobendorfer]

10. space travel: the art of balancing capability and risk

The answers to these questions depend on the kind of mission
you're planning.

I'll speak to the case of unmanned probes going to the outer
planets.

The probe has to have a source of electrical power that will
work for several years. Solar power is not an option, because
the probe will travel very, very far from the sun, and the
panels won't produce the quantities of electricity needed.
Batteries are out, because of the length of the mission. The
only option is to use radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs)
as your power source.

If you need the probe to maneuver around the planet you're
visiting, then you have to have a maneuvering engine on board.
The benefit provided by an ion drive over the standard chemical
thrusters is that you get more thrust per unit of fuel, which
means you can dedicate more of the probe's mass to instruments
and less to fuel. Because of the higher fuel efficiency, the
ion drive may make possible mission profiles that could not be
done with standard thruster technology.

The risks, in order of severity:

1. The launch vehicle that will propel the probe into earth
orbit explodes on the pad or in the atmosphere during flight.

Radioisotope thermal generators are designed to tolerate
massive physical stresses. One accident has already happened,
in which a launch vehicle carrying a satellite with an RTG
exploded at takeoff. The RTG was thrown several thousand
yards out to sea. Divers recovered the RTG -- intact -- and
the RTG was used on a later mission.

Upshot: launch and in-flight explosions of unmanned boosters
are rare these days. RTGs are pretty tough. The launch
profile takes the vehicle out over the ocean. The risk to
humans is small. If you're worried about the risk to oceans --
well, we have nuclear powered subs and carriers out there
numbering in the dozens, every day. Given NASA's budgets,
we might see one ion-powered craft per decade.


2. The probe's engine misfires when attempting to leave earth
orbit and the probe re-enters earth's atmosphere.

This risk is managed by putting redundant radios, computers,
and control systems on board. The probability of this happen-
ing is pretty small. Long odds are that the vehicle would
burn up on re-entry, vaporizing most if not all of the small
mass of nuclear fuel on board.

(Yes, a lot of debris came down from the breakup of Columbia.
But deep space probes are much smaller, and they have no heat
shields.)


3. The probe's control systems fail en route to the desti-
nation planet.

Again, a pretty low probability, with the risk managed by
redundant systems on board. Assuming the ballisticians are
good, the probe would likely enter orbit around the target
planet. Eventually, it would fall into the gas giant's
atmosphere and burn up (much as the Galileo probe did last
week).

Summary: the risks are real, but small, and can be managed.
A good way to think about the risks is to relativize them.
There are a couple of 10 minute periods on a mission where
there is a low risk of a catastrophic accident. Contrast that
with daily exposure to air pollution, water pollution, toxic
waste, unhealthy food, biologically contaminated water, and
fossil-fueled or nuclear power plants that operate for
decades on end, and brain-damaging republican-biased network
news. :-) I know which of these is the lowest on my
personal worry list.

J.

[bigtree]

11. Once again, hydrogen may be a fine fuel, but not from nuclear sources

Funding for the space program seems like an unecessary indulgence at a time when so many of our citizens struggle to make ends meet and are denied basic services. Where is the money coming from? Who will recieve these funds. Who will exercise oversight? Don't just dump this 'wonderful' project into a budget environment which won't fully fund basic services. Don't pretend that we have enopugh resources to support a new nuclear regime.

Where do we put the radioactive fuel when it is spent? Recyclable nuclear fuels are a slippery slope into the new generation of nuclear weapons and nuclear plants. What communities will have to bear the existence of the new plants?

What application is worth the risk of the further exploitation, misuse, and mishaps that are the inevitable consequences of this unnecessary industry? Nuclear energy accounts for only 20% of the electrical power supply in the US. The remaining bulk is used to preserve an anacronistic weapons program which further endangers this and future generations, unnecessarily.

What do we sacrifice by refusing to expand the hydrogen program into nuclear production?

What do we gain? Safe, renewable alternatives perhaps? A safer world?

Hydrogen has its own disposal problems, especially if you generate it from nuclear materials. As stated above, hydrogen is a byproduct of several energy sources. Nuclear production of hydrogen has no justification which would outweigh the concerns with nuclear saftey, costs and location of new plants, and the further dispersal of these nuclear materials around the world instead of what we tried for years to accomplish: immobilization and storage.

It is absurd that INEEL (Idaho nuke lab), which recieves 70% of it's funding from the government for waste disposal and storage has proposed all of these wonderful new uses for nuclear waste. And, lo and behold, the new nuclear weapon plans appear! What do you think the industry is more interested in, fuel efficient cars or new weapon systems? What do you think interests the industry more, exploring Europa's moons or development of space-based weaponry?

Why don't these geniuses stop playing with this stuff? I'm sick of the promises of safety. It's not an intellectual matter. Will you work at a new generation plant? Will you live beside one and raise a family? What industry official or government agent do you trust to ensure the safety of these new nuclear plants into the future? What industy official or government agent do you trust to restrict this technology to some benign beneficial use, and not expand this technology into the next generation of nuclear weaponry? That is this administration and the industry's stated intention: To usher in the next generation of nuclear madness.

In December 2002 the United States Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV International Forum issued "A Technology Roadmap for the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems." http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf

New nuclear production and new nuclear plants, and new nuclear weapons are financially unsupportable, out of priority with the needs of the nation, easily substituted by safer, more affordable alternatives, and are a boondoggle by an industry looking to justify its existence outside of cleaning up its own appalling waste that has haunted us since 1952.

This new push to revive the nuclear industry in America will bring new 'usable" nukes and more sadness for our planet. I wish you could understand that this industry won't stop until they exploit the people and the land, to our detriment. This is the history of this industry in the US. We are still cleaning up the waste from 1956 at the Idaho nuclear lab and this is to be the lead research facility for the new generation of nukes and nuke plants!

And then where will we go when the water and the air is irrepairably polluted? France?

"The old man told him: Soon the water will not be safe. It will look like water but you will not be able to drink it"

[Ivory_Tower]

29. Huh?

After all, these are people that think it's OK to send nuclear bunker-buster bombs into the moon.

Sorry, I understand the concern about nuclear propulsion, and I'm not going to argue for or against it here, but I couldn't let that comment slide.

You're confusing two different things:

This administration wants to use "bunker-busters" to deliver nukes into their victims' hiding places. The delivery system is not nuclear -- it just burrows deep into the ground.

NASA is looking into using the same technology to study the moon beneath its surface. That is, they think it might be feasible to replace the bombs with science instruments and send them to the moon. They would impact deeply, but there is NO nuclear bomb in their plans. As far I know, the only group with plans to blow up the moon were some characters from "The Tick" -- but not NASA.

[Booberdawg]

5. thanks, bigtree!

[Booberdawg]

7. kick

[RandomUser]

15. There are already nukes in space

They're called suns and stars. I'm all for nuclear technology being used on spacecraft. Ion engines are the most compact. This hysteria over nuclear technology is tied very much to Hiroshima, but that shouldn't prevent us from using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It's like refusing to use fire for cooking after having seen a forest wildfire tear apart a large swathe of states.

Caution is needed, but so is balance. Being worried about "radioactive waste" in space is ridiculous. There's several times as much radiation exposure already if you're in space outside of the ozone's protection.

[bpilgrim]

16. 'hysteria over nuclear technology' - yeah it's all in our heads

what happens when things don't go according to plan?

BLACK RAIN :nuke:

peace

[bigtree]

17. It's about the fuel.

Neither the industry, nor the administraton intends to protect the environment or the public, or the workers, or the communities. They are blood-sucking bastards. Too bad they sucked you in.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

19. So, do you have anything to actually say here?

Or are you just spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt?

One of these days I will set off a nuclear thermal rocket in your backyard, just to see the look on your face.

[bigtree]

20. Fear uncertainty and doubt

That's what I have about Bush's nuclear program.

This administration is wrapping everything green they can find around their escalation of the nuclear program which involves the next generation of nuclear weaponry. There is no need to accelerate or expand our nuclear program. We can't trust this administration and its cabal of military industrial warriors to reinvigorate the nuclear program because all they really want is a new nuclear weapons program. If you support nuclear weapons, fine. I strongly disagree.

If you don't, then beware of the Energy bill that is now in conference:
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/energybill2003.cfm

It intends to usher in a new generation of nuclear weapons (mini-nukes, thermonuclear weapons) and new nuclear plants which will reuse the waste instead of dispose of it, creating more opportunities for exploitation, misuse, or mishap.

What the hell is with the threat? (One of these days I will set off a nuclear thermal rocket in your backyard, just to see the look on your face.)

I will not stand silent or idle in the face of any threat, from you or any of the nuclear cronies who want to spend my tax dollars on the death and destruction that are an inevitable consequence of meddling with nuclear fuel. This is the attitude of the nuclear thugs: "If you don't agree with me than I'll do you in."

I'd like to know who you really are. Are you an industry thug? I'm not afraid.

I will not be threatened.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

21. Who am I?

I am Joshua Abraham Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico and the Dominion of Canada. Rightful heir of Emperor Norton I, of the House of Norton of Algoa Bay on the Cape of Good Hope, who was proclaimed Emperor by the citizens of the United States in 1859, who ruled for 30 years from his capitol in the city of St. Francis, and who worked for peace, tolerance and the improvement of the human condition.

Those are my bonafides.

In the depths of your ignorance you have decided to raise a great clamoring about subjects you do not understand, conflating two topics which do not overlap - the use of nuclear weapons and the creation of non-explosive nuclear power sources - and howling into the night that anything which uses the words "nuclear" or "uranium" is evil and must be shunned by all Right-Thinking People.

This is not only foolish, you are reacting exactly like George W Bush does when confronted with something that does not fit his worldview.

Think about it.

[bigtree]

22. Bush overlaps them in his energy bill

Bush insists that the next generation of nuclear weaponry be included along with your supposedly benign nuclear ambitions.

Please read the bill
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/energybill2003.cfm

Bush has inserted proposals which may not be dangerous alongside a mad escalation of the nation's nuclear arsenal.

These "non-explosive nuclear power sources" depend on nuclear fuel from some source. You can't pretend that the production of the fuel is benign. Recycling the fuel invites more proliferation.

I don't have to be an expert to see that Bush is hiding his new nuclear weaponry behind projects that may be supportable.

By the way uranium is evil. Keep it out of my rivers, lakes and streams. Protect the workers who handle it. Give them and others in the community the right to sue the companies who use it for abuses.

Don't divert scarce tax dollars for nuclear space boondoggles. It just gives the industry free reign to compound the waste, and madness.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

23. So, if X is included with Y, where X is considered bad...

Then instead of doing the intelligent thing and removing X, we should throw both away and shun the topic?

Yeah, real Presidential thinking there, my man.

Oh, and incidentally...

By the way uranium is evil.

No, it isn't. Uranium cannot be "evil" any more than hydrogen or oxygen or lithium or silicon can be evil. Uranium is an element; it is made up of a certain number of protons, a certain number of neutrons and a certain number of electrons. It is formed via natural processes in the cores of stars. Uranium is not the product of malevolent wizardry, it existed long before we ever evolved. Uranium is radioactive, and it is toxic (being a heavy metal like lead or arsenic or mercury) but it is not evil, it is neutral.

Neutral things have no innate moral value subject to them, it's the use - the act of decision - which creates a moral value. You can use a ton of processed uranium to destroy a city, or power it. The uranium really doesn't have any decision-making power in what you plan to do with it.

[bigtree]

25. Energy Bill: Bad; will include new 'mini' nukes.

Space junkies will have to sacrifice future journey to Europa to save Earth.

JOVIAN SPACE NEWS SERVICE- Interplanetary Edition

Serving the Jovian moons of Ganymede, Callisto and Europa.

Space Travelers Come in Peace; Turned Back, Nonetheless.

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

The travelers are apparently the first-ever recorded visitors to Europa from a planet outside of our tri-planet system.

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

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

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

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

[acerbic]

26. All use of hydrocarbons for anything must be banned

Many bombs and rockets use hydrocarbons. Napalm contains hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are evil and must be banned.

[bigtree]

27. kick

:kick:

[Emperor_Norton_II]

28. Oh, for crying out loud

Is this inane bullshit all you have to say as a refutation? Is your argument really so poor that you have to resort to bad parody?

[bigtree]

30. man you aren't even in the ball park

The argument is in the Energy bill.

Why are your nuclear ambitions more important than halting the expansion of the nation's nuclear program into a new generation of nuclear weapons and new nuclear fuel blends. You can't have your fuel for your space nukes in this bill, no matter how benign space nukes may be, without taking the rest of the nuclear weaponry garbage.

Read the bill:

The nuke provisions in the energy bill are a hard read. But they are designed to confuse.
The Bush administration's nuclear program is a shell game with their nuclear ambitions hidden within the Energy and Defense bills. most under the guise of research.

The lead laboratory for nuclear R&D is INEEL. This is has been the nation's primary lab for all of the nuclear madness since 1952.
At the end of the decade support for nuclear energy was on the decline because of waste and saftey issues and disarnament.

INEEL's primary function since the mid 70's was the clean-up of their own toxic waste. This clean-up is still going on. There is money allocated in this bill for that.

Right before Bush got in, the industry, still fat from clean-up money (INEEL gets 70% of their funding for waste disposal)sought to bolster their flagging industry. Waste storage had become so controversial that it had soured the public to the idea of more nukes and more nuke plants. (Yucca Mountain, storage sites in New Mexico, transportation saftey issues)

So,they began promoting the view that the 'spent' nuclear fuel from decommissioned weapons and nuclear power plants could be broken down and reconstituted for weapons (depleted uranium) and a new generation of nuclear plants which would accomodate(recycle)and use the waste instead of immobilizing it in glass and storing it.(The industry makes the dubious claim that the recycled waste keeps it out of the hands of terrorists and makes proliferation more difficult. It will more likely disperse the waste creating more opportunity for abuse or mishap)

The nuclear industry, along with government supporters, developed a roadmap for the realization of these goals. They intend to portray nukes as a safe, clean alternative to CO2 based plants. The Bush administration has been advocating for the Bunker-busters and the tactical-nukes.

The bill references the "Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program" This is a determined, deliberate hard sell to get the nation back in the nuclear game. http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/

They put together a position paper which is referenced in the bill:
“A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010” http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf

INEEL is the lab who has developed most of our nation's nuclear arsenal. Just because they are involved in mandated clean-up hasn't precluded them from their original mission: the development of nuclear weapons

INEEL is also where the fuel for your space nukes will be developed.

So, here is their bid, doublespoken in the Energy bill:

-"RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—The project shall include planning,
research and development, design, and construction of an advanced, next-generation, nuclear energy system suitable for enabling further research and development on advanced reactor technologies and alternative approaches for reactor-based generation of hydrogen."
-"building new facilities"

-"making facility upgrades and modifications"

-"Reactor Production Of Hydrogen" ( produced from recycled nuclear fuel)

-"use fuels that are proliferation resistant and have substantially reduced production of high-level waste per unit of output" (dubious)

-"(fuels that)have higher efficiency, lower cost, and improved safety compared to reactors in operation on the date of enactment of this Act" (recycling vs. immobilization and storage)

-"consideration of a variety of reactor designs suitable for both developed and developing nations" (do developing nations need new nuclear plants?)

-"utilization of the expertise and capabilities of industry, universities, and National Laboratories in evaluation of advanced nuclear fuel cycles and fuels testing

I am opposed to this advanced generation of nuclear fuels. Aside from the issues of waste disposal, there is the intention of this administration to make these new facilities dual-use for the production of bunker-busters and mini-nukes as well as for the regeneration of the existing arsenal.

There may be peacable uses for these fuels, but they don't just occur naturally. They will have to be produced and new plants will have to be built, most on land like in Idaho, where clean-up from the 1950's continues today.

I would strongly oppose any attempt to expand this madness. Why?
Nuclear weapons invite catastrophe. Nuclear plants are by nature dangerous and risky. I've got my figures, you may have yours.

Imagine if we opt to produce most of the hydrogen for the new generation fleet of vehicles from nuclear reactors. Now imagine nuclear plants peppered like oil rigs against the horizon. Don't need that many you say? Tell that to the producers. Open the door for this administration and its industry cronies. They won't have to sneak in through the back door. Try to keep them in your safe nuclear zone. They will steal away while you are asleep.

Read the bill. go visit the INEEL site and you will see that your project is buried in runaway nuclear ambitions from a lab which recieves 70% of its funding for waste management; mostly theirs.

Go see where your precious nuclear fuel comes from. Seperate your project from the madness. Can't

[LittleApple81]

24. kick

[bigtree]

31. here's one type of fuel contemplated

US reverses weapons plutonium policy- January 02
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991833

The US has reversed its policy and decided to burn plutonium from decommissioned nuclear weapons in reactors, instead of "immobilising" it in other radioactive waste. Critics say the move increases the risk of nuclear terrorism.

The Bush administration announced on Wednesday that 34 tonnes of surplus weapons grade plutonium was to be converted into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for reactors. The previous Clinton administration backed the alternative of immobilisation - solidifying it in glass with other waste.

Spencer Abraham, the US Energy Secretary, argues that ditching immobilisation will save nearly $2 billion. MOX fuel, used in continental Europe for 20 years, is also favoured by Russia, which has promised along with the US to get rid of 34 tonnes of weapons plutonium.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) now plans to start building two new plants at Savannah River Site in South Carolina in 2004, one to take apart the plutonium cores of weapons and the other to make MOX fuel. The fuel will be burnt in two existing nuclear power stations near Charlotte, North Carolina, run by Duke Power Company


The MOX route will lock up plutonium in radioactive spent fuel from the reactors, which would be as unattractive to terrorists as radioactive blocks of glass, the DOE says. "We are trying to keep the world's most dangerous materials out of the hands of the world's most dangerous people," it adds.

But Tom Clements from the Nuclear Control Institute, a lobby group based in Washington DC, claims that the extra processing and transport necessary for MOX fuel will increase the opportunities for terrorists.

Encouraging Russia, where there are serious doubts about nuclear security, to make MOX "invites catastrophe", he says. "Immobilisation presents fewer proliferation, terrorism and environmental risks."


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

Shaun Burnie from Greenpeace says that introducing this type of station to Britain would bring "extreme hazards".
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991276

Plutonium disposal, Nuclear Control Institute:
"Converting warhead plutonium into fuel for generating electricity would stimulate commerce in this extremely toxic, weapons-usable material. Fifteen pounds of plutonium is enough for one atomic bomb. A few specks of it inhaled into the lungs causes cancer. Commerce in many tons of plutonium raises risks of theft by terrorists and outlaw states, and of aggravating the consequences of reactor accidents."
http://www.nci.org/nci-wpu.htm

Nuclear Watch Plutonium Pit Fact Sheet:
The most critical element in the resumption of U.S. nuclear weapons production programs is the re-establishment of plutonium pit production. http://nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/Overview_of_Pits.pdf

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

[wuushew]

32. I see nothing wrong with recycling nuclear fuel

The U.S. has practiced the wrong policy for a long long time. By not doing so the total amount of nuclear waste is only increased in the long run. Here is another issuse I disagree with Clinton on.

[bigtree]

33. How about phasing out the nuclear program except for medical and the like?

That would decrease the waste.

Why do we still import uranium from Russia and others? This program could be phased out. The uranium supports nuclear power plants which account for only 20% of our nations electricity needs.

What would we lose by phasing out the remaining nuclear power plants?

Why do we need a new generation of nuclear weaponry?

Is the preserving of the nation's nuclear program critical to anything other than defense?

[DODI]

34. We would lose 30 - 35% of our electricty by phasing out nuke plants.

Are you willing to give up 30% of your household electrical stuff? We need lower our consumption of energy through conservation and efficencies before we start phasing out plants. We don't need a new generation of weaponry.

[bigtree]

35. 20%

There are currently 103 operating U.S. nuclear power plants that produce over 20 percent of U.S. electricity.
http://www.ne.doe.gov/uranium/facts.html


We can generate more and more of our electricity from wind, the sun, and forest and farm products. I believe we can and should produce twenty percent of all our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Twenty by 2020.John Kerry
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0613.html

[bigtree]

36. does anyone remember

when space aliens were portrayed as radioactive?

we are to become those aliens, zooming into the far galaxys, with a nuclear reactor power system on our tail.

I can just see the aliens with their radiation counters, scanning our crashed craft, scared out of their wits.

"Keep back!" said several.

The crowd swayed a little, and I elbowed my way through. Every one seemed greatly excited. I heard a peculiar humming sound from the pit. 'War of the Worlds'

[bigtree]

37. Articles

Nuclear Power In Space And The Impact On Earth's Ecosystem-

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

Since the 1960s there have been eight space nuclear power accidents by the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, several of which released deadly plutonium into the Earth's atmosphere. In April, 1964 a U.S. military satellite with 2.1 pounds of plutonium-238 on-board fell back to Earth and burned up as it hit the atmosphere spreading the toxic plutonium globally as dust to be ingested by the people of the planet. In 1997 NASA launched the Cassini space probe carrying 72 pounds of plutonium that fortunately did not experience failure. If it had, hundreds of thousands of people around the world could have been contaminated.

Beyond accidents impacting the planet, the space nuclear production process at the DoE labs will lead to significant numbers of workers and communities being contaminated. Historically DoE has a bad track record when it comes to protecting workers and local water systems from radioactive contaminants.

During the Cassini RTG fabrication process at Los Alamos 244 cases of worker contamination were reported to the DoE.

Critics of NASA have long stated that in addition to potential health concerns from radiation exposure, the NASA space nukes initiative represents the Bush administration's covert move to develop power systems for space-based weapons such as lasers on satellites. The military has often stated that their planned lasers in space will require enormous power projection capability and that nuclear reactors in orbit are the only practical way of providing such power.

The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space maintains that just like missile defense is a Trojan horse for the Pentagon's real agenda for control and domination of space, NASA's nuclear rocket is a Trojan horse for the militarization of space.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03b.html


White House Go-Ahead On NASA Nuclear Prometheus Project:
In learning about the prospects for NASA's Project Prometheus, Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the anti-nuclear group, said they oppose this development as a "dangerous step in the expansion of nuclear technology into space."

"First we are concerned about the likely toxic contamination at the Department of Energy labs as they increase plutonium processing for the Nuclear Systems Initiative," Gagnon told SPACE.com .

"Secondly the dramatic escalation of nuclear launches in the coming years only increases the chances of an accident from Florida or other launch sites," he said.

Gagnon said that he and his group fear that the nuclear reactors for Mars missions are "the ice breakers that end up becoming the reactor technologies that get adapted for space based weapons systems, long the dream of the Pentagon Star Warriors."
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/nuclear_power_030117.html

Project Prometheus
To develop and demonstrate new power and propulsion technologies to overcome these limitations, the President’s Budget proposes $279 million; ($3 billion over five years) for Project Prometheus, which builds on the Nuclear Systems Initiative started last year. Project Prometheus includes the development of the first nuclear-electric space mission, called the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. This mission will conduct extensive, in-depth studies of the moons of Jupiter that may harbor subsurface oceans and thus have important implications in the search for life beyond Earth. In addition, it will prove new technologies for future NASA missions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/nasa.html


NASA To Boost Nuclear Space Science With Project Prometheus
Los Angeles - Jan 20, 2003
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03c.html

[bigtree]

38. morning kick

Here's an excerpt from the ranking Democrat on the energy committee, Bingaman to U.S. Chamber of Commerce Energy Summit about the conference negotiations:
http://energy.senate.gov/news/dem_release.cfm?id=187408

Here are alternate threads adressing other issues in the Energy bill which is now in conference:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=13761

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=407170&mesg_id=407170

[Liberal Classic]

40. If ion propulsion scares people, check out Project Orion

Now this is space exploration. I see no better way to turn nuclear explosion technology to peaceful use other than exploration!

Project Orion links:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

Nuclear pulse propulsion (or External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion, as it is termed in recent NASA documents) is a proposed method of spacecraft propulsion that uses nuclear explosions for thrust. It was briefly developed as Project Orion by ARPA. It was invented by Stanislaw Ulam in 1957, and is the invention of which he was most proud.

http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html


The race to the moon, in the forms of Project Apollo and the still-shadowy Soviet lunarprogram, dominated manned space flight during the decade of the 1960's. In the United States, the project sequence Mercury-Gemini-Apollo succeeded in putting roughly sixty people into space, twelve of them on the moon. Yet, during the late 1950's and early 1960's, the U.S. government sponsored a project that could possibly have placed 150 people, most of them professional scientists, on the moon, and could even have sent expeditions to Mars and Saturn. This feat could conceivably have been accomplished during the same period of time as Apollo, and possibly for about the same amount of money. The code name of the project was Orion, and the concepts developed during its seven-year life are so good that they deserve serious consideration today.

Project Orion was a space vehicle propulsion system that depended on exploding atomic bombs roughly two hundred feet behind the vehicle (1). The seeming absurdity of this idea is one of the reasons why Orion failed; yet, many prominent physicists worked on the concept and were convinced that it could be made practical. Since atomic bombs are discrete entities, the system had to operate in a pulsed rather than a continuous mode. It is similar in this respect to an automobile engine, in which the peak combustion temperatures far exceed the melting points of the cylinders and pistons. The engine remains intact because the period of peak temperature is brief compared to the combustion cycle period.

The idea of an "atomic drive" was a science-fiction cliche by the 1930's, but it appears that Stanislaw Ulam and Frederick de Hoffman conducted the first serious investigation of atomic propulsion for space flight in 1944, while they were working on the Manhattan Project (2). During the quarter-century following World War II, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (replaced by the Department of Energy in 1974) worked with various federal agencies on a series of nuclear engine projects with names like Dumbo, Kiwi, and Pluto, culminating in NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) (3). Close to producing a flight prototype, NERVA was cancelled in 1972 (4). The basic idea behind all these engines was to heat a working fluid by pumping it through a nuclear reactor, then allowing it to expand through a nozzle to develop thrust. Although this sounds simple the engineering problems were horrendous. How good were these designs? A useful figure for comparing rocket engines is specific impulse (Isp), defined as pounds of thrust produced per pound of propellant consumed per second. The units of Isp are thus seconds. The best chemical rocket in service, the cryogenic hydrogen-oxygen engine, has an Isp of about 450 seconds (5). NERVA had an Isp roughly twice as great (6), a surprisingly small figure considering that nuclear fission fuel contains more than a million times as much energy per unit mass as chemical fuel. A major problem is that the reactor operates at a constant temperature, and this temperature must be less than the melting point of its structural materials, about 3000 K (7).

[bigtree]

42. Can you adress the issue of where the fuel will be produced?

It seems incredibly insensitive to focus on exploration of space at the expense of the nuclear workers, communities and the environment.

How can we justify introducing new dangerous fuels and new dangerous nuclear fuel plants, as the pending energy bill intends, to further your space projects?

What nuclear fuel will be required for your space projects and where will it be produced. What are the safeguards for these materials. What communities will be affected?

These questions should not be an afterthought in the wake of our ambitions in space.

[Liberal Classic]

43. It will be most insensitive to the human race to never leave the womb

The remarkable thing about Project Orion is that it requires no new fuel technolocy, no new refining and processing technology. All of the technology required to make this craft leave the earth's gravity exist today. The safeguards currently in place today for the refining of fissionable materials should serve well enough, and the launch site would likely be in the Nevada desert which has already been cleared for nuclear testing.

[bigtree]

44. About Orion and the fuels

Projest Orion began in 1958 at General Atomics in San Diego. The company is now a subsidiary of defense giant General Dynamics. http://www.astronautix.com/articles/probirth.htm

"At a time when the U.S. was struggling to put a single man into orbit aboard a modified military rocket, Taylor and Dyson were developing plans for a manned voyage of exploration through much of the solar system. The original Orion design called for 2000 pulse units, far more than enough to attain Earth escape velocity. "Our motto was 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'", recalls Dyson "

"One can imagine that Orion could be used as a weapon platform, in a polar orbit so that it would eventually pass over every point on the Earth's surface. It could also protect itself easily, at least against attacks by small numbers of missiles. However, this idea has the same disadvantages as the early bomb-carrying satellite proposals. Terminal guidance would have been a problem (assuming that hardened, high-value installations were the intended targets), since the technology for steering missile warheads accurately had not yet been developed. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union were deploying missiles that were capable of reaching their targets in fifteen minutes with multi-megaton warheads, making orbiting bomb platforms irrelevant."

"A crisis came in late 1959, when ARPA decided it could no longer support Orion on national-security grounds. Taylor had no choice but to approach the Air Force for funds. It was a hard sell. A common reaction from both military and civilian officials is displayed by the quote: "...you set off one big bomb and the whole shebang blows up."(34) The Air Force finally decided to take on Orion, but only on the condition that a military use be found for it. "

"Unfortunately, the Orion concept is inherently "dirty" because it uses fission fuel. It is also inefficient; this is acceptable only because of the vast amounts of energy available. A much better alternative is fusion, since a fusion rocket would not leave a wake of heavy radioactive ions."

Orion will rise!
November 16, 2001
"The radioactive, fissile material taken from those (Orion) warheads posed almost-eternal security risks of its own. It would have to be guarded with 100 percent perfect security indefinitely to prevent it falling into the hands of terrorists, criminals or political extremist fanatics.

Nor could the fissile material once manufactured ever be rendered down into more harmless compounds or other elements. And even if it was protected safely, the environmental and contamination dangers from it would also last at the very least thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of years, given the slow half-life, radioactive decay rates of the lethal elements involved.

Dyson and Taylor proposed a radical solution to these problems. The atomic weapons could only be used up and totally rendered useless if they were actually exploded and they proposed to do this with lots of them. This would happen not on the earth or in the main atmosphere, but -- mainly -- in the far reaches of outer space.

Dyson and Taylor proposed to explode atomic bombs at regular intervals at very short distances behind a specially designed space ship in order to propel it to the Moon and other planets in the Solar System far more quickly and cheaply than chemical-fuel rockets could ever do so."

"Project Orion is a monument to those who once believed, or still believe, in turning the power of these weapons into something else." George Dyson
http://www.whitchurch-school.org.uk/generalinf/newsitems/nasaproj/Orion1.


As for the fusion fuels:

Deuterium is abundant as it can be extracted from all forms of water. If all the world's electricity were to be provided by fusion power stations, Deuterium supplies would last for millions of years.

Tritium does not occur naturally and will be manufactured from Lithium within the machine.

Lithium, the lightest metal, is plentiful in the earth's crust. If all the world's electricity were to be provided by fusion, known reserves would last for at least 1000 years.

Once the reaction is established, even though it occurs between Deuterium and Tritium, the consumables are Deuterium and Lithium.


THERMONUCLEAR FUSION RESEARCH COULD RESULT IN NEW WEAPONS AND GREATER PROLFERATION DANGERS July 15, 1998
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
http://www.ieer.org/latest/fusn-pr.html

"Pure fusion weapons have long been a dream for nuclear weapons designers. Present-day thermonuclear weapons need plutonium or highly enriched uranium to set off the hydrogen-bomb part," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, principal author of the report and president of IEER. "But pure fusion weapons would not need either of these fissile materials. They would produce little fallout. They could be made very small or very huge. And the research involves interesting scientific challenges."

However, pure fusion weapons would present far greater nuclear proliferation dangers since the acquisition of highly enriched uranium or plutonium is currently the main obstacle to proliferation. By contrast, deuterium and tritium, the forms of hydrogen used in fusion research and weapons, are less difficult to make. Verification would also be more difficult. Most importantly, fusion weapons would likely lower the threshold for nuclear weapons use, because of their smaller size and lack of fall-out, the report said."

For example, 10 grams of Deuterium which can be extracted from 500 litres of water and 15g of Tritium produced from 30g of Lithium would produce enough fuel for the lifetime electricity needs of an average person in an industrialised country.

MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings:

The scientific feasibility of pure fusion weapons has not yet been established. Until recently, there were no devices that could establish such feasibility.

Major advances in the last decade in plasma physics and in various manufacturing technologies have opened up new possibilities for pure fusion weapons.

Three major technologies could contribute to the establishment of the scientific feasibility of pure fusion weapons, and other weapons that do not require fission triggers: (i) inertial confinement fusion programs designed to achieve ignition (ii) the joint Magnetized Target Fusion program at Los Alamos (US) and Arzamas-16 (Russia), and (iii) non-fission methods of generating intense x-rays, such as the wire array z-pinch program at Sandia Lab.

Once ignition has been demonstrated at a laboratory level, it will be difficult to contain the development of pure fusion weapons. Fusion weapon proliferation controls will be far more difficult than with fission weapons because the materials are not currently under the same level of international control and because more of the relevant literature is non-classified.

Devices that use high explosives as part of the driver pose special dangers because they could be converted to practical weapons with less difficulty once feasibility is established.

There is no technical basis on which laboratory thermonuclear explosions can be excluded from the ban on all nuclear explosions under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The US and French laser fusion facilities known as NIF and LMJ are designed to create fusion explosions. Therefore, these facilities and all others so designed appear to be illegal under the CTBT.

Recommendations:


Construction of the National Ignition Facility at Livermore, California, the Laser Mégajoule project in France and planning of all other explosive research facilities designed to achieve thermonuclear ignition should be stopped.

The joint use of high explosive drivers and tritium fuel in fusion research should be banned.

The next CTBT conference should issue a formal opinion explicitly including laboratory thermonuclear explosions within the prohibition of nuclear explosions in Article I of the CTBT.

Magnetized Target Fusion experiments that would achieve ignition should be stopped.

The nuclear weapons states should declare formally that they are not going to design new nuclear weapons. As part of this declaration, they should explicitly renounce the development of pure fusion weapons and all other weapons that do not require fission triggers.

A widespread public debate on the disarmament and non-proliferation consequences of pure fusion weapons is needed to forestall the emergence of serious new problems.