Plutonium Shipment Highlights Nuclear Contradictions

pluton

I’ve never been accused (yet) of being a pro-nuclear shill, but we’re going to have to take a clear-eyed view of our nuclear waste problem, whether or not we go forward with the Nuclear industry. Working on a vid around this topic.
Long term, we’re going to have to move the nuclear waste in “temporary” storage casks on the shores, for instance, of the Great Lakes. To do that, lefties and enviros are going to have to get a grip and realize that means moving it, likely on highways, in a safe and regulated manner.

In this case, outrage over a movement of weapons grade plutonium, done in secret.

I don’t see any option for moving weapons grade material, except in secret and under tight security – this has been one of the main concerns that thoughtful folks have about nuclear technology – the corrosive effect of a the needed security apparatus on constitutional protections.

“New” nuclear technology is proposed that does not rely on or produce weapons grade material, but has yet to be proven at scale. More on this soon.

Nevada Independent:

Federal officials have disclosed that they shipped radioactive plutonium to Nevada in spite of the state’s vehement opposition to the idea and concerns that doing so would be a slippery slope to opening the state up to further nuclear waste dumping.

In a federal court filing on Wednesday, National Nuclear Security Administration General Counsel Bruce Diamond stated that the agency sent about half a metric ton of the substance sometime before November 2018, prior to Nevada suing over the proposed move. The transfer was done after a U.S. District Court in South Carolina ordered the material be removed from that state.

Gov. Steve Sisolak accused the government of lying to the state and said he was irate over the move, which was first reported by national defense reporter Dan Leone.

“I am beyond outraged by this completely unacceptable deception from the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said in a statement. “The Department led the State of Nevada to believe that they were engaging in good-faith negotiations with us regarding a potential shipment of weapons-grade plutonium, only to reveal that those negotiations were a sham all along.”

Sisolak said at a press conference in Carson City that the state doesn’t know exactly when the plutonium came, how many states it passed through or what route it took before arriving at its destination. It also doesn’t know whether anyone suffered adverse effects as a result of the shipment.

“To put the health and well-being of millions of people at risk due to the transportation into Nevada, without giving us the opportunity to prepare in case there would’ve been a mishap along the way, I think it was irresponsible and reckless on behalf of the department,” Sisolak said.

Intellectualist:

The governor said the state has no idea when the hazardous material arrived in Nevado, nor what route it took on its way there — meaning officials have no way of knowing whether anyone suffered adverse effects as a result.

Attorney General Aaron Ford described communications the state had with federal officials since first learning last spring that the department was considering such a transfer. He said the state told officials the environmental analysis the government conducted was insufficient and has asked for a timeline in the fall of when the shipment might arrive.

He said Federal Judge Miranda Du had even said during a recent court hearing that she hoped the government was not shipping the plutonium while the case was pending in front of her.

But the shipment had already been completed.

Nevada Independent:

 

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said during a campaign swing through Las Vegas this weekend that if elected he would not look to fund or reopen the shuttered nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, a rebuke of efforts by the Trump Administration to kickstart the mothballed facility over the last two years.

O’Rourke, a former Texas congressman, made the comment during an interview sandwiched between two campaign events late Sunday morning. In between bites of a bagel and lox, O’Rourke told The Nevada Independent he was “really disappointed” in a move by the Trump Administration to transfer plutonium to the state late last year without first notifying representatives.

“I think beyond the concern in this state, I’m concerned about the other states and communities through which this waste will pass if it is transported here in the future,” he said.

But O’Rourke did not provide a clear answer when pressed on where that waste should go if not to Nevada, saying he was “confident in a country this size” that there would be a place that fits the bill.

“We should find a way to store that waste that provides the absolute minimum impact or risk to people, first and foremost, to the environment and to communities in this country,” O’Rourke said.

55 thoughts on “Plutonium Shipment Highlights Nuclear Contradictions”


  1. Here is the story of the reprocessed nuclear waste from Australia’s medical and only nuclear reactor. Arrived back from France a couple of years ago. ‘Greenpeace’ was out in force to expose the secret move, on so many vehicles and flashing lights it could be seen from the International Space Station. Suspiciously, it also moved through Sydney at night rather than daytime. Sydney does not have peak hour traffic, just about 15 hours of perpetual congestion. Happily their histrionic reporting impressed few. To agree with Greenman, the waste problem needs to be addressed, it exists, will not go away by itself and is not good. Here we have about 130 ‘official’ waste repositories, mostly in hospitals and universities. Getting rid of the crap is purely a SILLY political problem.

    Reply

    1. => Independent Assessment of Science and Technology for the Department of Energy’s Defense Environmental Cleanup Program

      DOE-EM projects that it will spend at least another 50 years and $377 billion to complete its cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex.
      These time and cost estimates are highly uncertain—and probably low—because of (1) substantial remaining uncertainties in the cleanup program’s lifecycle costs, schedules, and risks; and (2) the possible future inclusion of additional DOE sites and facilities into the DOE-EM cleanup program.

      Reply

  2. There is something seriously wrong with this story. A half ton of weapons grade plutonium would make a bunch of small bombs. Since a half ton would explode they cannot have been shipping in in one pile or even in a bunch of small piles. At say 10 pds each bomb we have 100 weapons. Since we know they were not shipping the equivalent of 100 weapons what were they shipping? I bet 10000 tons of dirt with maybe 1000 pds of plutonium mixed in which means it was not usable to make bombs and the governor knew that and simply lied.

    The nuclear industry in the USA is much safer than coal, much safer than natural gas, much safer than any other form of base line energy except hydro. We are maxed out in hydro. Solar has no cost effective storage to store millions of mega watt hours to run things 24/7/365. Wind has the same problem. Geo thermal is fine but has its own problems with chemicals in the water, corrosion and is not available all over the country.

    Reply

    1. We have to accept all forms of energy production have pros and cons – besides the waste disposal/reprocess problem, nuclear requires access to a steady flow of coolant water, (so is nor suited to all geographical locations). You did not mention marine/wave energy – a lot of untapped power in our oceans (biggest obstacle is cost at moment). A lot of research going into all of the fields, including addressing the associated problems. It must if we are going to have a habitable future on this Earth.

      Reply

      1. Anyone who had graduated from high school has likely heard of dirty bombs, Doctor Obvious.

        What is the relevance of this link? (Other than to help keep you firmly in first place among those who “litter” this site?)

        Reply

          3. You were behaving yourself for a while, Chucky, but you’re starting to go back to your “Sick F**k” days with this one.

            You’ve created a dumboldguy” account on fubar just to play with me? If you or anyone else adds anything negative to that account, be warned that I will be talking to the cybercrime folks at the U.S. FBI.

            Asshole!


          5. Your move. I’ve got a lot of interesting data stored up from the past few years.


          7. Trifle nasty Chas. The denier sphere laughs to see real people bickering.


    3. As I said in an earlier thread. 100-120 of these offshore wind turbines are delivering as much electricity as a new nuclear reactor (capacity factor incorporated):

      https://www.ge.com/content/gepower-renewables/global/en_us/home/wind-energy/turbines/haliade-x-offshore-turbine/_jcr_content/content-body-par/image.img.jpg/1520004495300.jpg

      When a nuke has an “incident” you’re losing a gigawatt or more in a few seconds. Meanwhile, wind is predictable for many hours in advance and the grid can easily be adjusted accordingly.

      Besides the unsolved nuclear waste problem, let’s also take a look at the costs:

      https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/0219_KK_LCOE_graph.jpg

      Nuclear power is anything but renewable. You cannot put the radioactive waste together again and build new U235 or Pu241 atoms. And as we just can see, there are risks involved real renewable energy will never show.

      Reply

      1. More ignorant anti-nuke propaganda that doesn’t really contribute to the discussion. Why don’t you stay on topics that are more valuable/germane (and also overdo your posting as you have been so that you can cement your Doctor Obvious title?)

        Reply

        1. PS Would you like to specualte as to why the cost of nuclear shot up beginning in 2016 and has plateaued at a new higher level?

          Reply

          1. ALL “propaganda”? Actually, that link is pretty factual and straight forward, and contains info that I’ve seen in several places.

            Even the Japanese, who are suffering from post-Fukushima PTSD, realize that reopening some of their nukes makes sense. Too bad the rest of the world fails to see that nuclear is the best, safest, cleanest, lowest carbon provider of baseline generation available to us.


          3. Meaningless reference, chosen only because of its title—-not one of Crock’s better posts.


          5. Meaning of this data? Compared to what? Pretty graph (but with a big uncertainty range). Wait! Are you just “littering” again? Just throwing out crap to overload everyone and numb them?


      2. Chass, you keep throwing out generic economics. In areas of poor wind, sun and water, the unit costs are way different. Even in suitable areas the costs blow out if high percentages of units are built. When there is mass death and destruction and a devastated environment, having maintained a fashionable anti-nuke ethic will be poor consolation. Saving the bldy world takes priority!
        Actually we can create nuclear fuel, in a breeder reactor.

        Reply

        1. Chucky’s understandings and contributions are nothing but “generic”, and repetitious and redundant as well. As a good propagandist, he is concerned not with educating, but with “conditioning” and “normalizing” people to his underlying agenda.

          He doesn’t give a rat’s add about saving the world.

          Reply

          1. So that’s all we’re getting from you: grumpy rant, defamation, and no reasoning whatsoever.

            That’s the dumb old guy “saving the world”.


        2. Nuclear energy is like fighting fire with fire. It’s not just the current catastrophes like Chernobyl and Fukushima We’re talking about. We’re producing a legacy which is already out of control.

          Here one example => Radioactive waste dogs Germany despite abandoning nuclear power

          And when even the costs of renewable energy are way lower than nuclear power, why to stick to a 20th century technology which hasn’t changed in principle?

          There are 101 ways to deal with intermittency. Storage of all kinds, hydrogen, smart grid, even EVs themselves and their second hand batteries…

          Managing intermittency of renewable energy sources is an every day business nowadays. And don’t forget that EVERY source of electricity is intermittent. France is heavily relying on nuclear. Their overall capacity factor is 75%. Not much more than offshore wind turbines. The difference is, when you have an “incident” at a nuke you’re losing one ore more gigawatts in a matter of seconds. But even that is being managed by the European grid without you’ll ever notice. Meanwhile, wind is predictable for many hours in advance. So the grid can easily be adjusted therefore.

          Compare to renewable energy sources, nuclear power also takes way too long to install. We need to ramp up a lowest carbon economy very quickly. There is not much time left!

          So my choice where the money should be invested is very clear here.

          Reply

  3. Read the full Nevada Independent story to get a full understanding of the issue:

    https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/indy-explains-how-a-secret-plutonium-shipment-created-mistrust-between-nevada-and-department-of-energy

    As usual, there is something “seriously wrong” with Terry Donte’s understanding of things scientific. Starting with “A half ton of weapons grade plutonium would make a bunch of small bombs. Since a half ton would explode they cannot have been shipping in in one pile or even in a bunch of small piles”. and finishing with “10000 tons of dirt with maybe 1000 pds of plutonium mixed in which means it was not usable to make bombs and the governor knew that and simply lied”, Terry once again demonstrates that he needs to take some science courses.

    First, remember that weapons grade plutonium is not “waste”—-it actually became “surplus” and it was being moved out of SC because of a law suit.

    Second, all kinds of radioactive substances are being shipped all over the country all the time by the thousands of shipments, many of them far more radioactive and dangerous than plutonium. Yes, a half-ton of plutonium piled up WOULD likely begin a fission chain reaction, but the pile would quickly blow apart before it could generate enough energy to be called a true “bomb”. It would become a “dirty bomb” however, and the area around the spot where it “blew” would be uninhabitable for many centuries.

    Third, the “mixing it with dirt” is laughable. It appears it was shipped in ten trucks, ~100 pounds per truck, and there is more than enough room in a truck to separate it into quantities small enough that they can’t fission (i.e., Terry’s “small piles”). I’m sure that the packaging was such that even if the truck crashed and stood on its nose, the plutonium couldn’t assemble into a critical mass.

    Fourth, the governor didn’t lie, although as Peter implies, he may have been seeking votes rather than being “clear-eyed” about the nuclear problem.

    Reply

  4. Hi,
    I posted on an earlier article but got no replies. I am hoping that I will here. I have been looking for a good graph showing the continuation of the hockeystick graph. We can see the rise in temperature up to the year 2000. Does anyone know of a good graph that shows the upward trend beyond yr. 2000 ? I have looked but cannot find any. Most people here are knowledgeable about climate change. Can anyone help me find this graph ?
    Thank you

    Reply

    3. Surprisingly, you’re right about not finding many graphs with data beyond 2000 and 2010. The only one I found was in Wikipedia.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record

      When you look at these graphs, remember that the choice of vertical and horizontal scales can distort the appearance of the data. Mann’s original hockey stick was for the ~500 years before 1997—-he and others have extended it back through the holocene, and the red and blue portions of Sir Chucky’s second graph are a good representation, even if a bit exaggerated vertically.

      PS You can make your own “extension” by looking up the yearly increases for each year.

      Reply

        1. How many times have you posted this exact graph? Dozens?

          And how many times have I pointed out that it’s misleading, in that it’s a visual distortion of the data? It should be called the “scythe” graph, not a hockeystick.

          24,000 units on the X axis and only 4 on the y-axis? And everything in the orange and red “hot zones” that make up 80% of the plot are projections that will come true IF we don’t do something?

          Are you trying to scare people? Are you a troll seeking to get people to say “what’s the use?” and burn more oil and gas? Russian oil and gas?

          Reply

          2. I don’t need a “description”, Chucky. I have both the brains and the science education to understand every link you’ve ever posted and have been following AGW for 25 years. I’m way ahead of you.

            Deal with the issue—-it’s a misleading graph, in that it’s a visual distortion of the data. And 24,000 units on the X axis and only 4 on the y-axis? And everything in the orange and red “hot zones” that make up 80% of the plot are projections that will come true ONLY IF we don’t do something?

            Most important—Are you trying to scare people? Are you a troll seeking to get people to say “what’s the use?” and burn more oil and gas? Russian oil and gas?


          3. You obviously haven’t learnt much during those 25 years. I don’t think the creator of that graph is putting millidegrees in only because a dumb old guy is demanding that.

            Maybe you need to put your glasses on. It’s written on the graph “expected under current policies”, and there is a little circle where you can read “now”. A second grader could do better than you, grumpo. Your obvious obsession to behave like a clown is quite hilarious (from time to time).


          4. You lose again, Chucky. Given a chance to actually answer some questions and say something of value, you AGAIN choose to deflect, deny, ignore, and insult—-just another impotent NON-response.

            Are you telling us that “expected under current policies”, is NOT a projection as I said? Can you not see that “now” IS below the 80% of the plot that is projections?. Can you not see that the choice of scales for the axes makes the plot almost a vertical line, and therefore more of a “scare” than useful as information? How can you deny those FACTS? How can you be so stupid as to try to bluster your way out of this? Are you imitating Trump? Are you a troll for Russian oil and gas?

            You are the clumsy clown here, Chucky. You ought to back off before you hurt yourself.


          5. The fact is that these projections are REAL.

            But never mind. The readers will make the difference between your desperate rant and the projections science is telling us. If you ever had bothered to READ the article that’s coming with this graph you wouldn’t make a total clown of yourself.


    4. I, too, spent a lot of time looking for current representations of the hockey stick, but my Google Fu was not sufficient to the task.

      A related whine I have is that so many of the projection graphs still end at 2100 rather than looking ahead 100 years, as they did in 2000.

      Reply

  6. To [move waste], lefties and enviros are going to have to get a grip and realize that means moving it, likely on highways, in a safe and regulated manner.

    Nuclear waste gets a lot of attention, but there are hundreds of thousands of people who live near questionably maintained rail lines that transport all sorts of hazardous chemical substances on a regular basis. Then there are residents who are unaware that they are potentially downwind of a chemical plant that can fail due to poor safety culture.

    Here are some of what I call “industrial safety porn” videos describing research by the US Chemical & Safety Hazard Investigation Board.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/USCSB/videos

    The analysis of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, for instance, shows that one safety subsystem had three major installation failures. People can have a false sense of security about failsafe systems that are installed poorly or not maintained.

    Reply

    1. True. We’re arrogant enough to claim that we could manage a waste problem which is radiating for hundreds of thousands of years.

      A Google search for “Asse Germany radioactive waste catastrophe” will tell you the story about a nuclear repository which in the 1980s was alleged to be “safe for hundreds of thousands of years”, but ground water started leaking into this old salt mine just years later. Nobody knows now what to do. Recovering the 120,000 barrels seems to be too expensive if not impossible. German engineering suffering borderline. A legacy for generations to come.

      Here an article in the New Scientist => Radioactive waste dogs Germany despite abandoning nuclear power

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Sir CharlesCancel reply

Discover more from This is Not Cool

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading