• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Plutonium

Atomic Show #258 – Energy and the Modern State With Professor George Gonzales

September 15, 2017 By Rod Adams 22 Comments

Dr. George Gonzales is an energy-focused political scientist and professor at the University of Miami. He has written a number of books about the relationships between energy, the environment, international relations, and political decision making. His upcoming work is titled Energy and the Modern State; it is scheduled to be published in 2018.

On this podcast, George and I discuss the way that the United States continues to use its ability to influence and dominate the world’s oil markets to maintain its position as a global superpower. Part of the underlying strategy includes focused efforts to discourage the use of energy sources like plutonium that are capable of supplying enough additional energy to the world markets to reduce the importance and value of petroleum, natural gas and coal.

I hope you enjoy the discussion, even if it is lengthy, sometimes passionate, and a bit contentious.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/AtomicShowFiles/atomic_20170915_258.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:40:37 — 92.1MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | RSS

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Fossil fuel competition, Plutonium, Podcast

Passive-Aggressive Fight Against Plutonium Economy

October 12, 2016 By Rod Adams 36 Comments

Late on a Friday afternoon (September 23), the Department of Energy released an updated performance report on the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF). DOE’s internal Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessment in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced the report using assumptions and data provided by DOE leadership.

The report concludes that if the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) — the semi-independent branch of the DOE that is running the project — continues managing and supporting the MFFF with the same enthusiasm and oversight that it has been investing for the past half dozen years, the facility won’t be completed until 2048. It will cost $12.5 billion more than has already been spent.

In addition to being able to point to one more in a lengthy series of reports documenting historic cost expansion, predicting excessive future cost and proposing an excruciatingly slow delivery schedule, MFFF opponents claim that there is no demand for the fuel assemblies that the facility will eventually produce. They also claim there is a cheaper, quicker and easier alternative.

Disinterested observers with any fiscal conservatism should immediately conclude that the best course of action would be to halt construction now and pursue the suggested alternative. That’s the reaction that the report sponsors appear to be seeking.

Observers with more historical perspective will recognize that the 2016 MFFF performance update is just the latest document in a thick stack of words and paper produced in the decades-long passive-aggressive political battle to prevent using plutonium for peace.

That assessment can be confirmed by reviewing the project history, including the culpability of DOE and NNSA project management and oversight along with understanding how the provided assumptions drive the report’s conclusions.

Roots Of U. S. Plutonium Prohibition Policies

Plutonium is a naturally-occurring product of supernova explosions that is so rare that it was long considered to be man-made. The truth is that there just aren’t any Pu isotopes with a long enough half life to still be detectable in a solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago.

Pu was first isolated by a University of California-Berkeley team led by Glenn Seaborg and named for the then-planet of Pluto. The choice was a logical completion of a series of elements named for the three outermost planets of our solar system Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

Though its first use was in explosives, scientists and engineers have always recognized that plutonium has vast potential as a fuel source. Like U-235, the only naturally fissile isotope, Pu-239 and Pu-241 can be readily split to release about 1-2 million times as much energy as burning similar mass of petroleum. Plutonium’s real attraction to specialists is the fact that it can be readily produced from U-238, which is a mostly useless isotope that represents 99.3% of naturally occurring uranium.

By designing reactors that create and use plutonium, it’s theoretically possible to multiply the available uranium fuel resource by as much 140 times. That prospect has excited thousands of scientists and engineers and stimulated worldwide interest in breeder reactor programs from the earliest days of controlled nuclear energy.

Even without breeding, plutonium is a useful fuel source; 25-40% of the energy produced during the reactor residence time of conventional nuclear fuel comes from plutonium fission. As soon as a fresh nuclear fuel rod begins fissioning, some of the U-238 that makes up about 95% of the fuel element begins absorbing neutrons and turning into plutonium to fission upon the next neutron absorption.

Way back in the early 1970s, special interest organizations and individuals began working diligently to discourage what Glenn Seaborg’s Atomic Energy Commission had described as the “plutonium economy.” By the mid-1970s, the effort to demonize plutonium and prevent breeder reactor commercialization gained enough momentum to become a campaign issue for the 1976 Presidential race.

As a result of the political pressure applied by his nearly unknown rival, President Ford placed a temporary moratorium on nuclear fuel recycling in October 1976. After President Carter’s inauguration, he made the prohibition as permanent as possible through the issuance of an executive order. The U.S. stopped pursuing purposeful plutonium use until after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Aside: I’m convinced that fear of the plutonium economy was created and stoked by people who really liked the way the hydrocarbon economy was working for them. End Aside.

Weapons Material Disposition

During the 1990s, the U. S. and the former Soviet Union took several steps towards reducing dependence on nuclear weapons. As warheads were dismantled, the purified materials (U-235 and Pu-239) used to create them became surplus and in need of permanent disposition. Both U-235 and Pu-239 need to be treated to enable disposition; without altering the material, it is possible to reconfigure it into a deliverable warhead.

The highly enriched uranium (HEU) used for a portion of the arsenals was easiest to alter. Blending the purified material with natural or depleted uranium resulted in a material that was chemically and physically identical to the low-enriched uranium (LEU) used by commercial reactors.

The blending and consuming process took 20 years. From 1993-2013 the Megatons to Megawatts program turned 500 metric tons of Russian HEU (enough for 20,000 warheads) into 14,000 tons of LEU. That LEU provided about 50% of the U.S. supply of nuclear fuel at a time when nuclear power produced 20% of the nation’s electricity.

Few Americans know that 10% of the electricity consumed in the United States between 1994 and 2014 came from fissioning material that had once been part of the Russian nuclear weapons inventory.

About the same time that the US and Russia agreed to dispose of HEU, they also began discussions for an agreement that would permanently eliminate part of their plutonium inventories. The discussions began in the late 1990s and have produced several versions of an agreement.

The Russians have taken a simple, valuable and relatively inexpensive path for converting their plutonium into a form that cannot be used in warheads. For the reported equivalent of a few hundred million dollars, they built a facility that manufactures the surplus weapons material into fuel for their fast reactor program.

Political prohibition and a successful plutonium demonization campaign has made it much more politically difficult and expensive for the US to eliminate its surplus weapons-grade plutonium. So far, no plutonium has been permanently eliminated in the U.S.

Passive Resistance To Beneficial Use Has Been Successful

The first version of the US plan included a two-track approach. In one track, part of the Pu-239 would be mixed with enough radioactive fission products to approach what was called a “spent fuel standard” that could then be immobilized in a glass or other inert material matrix. The second track was a Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility modeled after the long-established French system.

There were numerous technical challenges associated with the concept of direct disposal using a “spent fuel standard” that were never addressed or solved. It was promoted by some as a less complicated way to eliminate a nuisance, but the underlying motivation was clearly a desire to avoid producing energy with a declared waste product.

The MOX path was almost immediately made as complicated as possible by involving both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Energy in the review, approval and regulatory role for the project. As Commissioner Nils Diaz commented in 1998 during agency discussions about the proposed regulatory structure,

And a second comment — you know, just for the record — there is probably, you know, one regulatory structure that can be created that is more cumbersome and more complex than the DOE or the NRC, and that is a mix — DOE and NRC.

Eventually, the “spent fuel standard” path was eliminated, leaving just the MOX path. As Diaz expected, the review and licensing process was complex and cumbersome. It wasn’t completed until late 2005 and even that was after splitting the process into a two-step construct of beginning with a construction permit that would eventually be followed with an operating license. Finally, in 2007, the DOE began building the MFFF even though there were a number of design details that were not yet complete.

At least as early as the first half of 2011, there have been serious enough reservations about the progress of the MFFF construction project to raise calls for cancellation.

By 2013, the DOE budget submitters had begun proposing that the project be placed in cold standby while options were evaluated. While it was once funded at $500 million per year, the budget requests for the past four years have been in the range of $250 – $350 million, which is just a bit more than the continuing overhead for the project.

With continuing funding uncertainty and a declining project reputation made worse by proclamations from the project sponsor, it has been difficult for the MFFF contractors to attract and retain the talented management and inspired workers needed to complete a challenging, one-of-a-kind project in a relatively remote part of the country.

Despite all of the hurdles erected, the project has moved forward, but at a pace that does not satisfy anyone.

There is no happy resolution for this mess.

The dilute and dispose alternative using the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) does not exist; there are numerous barriers that have not begun to be addressed. These include, but are not limited to 1) lack of agreement with Russia 2) lack of authorization to use WIPP for diluted weapons material 3) lack of authorized WIPP capacity 4) lack of facilities to perform the dilution 5) lack of isotopic changes to prevent the material from being recovered for weapons use.

It is possible that continued efforts to complete the MFFF as currently designed and approved would be a mistake, but there is no doubt that starting a different process at this point is fraught with unknown challenges and is farther from completion.

Though the contractor companies working on the project are not perfect, the blame for the project’s current status should be placed with the responsible agency and its purposeful lack of commitment to mission accomplishment. There should be accountability for the fruitless expenditures of taxpayer money and the wasteful misuse of valuable government assets.

Though it’s really challenging in a complex executive agency to assign accountability for a failure to follow congressional directives, in this case I would begin by questioning Kevin Knobloch, the DOE Chief of Staff, a man who was the Executive Director of the avowedly anti-plutonium Union of Concerned Scientists before being selected for his current government position.

Sadly, the Administration’s dithering on a path for permanently — by altering the isotopic mix — eliminating 34 tons of weapons grade plutonium from the U.S. weapons program inventory has succeeded in making our relations with Russia even worse than they already were. Vladimir Putin recently announced that Russia would be withdrawing from the plutonium Disposition Management Agreement due to the U.S.’s failure to make any progress.

Unfortunately, it is far easier to create havoc and increase costs for a federal program than it is to either complete it or kill it.


Note: A version of the above was first published at Forbes.com at Passive-Aggressive Fight Against Plutonium Economy Continues Unabated. It is republished with permission.

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Fuel Recycling, Plutonium, Politics of Nuclear Energy

How do metal alloy fuel fast reactors respond to rapid reactivity insertion events?

February 17, 2015 By Rod Adams

Update: (Posted Feb 21, 2015 at 7:22) The title has been modified after initial discussion indicated it was incomplete. Other related updates are in blue font. Fast neutron spectrum reactors offer one answer to the trump question that is often used to halt informative discussions about using more atomic energy to reduce our excessive dependence […]

Filed Under: Breeder Reactors, Fuel Recycling, Plutonium

Proving a Negative – Why Modern Used Nuclear Fuel Cannot Be Used to Make a Weapon

February 17, 2015 By Rod Adams

Editor’s note: This post was first published on Jul 24, 2010. While working on a new post involving the use of fast spectrum reactors to address many important society challenges, I thought it would be worthwhile to share this important background piece to let you start thinking about some of the misinformation you might have […]

Filed Under: Fuel Recycling, Plutonium, Politics of Nuclear Energy

Russia using oil wealth to finance nuclear exports

January 15, 2014 By Rod Adams

Brent Spot Market Oil Prices 1988-2013

Russia has announced plans to lend Hungary $14 billion at below market rates to finance the construction of additional nuclear energy production units at the existing Paks nuclear power station. The announcement is one more piece of evidence showing that Russia continues to diversify its income by exporting nuclear power stations to as large a […]

Filed Under: Fossil fuel competition, International nuclear, Natural Gas, New Nuclear, Plutonium, Politics of Nuclear Energy, Pressurized Water

Nuclear energy advocate in a nuclear nonproliferation crowd

December 12, 2013 By Rod Adams

Handicapped race - nuclear vs methane

On December 11, 2013, Henry Sokolski, the Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC), hosted a event titled Avoiding Future Irans: A New Course for US Nonproliferation Policy. The papers offered as background material before the event started, the prepared remarks from Sokolski’s invited speakers, and the post meeting engagements I had with […]

Filed Under: Antinuclear activist, Fossil fuel competition, Nuclear regulations, Plutonium, Politics of Nuclear Energy

Fantasy Crossfire debate: Ed Lyman versus Rod Adams on fast breeder reactors

November 8, 2013 By Rod Adams

CNN has done a masterful job of seizing the opportunity provided by Robert Stone’s thought-provoking Pandora’s Promise to generate a passionate discussion about the use of nuclear energy — a vitally important topic — at a critical time in American history. The decision makers at that somewhat fading network should be congratulated. Of course, generating […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Antinuclear activist, Breeder Reactors, Fuel Recycling, Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors, Plutonium

Hydrocarbon-fueled establishment hates idea of plutonium economy

November 7, 2013 By Rod Adams

In the above clip from a recent interview on CNN’s Piers Morgan, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. describes how Pandora’s Promise advocates that canceling the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project in 1994 was a mistake. RFK Jr., a man from an iconic family that has been a part of the US moneyed Establishment for the better […]

Filed Under: Antinuclear activist, Breeder Reactors, Fossil fuel competition, Fuel Recycling, Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors, Plutonium

On Plutonium, Nuclear War, and Nuclear Peace

November 5, 2013 By Guest Author

By NNadir I trust — and I hope I am justified in this — that no one wants a nuclear war. I know I don’t. We already have a set of environmental problems that are worse than a limited nuclear war, and may be facing an environmental crisis that might be as dire as a […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Climate change, isotopes, Plutonium

Atomic Show #201 – Better Way to Clean Up Hanford Tanks

April 12, 2013 By Rod Adams

Darryl Siemer is a professional chemist who spent his career in nuclear waste remediation at the Idaho National Laboratory. While there, he developed a reputation as someone who will not go along to get along and apparently made quite a few waves by suggesting improvements in processes or technical decisions that might have resulted in […]

Filed Under: Contamination, Nuclear Waste, Plutonium, Podcast

Plutonium power for the people

September 11, 2012 By Rod Adams

One of the biggest threats to the continued wealth and power held by the global fossil fuel industry is a “plutonium economy” fueled by abundant resources of uranium that can be converted into fissile plutonium in a breeder reactor. (Yes, I know that a thorium economy is just as big of a threat to the […]

Filed Under: Fossil fuel competition, Fuel Recycling, Plutonium

Transcript of Atomic Show #61 – Allison Macfarlane, Atomic Agnostic (June 15, 2007)

June 12, 2012 By Rod Adams

On June 13, 2012, Allison Macfarlane will be a witness in her confirmation hearing as a new commissioner and the prospective Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Commissioner Kristine Svinicki will also be a witness in her quest to be confirmed for a second term as a commissioner. In June 2007, I had the opportunity […]

Filed Under: Fuel Recycling, New Nuclear, Nuclear Cost Data, Nuclear regulations, Nuclear Waste, Plutonium, Politics of Nuclear Energy

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • David on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • Rod Adams on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • David on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • Rod Adams on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • paul wick on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked

Nuclear energy growth prospects and secure uranium supplies

Nucleation Capital’s Earth Day in Atherton

Atomic Show #296 – Julia Pyke, Director of Finance Sizewell C

Solar’s dirty secrets: How solar power hurts people and the planet

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy