Increasing 0-40 Year Human Race Lifespan

Under current accelerating rates of carbon and methane gases release, human life ends 2050-2055 CE. If Arctic Region methane clathrates carbon reserves become explosively unstable by temperature increase, tectonic uplift, or undersea landslides -- global warming temperature quickly rises and there are no more human races. Therefore, estimates for the continuation of human-life range from a minimum of zero-years to a maximum of 40-years.  

If the Arctic Region water is warm enough to melt the fringes of the Arctic Ocean ice cap, the water is now warm enough to melt huge amounts of global warming methane clathrates, which releases the very powerful methane global warming gas. Further destabilization of the Arctic Region methane clathrate cap is very threatening to human life continued existence:

"Study finds warm ocean currents cause majority of ice loss from Antarctica"

April 25, 2012

PHYS.ORG

Reporting this week in the journal Nature, an international team of scientists led by British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has established that warm ocean currents are the dominant cause of recent ice loss from Antarctica. New techniques have been used to differentiate, for the first time, between the two known causes of melting ice shelves - warm ocean currents attacking the underside, and warm air melting from above. This finding brings scientists a step closer to providing reliable projections of future sea-level rise.

Researchers used 4.5 million measurements made by a laser instrument mounted on NASA's ICESat satellite to map the changing thickness of almost all the floating ice shelves around Antarctica, revealing the pattern of ice-shelf melt across the continent. Of the 54 ice shelves mapped, 20 are being melted by warm ocean currents, most of which are in West Antarctica.

In every case, the inland glaciers that flow down to the coast and feed into these thinning ice shelves have accelerated, draining more ice into the sea and contributing to sea level rise and water temperature increase.

Lead author Dr Hamish Pritchard from British Antarctic Survey, which is part of the UK's Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), said: "In most places in Antarctica, we can't explain the ice-shelf thinning through melting of snow at the surface, so it has to be driven by warm ocean currents melting them from below. We've looked all around the Antarctic coast and we see a clear pattern: in all the cases where ice shelves are being melted by the ocean, the inland glaciers are speeding up. It's this glacier acceleration that's responsible for most of the increase in ice loss from the continent and this is contributing to sea-level rise.

"What's really interesting is just how sensitive these glaciers seem to be. Some ice shelves are thinning by a few metres a year and, in response, the glaciers drain billions of tons of ice into the sea. This supports the idea that ice shelves are important in slowing down the glaciers that feed them, controlling the loss of ice from the Antarctic ice sheet. It means that we can lose an awful lot of ice to the sea without ever having summers warm enough to make the snow on top of the glaciers melt - the oceans can do all the work from below.

"But this does raise the question of why this is happening now. We think that it's linked to changes in wind patterns. Studies have shown that Antarctic winds have changed because of changes in climate, and that this has affected the strength and direction of ocean currents. As a result warm water is funnelled beneath the floating ice. These studies and our new results therefore suggest that Antarctica's glaciers are responding rapidly to a changing climate."

A different picture is seen on the eastern Antarctic Peninsula (the long stretch of land pointing towards South America). Here, the ice-shelf thinning found by this study can be explained by warm summer winds directly melting the snow on the ice-shelf surfaces. Both patterns, of widespread ocean-driven melting and this summer melting on the Antarctic Peninsula, can therefore be attributed to Antarctica's changing wind patterns. This research is part of international efforts to improve understanding of the interactions between ice and climate in order to improve the reliability of sea-level rise projections. Professor David Vaughan is the leader of ice2sea - a major EU-funded FP7 programme. Ice2sea will improve projections of the contribution of ice to future sea-level rise. He said, "This study shows very clearly why the Antarctic ice sheet is currently losing ice, which is a major advance. But the real significance is that it also shows the key to predicting how the ice sheet will change in the future is in understanding the oceans. Perhaps we should not only be looking to the skies above Antarctica, but also into the surrounding oceans."

The study was carried out by an international team from British Antarctic Survey, Utrecht University, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Earth & Space Research in Corvallis, Oregon. NASA's ICESat – Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite – measurements were collected during the period 2003 – 2008 to detect changes in ice-shelf thickness through time.

Provided by British Antarctic Survey

Fin

Top-level Space Assessment Missions - ICESat-2 and SMAP

Unfortunately ICESat failed as predicted March 2009. The scheduled launch of ICESat replacement, ICESat-2, is about 2015, but is now in a funding delay by anti-science President Obama. NASA could be forced to delay two approved, top-tier Earth science missions by more than one year due to the poorly defined nature of President Obama's 2010 Federal Budget. Delayed top-level space assessment missions are: Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite 2 (ICESat-2) and Soil Moisture Active and Passive (SMAP) missions.  Although NASA requested $75 million and $132 million this year for ICESat-2 and SMAP, respectively, NASA could be forced to reduce planned spending on ICESat-2 by $22 million in order to stay within the $1.4 billion spending ceiling Congress appropriated for Earth science initiatives of 2011. SMAP funding would have to be reduced by $30 million.

Both missions topped the National Research Council’s list of large-scale climate-monitoring priorities in its 2007 Earth science decadal survey. ICESat-2 is designed to continue measurements of changes in polar ice-sheet mass to anticipate changes to global sea levels. SMAP, is designed to improve weather forecasts and flood and drought predictions.

Maintaining the launch schedule of ICESat-2 and SMAP data collection is essential to measure direction and progress of the effectiveness of global warming mitigations.  

Global Warming Response

"Obama vows to fight for climate action, make global warming a key 2012 issue" Fox Nation, 26 April 2012. The combination of greenhouse gases Arctic Region methane (from warming deposits of methane clathrates) and increasing hydrocarbon energy gases releases, define human-life range of existence as from a minimum of zero-years to a maximum of 40-years. If President Obama is to influence human lifespan, he must quickly implement an effective energy plan that reduces natural and human greenhouse gas emissions.

To prevent the destruction of all human life from global warming temperature increase by 2050-2055 CE, human and natural greenhouse gases must peak by 2020 CE and decline thereafter. After 250-years of using global warming hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas), the only clean energy source with the energy capacity to displace carbon producing hydrocarbon energy is NUCLEAR ENERGY. ONLY by rapidly replacing hydrocarbon energy with clean nuclear energy can the lifespan of human life be extended. Human life expectancy depends upon how quickly and how much global nuclear energy capacity is expanded and how well nuclear fuel cycle is expanded.

Human Race Lifespan: zero-years to 40-years

James Watt developed (1763–75) an improved version of Newcomen's engine, with a separate condenser. Watt's engine used 75% less coal than Newcomen's, and was hence much cheaper to run. 1750 CE is the start of the Industrial Revolution. The greenhouses gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), since the industrial period began in earnest (around the mid-1800s) concentrations of both carbon dioxide and methane have been rapidly increasing.

In fact, methane concentrations have more than doubled over the last 150 years.

Methane is a powerful global warming gas. In the early transitional period of natural methane release the molecules of methane can produce a global warming effect that is more than a hundred times greater than that of carbon dioxide molecules. Methane (or natural gas) is a very powerful global warming gas that has been underreported for political reasons of corruption.  

Ambient pre industrial times is 1750 CE. Modern Global Warming Era concentrations of greenhouse gases has increased significantly. Greenhouse gas above natural global warming concentration of carbon dioxide is increased ~39% and methane concentration is increased ~164%. Methane plays a significant part of recent global warming temperature increase -- methane's contribution to enhanced greenhouse effect is almost half of that due to hydrocarbon carbon dioxide increases over the last 150 years.

Thirty six years ago, in 1976, methane in the atmosphere was identified as a significant greenhouse gas. By 2001 CE U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported large parts of multiple chapters are dedicated to examining the sources, sinks, chemistry, history and potential global warming future of methane. After 2001 CE, and with strong covert political encroachment upon the technical reporting of IPCC Assessment Reports (ARs), untoward groups and politicians for reasons of money, power, greed, and corruption have promoted "renewable energy" and carbon trading within the European-U.S. market sectors. There was further destruction of the validity of IPCC reporting; successful blocking of hydrocarbon emission reductions; Euro-U.S. politicians increased nuclear clean energy dismantling; construction of hydrocarbon-use infrastructure increased; multinational coal production is increased; attempted disruption of U.S. domestic oil supplies; while a greater "renewable energy" distraction masks the course of human life destruction 2050-2055 CE.  

At issue is the accelerating use-rate of hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) with its release of carbon dioxide and the accelerating temperature-rate release of methane within the Arctic Region. The rate of global warming temperature increase is a result of combination of methane and carbon dioxide gases increases. Mother Nature has issued her last warning: Unless natural and human global warming gases peak this decade and thereafter decline, successful mitigation of global warming is very much in doubt.             

The global warming potential (GWP) methane within decomposed methane clathrates is very greatly more than that of carbon dioxide. Some key facts about methane clathrates (aka, methane hydrates) make them particularly interesting to climatologists. First, they may make up a significant portion of total fossil carbon reserves, including coal, oil, and natural gas. Current best guesses suggest that maybe 500 to 2,000 gigatonnes of carbon may be stored as methane clathrates (5-20% of estimated total fossil carbon reserves). Some estimates are as high as 10,000 gigatonnes of methane clathrates fossil carbon reserves. Methane clathrates occur mainly on the Arctic continental shelves where surface to mid water temperature is sufficiently cold, there is increased water pressure, and there exists enough organic carbon material (ie, coal, oil, natural gas leaks) to keep the methane-producing bacteria happy and in suspension for the last 50 million plus years, until now. Now, Arctic Region and global temperatures are rapidly rising and methane is being released.

Most importantly, methane clathrates can be explosively unstable if the temperature increases or the pressure decreases — which can happen as a function of warming temperature increase, tectonic uplift, or undersea landslides. A rapid large release of methane from Arctic methane clathrates is called the "methane clathrate gun effect."

These Arctic Region methane clathrates reservoirs are particularly vulnerable to atmospheric and water current temperature changes as represented by sea-ice changes. As the temperatures warm their result methane greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere. In the early period of natural methane release the powerful gas has a global warming potential (GWP) of greater than 100. Increased temperatures release methane into the atmosphere which in turn serves as a positive regenerative feedback loop that continues the increase of global and regional temperatures. The below study proved that methane concentration originate from sea water, not on land or from human sources.

"Atmospheric observations of Arctic Ocean methane emissions up to 82° north"

Nature Geoscience (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo 1452

Received 10 November 2011, Accepted 21 March 2012, Published online 22 April 2012

Uncertainty in the future atmospheric burden of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, represents an important challenge to the development of realistic climate projections. The Arctic is home to large reservoirs of methane, in the form of permafrost soils and methane hydrates, which are vulnerable to destabilization in a warming climate. Furthermore, methane is produced in the surface ocean and the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean are supersaturated with respect to methane. However, the fate of this oceanic methane is uncertain. Here, we use airborne observations of methane to assess methane efflux from the remote Arctic Ocean, up to latitudes of 82° north. We report layers of increased methane concentrations near the surface ocean, with little or no enhancement in carbon monoxide levels, indicative of a non-combustion source. We further show that high methane concentrations are restricted to areas over open leads and regions with fractional sea-ice cover. Based on the observed gradients in methane concentration, we estimate that sea–air fluxes amount to around 2 mg d−1 m−2, comparable to emissions seen on the Siberian shelf. We suggest that the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean represent a potentially important source of methane, which could prove sensitive to changes in sea-ice cover.

Fin

Over the last 30 years, methane has gone from being a gas of no importance, to — in some researchers eyes, at least — possibly the most important greenhouse gas for understanding global warming.

"Danger from the deep: New climate threat as methane rises from cracks in Arctic ice"

Scientists shocked to find greenhouse gas 70 times more potent than CO2 bubbling from deep ocean

STEVE CONNOR

The Independent    

MONDAY 23 APRIL 2012

A new source of methane – a greenhouse gas many times more powerful than carbon dioxide – has been identified by scientists flying over areas in the Arctic where the sea ice has melted.

The researchers found significant amounts of methane being released from the ocean into the atmosphere through cracks in the melting sea ice. They said the quantities could be large enough to affect the global climate. Previous observations have pointed to large methane plumes being released from the seabed in the relatively shallow sea off the northern coast of Siberia but the latest findings were made far away from land in the deep, open ocean where the surface is usually capped by ice.

Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, said that methane levels rise so dramatically each time the research aircraft flew over cracks in the sea ice.

"When we flew over completely solid sea ice, we didn't see anything in terms of methane. But when we flew over areas where the sea ice had melted, or where there were cracks in the ice, we saw the methane levels increase." "We were surprised to see these enhanced methane levels at these high latitudes. Our observations really point to the ocean surface as the source, which was not what we had expected."

"Other scientists had seen high concentrations of methane in the sea surface but nobody had expected to see it being released into the atmosphere in this way."

Methane is about 70 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide when it comes to trapping heat. However, because methane is broken down more quickly in the atmosphere, scientists calculate that it is 20 times more powerful over a 100-year cycle. The latest methane measurements were made from the American HIPPO research programme where a research aircraft loaded with scientific instruments flies for long distances at varying altitudes, measuring and recording gas levels at different heights.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, covered several flights into the Arctic at different times of the year. They covered an area about 950 miles north of the coast of Alaska and about 350 miles south of the North Pole. The levels of methane coming off this region were about the same as the quantities measured by other scientists monitoring methane levels above the shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

"We suggest that the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean represent a potentially important source of methane, which could prove sensitive to changes in sea ice cover," the researchers write. "The association with sea ice makes this methane source likely to be sensitive to changing Arctic ice cover and dynamics, providing an unrecognised feedback process in the global atmosphere-climate system," they say.

Climate scientists are concerned that rising temperatures in the Arctic could trigger climate-feedbacks, where melting ice results in the release of methane which in turn results in a further increase in temperatures.

"We should be concerned because there's so many things in the Arctic where the warming feeds further warming. There are many things in the Arctic that do respond to warming," said Euan Nisbet, a methane expert at Royal Holloway University of London.

Fin

Under current accelerating rates of carbon and methane gases release, human life ends 2050-2055 CE. If Arctic Region methane clathrates carbon reserves become explosively unstable by temperature increase, tectonic uplift, or undersea landslides -- global warming temperature quickly rises and there are no more human races. Therefore, estimates for the continuation of human-life range from a minimum of zero-years to a maximum of 40-years.  There are no political policies to alter the lifespan of human races.

Global Warming Status

A perplexing issue with global warming is communicating the seriousness of continuing global temperature increase. At current rate of building hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) infrastructures, global carbon budget lock-in occurs very soon. Human energy greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of carbon increasingly exceed Earth's carbon budget. Latter, the critical 450 ppm carbon dioxide level is exceeded 2030-2040 CE. Resulting human races termination from global warming is 2050-2099 CE, but most likely 2050-2055 CE.

Unless global warming human and natural atmospheric GHGs peak by 2020 CE and start to reduce thereafter, human races begin to end when the carbon level exceeds 450 ppm. Unfortunately, although global warming effects are understood, necessary corrective action responses by the global political industries remain non existent.  

Briefly, we have five years to change the global energy structures to that of clean nuclear energy. Only a rapid and large nuclear energy expansion replacing hydrocarbon energy can prevent "global hydrocarbon infrastructure lock-in." Changing the political approach to energy used is a problem. Since the 1990s, the U.S. and European untoward political industries have suppressed mitigation responses to global warming temperature increase in order to promote continued union coal production. Although all humans now under the age of 30-years are certainly to be destroyed, no political system has identified any aspect of global warming temperature increase as a pressing problem or concern.

NOTE: The first step in problem solving is to identify responsible management; establish baseline metrics; possible solutions, select optimum solutions, needed resources, and identify the implementation timeline with critical paths. Global warming responses require very critical timing for mitigations to be effective. The costs associated with stopping temperature increase is not relevant, but cost efficiencies in reducing global temperatures is important. Recognizing that politics and politicians can be very counterproductive to progress is important. Responses must address the overriding issue to save human races.   

Over the coming five years, the least-cost and only global warming option to lowering global warming is by steadily transforming global human energy systems to zero emissions nuclear energy, which in turn lowers human and natural GHG emissions. Difficult to reduce are Arctic Region's huge amounts of natural methane and carbon emissions that are ocean-current temperature dependent and land surface air temperature dependent. Arctic Region natural methane and carbon emissions form a powerful reinforced positive feedback loop that is directly temperature and regional emissions related.

Unfortunately, too many world leaders and national politicians remain committed to continuing hydrocarbon energy dependence. Necessary planned successful social and environmental responses to global warming temperature increase are essential, many, and varied and involve lives of more than 9 billion people. No nation maintains a viable organization to respond to countering global warming temperature increase. Not in place is the needed central organization to coordinate implementation of identified needed energy, social, and environmental responses.    

Technology is available to mitigate global warming temperature increase, but it is the politicians who are committing Earth to human life termination. Either the politicians now respond, or we all shall terminate 2050-2055 CE.  

No Politician Will Talk About It - Global Warming Water

Water scarcity is even deemed the most immediate environmental risk to the world.

Financial Times sustainability conference in New York City issued dire warnings and a call to arms for investors and corporations around the world along with governments.

"Water scarcity is the new global warming"

Commentary: Management is key to prosperity and survival

By Thomas Kostigen

March 30, 2012

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The global director of water stewardship for Coca-Cola Co. says that water risk isn’t imminent; it’s already manifest.

Greg Koch, who spoke at the Financial Times sustainability conference in New York City on Thursday, issued dire warnings and a call to arms for investors and corporations around the world along with governments.

And he wasn’t alone.

Robert Hormats, Under Secretary of State for Economics, Energy and the Environment says disputes or outright water wars are imminent in the near future.

Here’s why: an increasing population with needs for more energy and food is putting undue demand on the world’s water supply. So much so that by 2025 some two-thirds of the world’s population will experience some type of water shortage, according to myriad estimates.

Water scarcity is even deemed the most immediate environmental risk to the world, according to Usha Rao-Monari, the global head of water, global infrastructure and natural resources for the International Finance Corporation.

There are two sorts of water risks, she says: physical risk, which is not having enough water at the source, and economic risk, which is the cost of moving water around.

Both are extreme and being experienced throughout the world right now.

In terms of solutions, Rao-Monari sees three: financial, innovation, and government policy. Each of these can play a critical role in water quality and delivery.

Not long ago, climate change and carbon emissions were the environmental demons knocking at our doors. 'The Carbon Disclosure Project' (CDP) sprung up out of this threat to measure, disclosure and share information among companies. Now it’s water.

The CDP also has a growing water initiative where companies report their water policies. The CDP Water Disclosure Global Report 2011 finds that 57% of the 190 publicly listed organizations that participated in the survey report board-level oversight of water policies, strategies, or plans. By comparison, a report released by CDP in September 2011 showed that 94% of Global 500 companies report board-level oversight of climate change, suggesting that corporate understanding of water as a business concern trails that of climate change.

To enhance investor analysis of corporate water risk and to support corporate action on water stewardship, CERES, the Boston-based coalition of environmental organizations and corporations, developed a go-to water gauge. Backed by investors managing over $2 trillion in assets, the “Aqua Gauge” provides a benchmark for best practice and enables investors to assess, scorecard and compare companies on their management of water risk.

Brooke Barton, the senior manager for water and corporate programs at CERES, says “investors need to get water on their governance agenda.” This includes not only, say, how water scarcity would affect a beverage maker or food producer, but also municipalities via their bond offerings. If water rates change due to shrinking supply, rates would likely rise and bond prices, in turn, lower.

I have long been vocal about the need for water conservation, efficiency, and management. In the developing world this is especially needed. Geography plays a huge role in water accessibility.

One of the biggest opportunities for social as well as environmental impact is through water investing.

Bennett Freeman, senior vice president for sustainability research and policy for Calvert Investments, notes that China holds 21% of the world’s population but only 7% of global water supply. Its water needs are massive. Therefore, water investment opportunities are massive.

Water is life

The entire developing world, as it develops, will need more water. The oil, gas, and timber industries in Africa, for example, take supply away from the direct consumption needs of freshwater supply. Management will be key to growth and prosperity.

And while the U.S. experiences water shortages throughout a majority of states, there is relative access to fresh water. It’s this skill of management and technology that could be a major U.S. export. Yet, we squander much of our skills and management.

Hormats says this is wrong. The U.S. State Department is seeking to export these skills in conjunction with the private sector, he says. “There is an important opportunity for the State Department to work with private companies and help other countries purify and manage [their water],” Hormats says.

Rao-Monari says that one of the first things that should be done is to put a price on water. She is right. There needs to be an established understanding from which we can manage water. It can exact incentives and penalties — a tool for better management.

Water is both a risk and an opportunity. Tech entrepreneurs and innovators take note. Billions of dollars worth of municipal and private projects are coming down the pike (Barton at CERES mentions projects in Nevada, Utah, and Colorado). And that’s just here in America.

[NOTE: Water remains a legislated political topic. There are many prices for water that vary by water districts. What is very poorly managed by politicians are groundwater and aquifer drafting and recharge. No matter how many water projects there are, politicians and their special interests always take their cut of the action. As it now stands, too many politicians accept the 2050-2055 CE destruction of human races as cost of doing their business as usual.  --DGE]  

Without water there is no energy. Without water there is no food. Without water, in other words, there is no life. Seems like that should be enough of a risk to warrant more attention.

As Koch pointed out, this isn’t a risk happening in the future. We’re dealing with these risks now.

Many people from around the world who came to the FT Sustainable conference agreed.

Water isn’t everywhere and there isn’t always a drop to drink. We need to invest in programs that find ways to get more.

Thomas Kostigen is the author of “The Green Blue Book: The Simple Water-Savings Guide to Everything in Your Life.”

Fin

The hydrologic water cycle describes the cycles water. The current and projected potable water shortage is caused by several factors:

#   The only way to "create" large amounts of potable water is by desalination, which consumes huge amounts of energy (that must be clean nuclear energy).

#   Increased populations require more potable water to support their lives.

#   Increased gross domestic products (GDPs or increased wealth) increase water requirements.

#   Increased atmospheric global warming temperature results in increased amount of moisture suspended within the atmosphere. there is less surface water available and ground aquifers are overdrafted. With global warming there is a net surface riparian and aquifer water loss, evaporation increase, water mining increases, net ice water loss, net ocean level rise, major weather changes, and additional factors that alter the hydrologic cycle.  

#   Most large scale water investments expect to function past 2050-2055 CE. However, if global warming political responses continues the way they have since 1750 CE, it is unlikely human races exist past 2055 CE.

Stresses of increased populations, increased hydrocarbon energy use, increased gross domestic product (GDP), and resulting increased global temperatures is evident. Most likely projections over time include uncontrolled population growth, limited technology changes, limited changes to energy use, critical political decisions not made, evil politicians, limited funding for effective clean nuclear energy, and several proposed impossible legislated changes to fundamental laws of physics by untoward politicians and surrogates. No one has proposed changes to global warming business as usual politics. There are no formed plans to alter the course of global warming temperature increase.   

The entire developing world, as it develops, will need more water. China holds 21% of the world’s population but only 7% of global water supply. Its water needs are massive. Therefore, water investment opportunities are massive.

Unless natural and human greenhouse gases peak by 2020 CE, in 2030-2040 CE Earth global warming temperature increase shall exceed +2.0°C limit above preindustrial average temperature. Postulated is wipe out of agriculture and cattle ranching occurs as sand dunes and dust bowls appear across five U.S. states, from Texas in the south to Montana in the north. By +3 oC major to massive dust storms sweep the U.S. Midwest. Saltwater inundation of coastal groundwater stores will expand. Groundwater/aquifer pollution such as saltwater encroachment associated with over drafting of aquifers or natural leaching from natural occurring deposits are natural sources of pollution. U.S. Ogallala Aquifer (aka, High Plains Aquifer) is dry.

At +4 oC above 1750 CE preindustrial temperature, the Amazonian rain forest burns in a firestorm of catastrophic ferocity, covering South America with ash and smoke. Once the smoke clears, the interior of Brazil has become desert, and huge amounts of extra carbon have entered the atmosphere, further boosting global warming. The entire Arctic ice cap disappears in the summer months, leaving the North Pole ice-free for the first time in 3 million years. Water supplies run short in California as the Sierra Nevada snow pack melts away. U.S. Ogallala Aquifer (aka, High Plains Aquifer) is dry. Tens of millions displaced as the Kalahari Desert expands across southern Africa. Around +4 oC, rapidly rising temperatures in the Arctic Region (like Siberia) sea and land permafrost in the melt zone, releasing vast quantities of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) producing a temperature rise. Melting ice caps and sea level rises have displace more than 100 million people, particularly in Bangladesh, the Nile Delta, and Shanghai. Heat waves and drought make much of the sub-tropics uninhabitable: large-scale migration even takes place within Europe, where deserts are growing in southern Spain, Italy, and Greece. More than half of wild species wiped out, in the worst mass extinction since the end of the dinosaurs. Agriculture collapses in Australia. Decreasing water availability and increasing drought in mid-latitudes and semi-arid low latitudes result in the Amazon drying up. With temperature increase, more moisture is present in the air, more surface water evaporation, and more aquifer over drafting occurs. There is a resulting large transfer of potable aquifer water (and surface water) to oceans and atmosphere.  


Catastrophic global warming events are suffering from coordinated benign neglect and political/media misdirection. The main media continues to be active in deceiving humanity as to the peril and catastrophic events of global warming leading up to sure 2050-2099 CE demise of human races, most likely 2050-2055 CE.   

Before investing in environmental projects understand some of the basic physics involved with your investment.  You can always change your investment portfolio, but you cannot change the laws of physics, GDPs, aquifer over drafting, riparian hypoxia, ice melt, rates of global temperature increase, nor population growth.   

Global Warming Requires A Transition to Nuclear Energy

Continuing upon the 260-year path of using hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) the expanding hydrocarbon infrastructure will lock in the global carbon budget around 2017 CE. Resulting is certainty that Earth's human races no longer exist past 2050-2055 CE due to global warming. Certainty of the demise of human races is established by world leaders' reluctance to alter their coal, oil, and natural gas hydrocarbon economies, which is necessary to reduce excessive human global warming greenhouse gas emissions. A transition to nuclear energy is required because it is the only technology that has capacity to alter the rate of global warming temperature increase. For political reasons, U.S. President Obama, U.S. congressional left Democrats, and other global leaders resist the reduction of excessive human global warming greenhouse gases. Opposition to transition to nuclear energy has markedly and obviously increased with the arrival of President Obama's political system of social transition to Obama's brand of radical communism. For political reasons, those who are now children and young adults under the age of 30-years shall soon die post 2050 CE, resulting from Washington DC self serving politics.


As long as President Obama remains in office and left Democrats retain congressional influence, global warming politics assures that with 2017 CE hydrocarbon infrastructure lock-in; human races are destroyed 2050-2055 CE.     


For today and for the future, nuclear energy remains a large capacity energy source secure, reliable, that does not produce global warming gases. Of known, proven, energy technologies, only nuclear fission can provide the large quantities of energy required by industrial societies in a sustainable and environmentally acceptable manner. Nuclear energy is also a critical resource heat processes, production of transportation fuels (such as hydrogen and synthetic fuels), desalinated water, and conventional hydrocarbon energy replacement. New and expanded nuclear facilities are imperative to meet these vital needs. The Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository, which is an essential part of the U.S. 'nuclear fuel cycle,' has been on the drawing boards for about 60-years. Nuclear reprocessing are also important parts of the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle, but why is that so?  

Like coal, oil and natural gas, uranium is an energy resource which must be processed through a series of steps to produce an efficient fuel for generating electricity. Each fuel has its own distinctive fuel cycle: however the uranium or nuclear fuel cycle is more complex than the others.

To prepare uranium for use in a nuclear reactor, it undergoes the steps of mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication. These steps make up the 'front end' of the nuclear fuel cycle. After uranium has spent about three years in a reactor to produce electricity, the used fuel may undergo a further series of steps including temporary storage, reprocessing, and recycling before eventual disposal as waste. Collectively these final steps are known as the 'backend' of the fuel cycle.

Electricity demand is increasing twice as fast as overall energy use and is likely to rise 76% to 2030. Nuclear energy is the only technology that has enough potential clean energy to convert to kinetic energy that might alter the accelerating rate of 260-years of global warming temperature increase. A way of understanding nuclear energy and its imposed untoward political associations is to review events within the context of the nuclear fuel cycle nine steps.       

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE - FRONT END

1. Mining and milling

Uranium is usually mined by either surface (open cut) or underground mining techniques, depending on the depth at which the ore body is found. In Australia the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory is open cut, while Olympic Dam in South Australia is an underground mine (which also produces copper, with some gold and silver). The newest Canadian mines are underground. Some uranium ore body contains 'rare earth' deposits, which may be extracted as a by-product. Yellowcake is a solid form of mixed uranium oxide produced from uranium ore in the milling process. After processing, yellowcake is produced, though it is finally khaki in colour.

China is on track to build up to 100 nuclear reactors by 2030. China already has 27 of those under construction. Notably, China has comprehensive  acquisition and natural resource planning for their nuclear fuel cycle needs and is acquiring global nuclear ore mining from several facilities. Typical is the buying mines in Africa and China's contracts with Canada to secure the nuclear fuel (and oil). If China is buying all the uranium production, where do the other 29 countries with nuclear reactors get their supplies from?


Although the U.S. existence and economy is totally dependent upon energy consumption, U.S. politicians do not have national policies for national energy supply or national energy use policies. Resulting from no political planning, the U.S. competitive edge is being lost, cost of energy is increasing, and the global warming temperature is increasing.   

2. Conversion

Uranium needs to be converted to a form of uranium hexafluoride (hex) gas before it can be enriched. Within a reasonable range of temperature and pressure, it can be a solid, liquid, or gas. Solid UF6 is a white, dense, crystalline material that resembles rock salt.   

3. Enrichment

The vast majority of all nuclear power reactors in operation and under construction require 'enriched' uranium fuel in which the proportion of the U-235 isotope has been raised from the natural level of 0.7% to about 3.5% to 5%. The enrichment process removes about 85% of the U-238 by separating gaseous uranium hexafluoride into two streams: One stream is enriched to the required level and then passes to the next stage of the fuel cycle. The other stream is depleted and is called 'tails'.   

Quite often the nuclear enrichment process uses MANY uranium hexafluoride gas centrifuges. Therefore, an attack on Iran's nuclear bomb facilities would include intent to destroy uranium hexafluoride gas centrifuges.

Nuclear Bomb U-235 Enrichment

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of U-235 or U-233. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of U-235 known as "weapons-grade." "Weapons-usable" 20% fissile uranium is sufficient for crude inefficient nuclear weapons.

NOTE: Iran is not using 'backend' reactor cool down fuel rods or mixed oxide (MOX) material as source for bomb grade nuclear material. They are making large amounts of 20% "weapons-usable" HUE (for "medical purposes") as a milestone step to making 85+% fissile U-235 uranium. However, resulting from U.S. delayed responses to Iran's nuclear threat, by now Iran may have a large stockpile of 20% "weapons-usable" HUE and crude nuclear weapons that sustains their nuclear threat until their 85+% "weapons-grade" weapons come on line.

Iran has markedly moved forward European-Mideast nuclear and missile positions. If Iran should attack another nuclear nation their results a retaliatory nuclear attack. Iran's development of nuclear weapons is a very dangerous global situation that is not being adequately managed by President Obama.   


At a time when the U.S. might readjust its economy and may cut back more military strength, the U.S. actual use of nuclear weapons has to become real to our allies and foes. Nuclear weapons remains a necessary part of U.S. military strength. Adversaries need to know for sure that the U.S. will use tactical nuclear weapons as necessary to hold down the expansion of nuclear weapons. This tactic is called "tactical nuclear deterrence."

Obama's Nuclear Policies

President Obama does not intend to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. As part of lowering the U.S. military superiority to fit his U.S. transition to the left Democrats' radical communist movement, President Obama has positioned the U.S. not to effectively respond to the spread of nuclear weapons by developing nations. The last world meeting concerning North Korea nuclear weapons and missile capability was an Obama political show (about which other world leaders cared little). President Obama's visible disarmament policies and world leader meetings are to enhance his image as a world leader. Iran will build nuclear weapons and missiles as has North Korea. The Mideast national nuclear armament race is on, fingers are on triggers.   

Not only is President Obama supportive of Iran developing nuclear weapons, he is repressive of Israel protecting their continued national existence. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton blasted the Obama administration Wednesday 28 Mar 2012 afternoon for putting “just merciless” behind-the-scenes pressure on the Israeli government in order to persuade Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu not to launch an attack on Iran. Bolton added that reported intelligence leaks by the administration could hurt Israel’s chances of successful knocking out Iran’s nuclear facilities. Bolton’s comments on Fox News followed revelations that the Israeli government has made arrangements with the government of Azerbaijan, which would presumably help the Iran attack. It is the habit of left Democrat radical communists AND President Obama to leak classified information to the media as a means for revenge, seeking dominance, or just because they want to. In the case of President Obama, the classified Azerbaijan agreements were leaked as Obama's way of providing active assistance to Iran for their continued nuclear weapons development. It appears that President Obama will receive more votes from his supportive radical communist constituency by supporting Iran's nuclear programs than he would receive by supporting Israel. If Obama is not reelected, he will go out true to his core beliefs.       


President Obama reveals selective opposition to nuclear energy and weapons as it suits his political objectives.   

4. Fuel fabrication

Enriched "3.5% to 5%" uranium hexafluoride is transported to a fuel fabrication plant where it is converted to uranium dioxide powder and pressed into small pellets. These pellets are inserted into thin tubes, usually of a zirconium alloy or stainless steel, to form fuel rods. The rods are then sealed and assembled in clusters to form fuel assemblies for use in the core of the nuclear reactor. Some 27 tonnes of fresh fuel is required each year by a 1000 megawatt electric (MWe) reactor.

5. The nuclear reactor

Several hundred fuel assemblies make up the core of a reactor. For a reactor with an output of 1000 MWe, the core would contain about 75 metric tonnes of low-enriched uranium. As in fossil-fuel burning electricity generating plants, the heat is used to produce steam to drive a turbine and an electric generator, in this case a 1000 MWe produces about 7 gigawatt hours electrical (7 GWhe or 0.007 TWhe) of electricity in one year. To maintain efficient reactor performance, about one-third of the spent fuel is removed every year or 18 months, to be replaced with fresh fuel. The U.S. is not reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Rather, U.S. nuclear spent fuel material is wet pool stored or dry cast stored at 60+ sites. At the nuclear fuel cycle backend, spent fuel is either processed or long-term stored.    

The world currently uses about 15 terawatts (TW) of energy per year, with hydrocarbon coal, oil, and natural gas as main energy sources. Gross energy consumed is expected to at least double by 2050 CE. Much of the energy growth is expected to originate from developing countries use of hydrocarbon energies. The energy source infrastructure and amount of energy consumed from now to 2017 CE is of great interest to the world. At current construction of hydrocarbon energy infrastructure, hydrocarbon emission lock-in is established 2017 CE. Hydrocarbon emission lock-in is very bad news because hydrocarbon energy use results in exceeding atmospheric carbon 450-ppm level, which more rapidly promotes more global warming temperature increase.


It is a must to prevent hydrocarbon emission lock-in that results in exceeding the global carbon budget. The only way to help prevent hydrocarbon energy lock-in is a large expansion of nuclear energy necessary to decrease the rate of global temperature increase.   

New U.S. Nuclear Reactor Construction

For left Democrats cost means nothing to them, it is the social impact that counts. They increase costs within selected economic sectors as a political tool to force others into conforming to left Democrat political and social objectives. Adjusting to national economic needs is incomprehensible to the radical communists political base.   

There are many significant pieces to assemble BEFORE commitment to building a nuclear reactor. An expected $8.3 billion U.S. DOE guarantee to help a energy company build nuclear reactors within Georgia comes with strings attached. The U.S. political energy cabal controls government energy regulation, laws, politics, mounds of litigation, coal fields, union shops, and the cost of energy within the U.S. With caution from the no-spin zone, beware of business gifts from the left Democrat radical communist energy cabal. Given $8.3 billion loan-leverage the left Democrats will too soon legislatively nationalize your large Georga nuclear energy company.

Chinese building a nuclear reactor in less than four years is an accomplishment considering that it takes France almost 6 years to build one. It costs the Chinese 40 percent less to build, around $4 billion, compared to almost $7 billion for France. In China there is minimal red tape, so nuclear plants are approved quickly. Second, financing of capital is available through an efficient state ownership of the industry. Third, low-cost labor is available with much experience and efficiencies in the construction of major infrastructure projects. Because there has been little to no U.S. nuclear construction for the past 30-years, U.S. nuclear construction figures are only estimates subject to change, legislation, legal actions, and political/labor activities.

In the U.S., state and federal environmental and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) regulatory approvals lengthen the time, regulation, and cost from initiation of the project and into reactor load and plant operation. Thus the NRC members increase construction costs, time to operation, investment costs, financing costs, and acquiring capital is a greater risk/more difficult to obtain. Before investing within the U.S. nuclear industry take a long look at the 50-year political history of U.S. nuclear energy. Major issues must be corrected prior to a successful U.S. nuclear energy restart.   


Nuclear power plants currently cost more to build than power plants using coal or gas. This difference is narrowing, as long multinational experience with nuclear power helps to shrink construction periods and extend plant lifetimes. Already, due to low-cost fuel and improved efficiency, nuclear plants - once built - can be less expensive to operate. For political reasons nuclear time for development, financing costs, construction costs, and operating costs have been unnecessarily increased. However, even in a marketplace that does not fully credit nuclear virtues, nuclear power is increasingly competitive. Putting a price tag on harmful energy generation greenhouse gas emissions would quickly make nuclear power the cheapest option - as well as the cleanest - for generating increased energy on a global scale.

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE - BACKEND

6. Used fuel storage  

Used fuel assemblies taken from the reactor core are highly radioactive and give off a lot of heat. They are therefore stored in special ponds which are usually located at the reactor site, to allow a cooldown cycle where both their heat and radioactivity decreases. The water in the ponds serves the dual purpose of acting as a barrier against radiation and dispersing the heat from the spent fuel.

Used fuel can be stored safely in these ponds for long periods. Used fuel can also be dry stored in engineered facilities, cooled by air. However, both kinds of storage are intended only as an interim step before the used fuel is either reprocessed or sent to final disposal. The longer it is stored, the easier it is to handle, due to decay of radioactivity. But there is no valid reason to continue interim used fuel storage longer than necessary.  

There are two disposal systems for used nuclear fuel:

1)   Reprocessing - Reprocessing is a key, nearly unique, characteristic of nuclear energy is that used fuel may be reprocessed to recover fissile and fertile materials in order to provide fresh fuel for existing and future nuclear power plants. Reprocessing recovers the usable portion of nuclear fuel is Limited Recycle or Full Recycle (aka, Closed Fuel Cycle). Reprocessing reduces overall cost of nuclear energy and assures a reliable energy source, and reduces the size of required geologic repository long-term storage. U.S. politics does not support reprocessing nuclear material.

2)   Storage - Long-term storage and final disposal without reprocessing (Once-through Fuel Cycle). U.S. politics does not support long-term storage.

7. Nuclear Reprocessing

Reprocessing nuclear fuel costs more than using it once and storing it as waste.  However, fuel costs are relative when the useful life of a fuel is extended 60 times with nuclear fuel reprocessing.  

Cooled down from ponds used-fuel still contains approximately 96% of its original uranium, of which the fissionable U-235 content has been reduced from 3.5% to 5% to less than 1%. About 3% of used fuel comprises waste products and the remaining 1% is plutonium (Pu) produced while the fuel was in the reactor and not "burned." Recovering and reusing 96% of its original uranium is very economical, enables a closed nuclear fuel cycle, and assures national nuclear fuel supplies.

Outside of the U.S., over the last 50 years the principal reason for reprocessing used fuel has been to recover unused uranium and plutonium in the used fuel elements and thereby close the fuel cycle, gaining some 25% more energy from the original uranium in the process and thus contributing to a nation's energy security.

Reprocessing separates uranium and plutonium from waste products (and from the fuel assembly cladding) is often done by chopping up the fuel rods and dissolving them in acid to separate the various materials. Recovered uranium can be returned to the conversion plant for conversion to uranium hexafluoride and subsequent re-enrichment. The reactor-grade plutonium can be blended with enriched uranium to produce a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, in a fuel fabrication plant. Most nuclear reactors can generate electrical energy from either uranium only or use a uranium/MOX fuel mix. It is not identified if any nation is making nuclear weapons from the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods or MOX. There are some international accounting agreements governing some nuclear fuel rods and MOX reprocessing.  

The remaining 3% of high-level radioactive wastes (some 750 kg per year from a 1000 MWe reactor) can be stored in liquid form and subsequently solidified by a high temperature vitrification process for long-term storage.   

For almost 40-years, reprocessing of used fuel has occurred at facilities in Europe, Japan, and Russia with capacity over 5000 metric tonnes per year and cumulative civilian reprocessing experience of 90,000 tonnes. U.S. politics does not permit U.S. spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.  


Left Democrat energy politics is strange, very strange. The U.S. has a large capacity of nuclear energy available as spent fuel, but the left Democrats prohibit the necessary fuel cycle process to reprocess spent fuel. The U.S. has to oil reserve capacity for U.S. oil self sufficiency, but President Obama refuses U.S. oil self sufficiency. The U.S. has the nuclear potential to reduce global warming greenhouse gases that shall destroy human races 2050-2055 CE, but left Democrats keep doing political business as usual. Left Democrats and radical communists are not only self destructive, they are also destroying the U.S. and the world.  

Savannah River Site MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility - STOPPED

Savannah River Site (SRS) is a nuclear reservation in the U.S. in the state of South Carolina.  The site was built during the 1950s to refine nuclear materials for deployment in nuclear weapons. It covers 310 square miles and employs more than 10,000 people.

SRS is one of the primary DOE sites with missions to address issues of national security and nonproliferation, including legacy material disposition, such as plutonium. The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility and the Waste Solidification Building, both were under construction at SRS, are integral to the goal of implementing the United States' nonproliferation commitment to dispose of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The Site receives surplus weapons plutonium from other DOE sites for safe, secure storage pending final disposition.

The only U.S. mixed oxide (MOX) fuel manufacturing plant is (or was) being constructed at Savannah River Site (SRS). If operational, the MOX facility will convert legacy weapons-grade plutonium into fuel suitable for commercial power reactors. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) project provided $1.6 billion to complete construction, expected to run through fiscal year 2011. On August 1, 2007, construction began for the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility. Ultimately, at least some of this nuclear waste would have ended up at President Obama's cancelled Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository. On 30 March 2011, President Obama also stopped construction of SRS Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility and the Waste Solidification Building.

The Putzmeister 190,000-pound truck, pump, and a 52-meter crane was pulled off a job on the Savannah River on 30 March 2011, and moved to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear incident of 11 March 2011. The truck is essential for the construction site of the mixed oxide fuel facility. Moving the truck and large tank storage containers has shutdown the SRS MOX construction. There is no indication that Putzmeister 190,000-pound truck pumps or tanks were ever needed in Fukushima Daiichi, Japan. Standard Japanese fire truck water pumps managed Fukushima Daiichi water pumping needs before the Putzmeister 190,000-pound brute was dispatched by President Obama.  

If there ever was a need for Putzmeister pumps and large holding tanks in Japan, that need no longer existed by the time the TWO Putzmeister pumps and holding tanks got there. Since President Obama shutdown MOX construction there is no indication that SRS ever restated the $1.6 billion construction project. Most likely million dollar plus funding came out of SRS construction to move SRS holding tanks and a reported total of TWO Putzmeister pumps. There is no reporting as to where the SRS essential tanks and Putzmeister are now located. The SRS MOX transportation budget and project stoppage adjustments is part of the reason why President Obama and U.S. Senate left Democrats have not passed for about three years a Federal Budget.


The left Democrat U.S. Senate does not want to account for federal spending by President Obama and his ongoing covert transition of the U.S. to radical communism.


The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) project funded $1.6 billion to complete Savannah River Site construction of national security MOX facilities - the project was canceled by President Obama. The ARRA also provided $90 billion to useless alternatives to energy (solar, wind, corn-ethanol, etc) corruption that President Obama still promotes. President Obama's energy activism is very stanage to the historical American system of governance, but it is part of the U.S. radical communist movement's reform of American society.    


President Obama has a habit of doing things his way, which appears to include ignoring congressional directives and stopping/canceling the essential Savannah River Site MOX facility construction. President Obama has halted U.S. nuclear energy Renaissance, which results in 2017 CE hydrocarbon infrastructure lock-in of the global carbon budget.  

Nuclear Reprocessing Technologies

PUREX and Pyroprocessing - Pyroprocessing is a high-temperature nuclear reprocessing method; developed at Argonne National Laboratory and elsewhere. PUREX is a generic term for nuclear reprocessing that uses water and organic solvents.   

U.S. Nuclear Reprocessing Politics

There is concern that President Obama is the wrong president at the wrong critical time, aided by radical communist left Democrats who have maneuvered for decades to keep the U.S. on a hydrocarbon economy.  

By 1992, to keep U.S. union coal prospering, congressional left Democrats committed U.S. "climate change" politics to continue expanding the U.S. carbon economy. Nuclear energy had to remain uneconomical, controversial, and regulated by the U.S. NRC members. Left Democrat reasoning is that nuclear energy poses a threat to expanding their union coal and politically corrupted alternatives to energy projects (wind, solar, and corn-ethanol). Yucca Mountain nuclear repository presented undesired nuclear competition to left Democrats long-term alternatives to energy investments. When he came into office, President Obama organized the European-U.S. political effort to divert "climate change" responses into funding social changes.  

It would appear that communist may have lost the Cold War but now have long-term global economic preeminence resulting from the decline of America economy; left Democrat energy policies; U.S. foreign policies; radical communist transfer of wealth initiatives; and President Obama’s national energy and foreign policies. Since the Vietnam War, left Democratic political systems refuse to either construct new nuclear energy facilities, or approve U.S. reprocessing of uranium, or open Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. For 30+ years the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members acted (and continue to act) as an antinuclear political cabal. In 1992, left Democrats turned European-U.S. energy responses from correcting global warming temperature increase into U.S. responses of alternatives to energy (wind, solar, corn-ethanol). Subsequently European-U.S. economic growth remained dependent upon union coal as a primary source of energy along with oil and natural gas. In 2005, left Democrats promotion of alternatives to energy greatly expanded all forms of political energy corruption within the U.S. energy sector. The derailing of the last remembrances of a multinational attempt to curb global warming occurred when radical communist leader President Obama sidetracked Copenhagen (December 2009) world "climate change" meeting with his transfer of wealth scheme. International global warming responses have yet to recover from President Obama's edicts. It appears that President Obama and U.S. left Democrats have put the nails into the human races global warming coffin.


Notable is President Obama's office use of coercions in suppression of global warming technical knowledge, publications, government knowledge, internet information, and exchange of information concerning global warming and social history. Through Obama's cooperation with powerful media moguls, and spending upon the media large campaign financing funds, President Obama now controls global warming and political medial reporting. By controlling government funding and grants, President Obama controls university and college research and reporting on global warming. Because of political government funding controls, universities and colleges are also required to hire professors, researchers, teachers, and department heads who are followers of left Democrat radical communism and politically correct climate change positions. U.S. government departments and agencies are obviously directly controlled by President Obama through his political appointees, Czars, ferrets, and expanded Obama's government employment political base. The monetary rewards can be large for those who support Obama's political activities and election. Can the world ever recover in time from President Obama's November 2008 election?   

Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Technology       

By 1994, U.S. Argonne National Laboratory had essentially demonstrated mastery of the necessary Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) technology components for reprocessing nuclear fuel within fast reactors. Fast reactors can convert U-238 into fissile material at rates faster than it is consumed making it economically feasible to utilize ores with very low uranium concentrations and potentially even uranium found in the oceans. Used fuel from thermal reactors and the depleted uranium from the enrichment process can be utilized in fast reactors and that energy alone would be sufficient to supply the nation’s needs for several hundred years. Fast reactors in conjunction with fuel recycling can diminish the cost and duration of storing and managing reactor waste with an offsetting increase in the fuel cycle cost due to reprocessing. Left Democrats canceled in 1994 the U.S. IFR program and President Obama gave the valuable technology to China.

Suitable IFR technology was proven on a small scale. Then, in 1994, Democrat Clinton administration and Congress shutdown the U.S. Argonne reprocessing nuclear fuel team. President George W. Bush proposed (2005) a resumption of Argonne nuclear reprocessing "closed fuel cycle" effort. However, President Obama scrapped the W. Bush nuclear effort. Instead of the U.S. having functioning commercial nuclear reprocessing IFR technology, in 2009 President Obama transferred reprocessing technology to China's No. 404 Nuclear Factory. Previously, President Obama transferred to China 75,000 production documents of Generation III+ Westinghouse AP1000 state-of-the-art nuclear reactor facility technology. Due to President Obama's radical communist generosity, China now possess a huge and growing amount of U.S. debt, advanced U.S. nuclear IFR reprocessing technology, and advanced U.S. nuclear Generation III+ reactor technology. China also supports the U.S. dollar.  

With President Obama's gift of U.S. Argonne National Laboratory Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) technology China has obtained two very valuable resources:

1)   Semi-closed nuclear fuel cycle -  China gained access to a semi-closed nuclear fuel cycle with IFR technology. Resulting from decades of "use only union coal," U.S. politics does not yet have operational nuclear reprocessing technology for commercial use.

2)   Fissionable U-235 - China has access to a new source of fissionable U-235 and plutonium material. There is no new START like treaty agreement as to how China will manage bomb grade nuclear material reprocessed that is derived from Argonne IFR technology, which was provided to China by President Obama.  

President Obama's turning over more than 70,500 documents of state-of-the-art AP1000 nuclear reactor technology and IFR technology at the same time he has prevented U.S. access to these technologies -- is a GREAT detriment to U.S. national security, economic security, and has also assured continuation of U.S. global warming greenhouse gas emissions.    

Iran's Underground Bunkers vs U.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons

Removing Iran's underground nuclear bomb and missile making facilities is the task. Half measures of nuclear bomb capacity removal do not work in this situation. The most effective method to stop Iran's nuclear weapons and missile programs is to use tactical nuclear weapons in the destruction of Iran's underground facilities.  

Intelligence reports and onground inspections identify that it is certain that Iran is building nuclear bombs. The proper response to Iran's hostile nuclear intentions is for the U.S. to help eliminate Iran's capability to produce and deliver nuclear bombs. The only method available for destroying Iran's deep underground manufacturing facilities is by ground penetrating tactical nuclear bombs. Ground penetrating tactical nuclear bombs produce the same effects as conventional earth penetrating bombs, but is a very high-explosive producing enough to produce to neutralize Iran's underground facilities.   


It is unfortunate that President Obama has assisted Iran's nuclear bomb production capability, revealed allied attack response, and refuses the use of U.S. nuclear weapons to counter underground bunkers that are inaccessible to conventional bombs. If they can dig a deep enough hole, any radical country can now develop and build nuclear bombs/missiles.   


President Obama's activity within the nuclear weapons sector is conflicted. First he signs the new START treaty with Russia to reduce eastern European-U.S. missile defense. Then he shuts down SRS MOX construction that is necessary to meet nuclear treaty obligations and U.S. semi closed nuclear fuel cycle. While Europe no longer has European-U.S. missile defense capability, Obama is passively supporting Iran's nuclear weapons development. Now President Obama has actively leaked agreements with the government of Azerbaijan for the attack to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons. I can only conclude that President Obama is a U.S. defense delusional radical communist.   

MOX USED IN EUROPE and JAPAN

MOX (mixed oxide) nuclear fuel was first used in a thermal reactor in 1963, but did not come into commercial use until the 1980s. So far about 2000 tonnes of MOX fuel has been fabricated and loaded into power reactors. In 2006 about 180 tonnes of MOX fuel was loaded into over 30 reactors (mostly PWR), but not within the U.S and certainly not within the Savannah River Site MOX unconstructed plant.

Today MOX is widely used in Europe and in Japan. Currently about 40 reactors in Europe (Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and France) are licensed to use MOX, and over 30 are doing so. In Japan about ten reactors are licensed to use it and several do so. These reactors generally use MOX fuel as about one third of their core, but some will accept up to 50% MOX assemblies. France aims to have all its 900 MWe series of reactors running with at least one third MOX. Japan also plans to use MOX in one third of its reactors in the near future and expects to start up a 1383 MWe (gross) reactor with a complete fuel loading of MOX at the Ohma plant in late 2014 CE. Other advanced light water reactors such as the EPR or AP1000 will be able to accept complete fuel loadings of MOX if required.

The use of up to 50% of MOX does not change the operating characteristics of a reactor, though the plant must be designed or adapted slightly to take it. More control rods are needed. For more than 50% MOX loading, significant changes are necessary and a reactor needs to be designed accordingly.

8. Vitrification

Scientists have long considered high temperature 'vitrification' as the preferred option for immobilizing high-level radioactive liquids into a more stable, manageable form until the Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository is ready for long-term storage. The two primary vitrification facilities are Waste Solidification program are Saltstone and the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF).  

Vitrification is the process of turning radioactive waste into glass. The glass cores are then sealed in steel containers. This process is currently being used in France, Japan, the Former Soviet Union, UK, and USA and is seen as the preferred process for management of separated high-level waste (HLW) arising from reprocessing.

While vitrification has been employed successfully at other radioactive waste cleanup sites, the chemical waste processing facility capable Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Project in southeastern Washington state remains politically delayed. In fact the Hanford facilities are a wasteful political spending ground set up by politicians over the decades to give government money to their special interests. WTP is necessary, but much of the other funding is political corruption.     

It appears that although some nuclear vitrification and encased fuel rod 'accounting principles' are made (China's nuclear accounting principles are specifically excepted); there is a general lack of political will to support final disposition of high level nuclear waste material. The nuclear final disposal political issues revolve around major political powers insistence upon remaining dependent upon coal economies. Hence, the solutions to final nuclear high level waste disposal have been available and funded for five plus decades, but there is no U.S. political will to commit to nuclear energy as a national energy source.  

This is as far as the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle goes at present.

9. Final disposal

The waste forms envisaged for disposal are vitrified high-level wastes sealed into stainless steel canisters, or used fuel rods encapsulated in corrosion-resistant metals such as copper or stainless steel. All national policies intend the canisters to be buried in stable geologic rock structures deep underground (such as the U.S. Yucca Mountain). Many geological formations such as granite, volcanic tuff, salt, or shale are suitable. Prior to President Obama's closure of the Yucca Mountain project, first permanent nuclear geologic repository was expected to occur about 2020 CE. Since U.S. Yucca Mountain repository initial construction is completed, given a revised political fortitude, the U.S. permanent disposal nuclear geologic repository could be opened by 2013 CE.  

Spent Nuclear Fuel and Waste

The final disposal of vitrified high-level wastes, or the final disposal of spent fuel that has not been reprocessed, has not yet taken place. The only way to track the quantity and origin uranium is to use accounting principles and inspections to ensure that there is no loss or diversion of nuclear material during transportation and processing.

After final reprocessing, the liquid high-level waste can be calcined (heated strongly) to produce a dry powder which is incorporated into borosilicate (pyrex) glass to immobilise the waste by vitrification. The glass is then poured into stainless steel canisters, each holding 400 kg of glass. A year's waste from a 1000 MWe reactor is contained in 5 metric tonnes of such glass, or about 12 canisters 1.3 metres high and 0.4 metres in diameter. These can be readily transported and stored, with appropriate shielding.  

Yucca Mountain Nuclear Geologic Repository

In the U.S., Yucca Mountain nuclear geologic repository phase 1 construction for the repository of high level nuclear waste has been completed. A short rail-connection needs to be made and litigation barriers are to be legislatively removed. U.S. nuclear final waste disposal remains derailed by President Obama and left Democrat U.S. Senate. It is their political intent to remain dependent upon U.S. union coal energy.

A nuclear repository is necessary for completing America's nuclear fuel cycle and is an integral part of American energy needs and national defense programs that satisfies defense needs and global greenhouse gas reductions. The blocking of U.S. nuclear power development and safe Yucca Mountain Repository long-term storage development has profound implications for U.S. nuclear (and coal) base-load electricity generation availability, well into the 21st Century. It is well known by left Democrat politicians that the U.S. lack of a proper national nuclear waste repository has adverse implications concerning national strategic defense programs and terminal global warming temperature increase.

Recommendation to use a Yucca Mountain Nuclear geologic repository dates back to 1957, when the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the best means of protecting the environment and public health and safety would be to dispose of the waste in rock deep underground. Department of Energy (DoE) began studying Yucca Mountain in 1978 (or before) to determine whether it would be suitable for the nation's first long-term geologic repository.

By reprocessing spent fuel (excluding cladding and hardware) 96% of the metals in can
be recovered, with only a small fraction sent to the geologic repository. U.S. nuclear waste is currently stored in pools or dry storage at the 60+ nuclear reactor sites in the U.S. Yucca Mountain is not licensed or open at this time resulting from political activity opposing nuclear energy and favoring retaining hydrocarbon energy. Noted is that U.S. spent fuel inventory will exceed phase 1 legislated 60,000 Metric Ton of Heavy Metal (MTHM) cumulative capacity in 2015 CE. Yucca Mountain technical phase 2 total capacity is 120,000 MTHM will be exceeded 2047 CE.


The Bush Administration moved forward to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (at Rockville, Md., June 3, 2008) the Department of Energy (DoE) application for completing the Yucca Mountain license. If enough left Democrats are removed from office, legal hurdles to repository operation could be removed and railway construction to the facility could be completed for a 2013 CE repository phase 1 grand opening.  

In 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, "Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table." National nuclear security needs have not gone away, they were undermined by President Obama. President Obama ordered the shutdown of the nation’s proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository, October 1, 2010. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff commenced orderly closure of its Yucca Mountain activities. Closure of Yucca Mountain by President Obama directly opposes decades of congressional directives and legislation to build and operate the nuclear geologic repository. Without an expanded U.S. nuclear program that includes Yucca Mountain, the U.S. nuclear electrical generation industry is "regulated" into not expanding nuclear energy. As a replacement to clean nuclear energy, President Obama's shutdown of Yucca Mountain forces the intended union coal industry expansion.

Yucca Mountain nuclear repository will not be opened as long as President Obama remains in office.


U.S. "NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE - FRONT END" cost increases, political legislation, counterproductive regulations, litigation, an untoward NRC membership, and delays are a communist conspiracy to prevent the U.S. from completing the global nuclear Renaissance that is necessary to decrease global warming greenhouse gases by reducing union coal use.    

Suppression of global warming technical knowledge; delays to the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project; stopping the Savannah River Site MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility construction; Hanford Site; Integral Fast Reactor (IFR); and closing the completed Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository is a joint left Democrat and President Obama communist conspiracy to prevent the U.S. from completing the necessary "NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE."  


Left Democrats and communist are organized to keep the U.S. forever dependent upon union coal. While delaying U.S. nuclear facilities, political waste, fraud, and corruption became rampant within the U.S. government's nuclear industry. Human life no longer matters for politicians, continuing political business as usual is their goal.

Global Warming Summary

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) membership is to be replaced by four senior military nuclear specialists and one presidential appointee. The revised scope of the revised NRC membership is to include the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.         

Over the coming five years to 2017 CE, the least-cost global warming option is to now lower Earth global warming by steadily transforming global human energy systems to nuclear energy, which helps to lower human greenhouse gas emissions. Difficult to reduce are natural Arctic Region natural methane/carbon levels that are ocean-current temperature dependent and land surface air temperature dependent. Arctic Region natural greenhouse gases forms a reinforced positive feedback loop that is directly temperature related. With its active and latent problems, the solution to the very serious Arctic warming is to not to increase the global temperature. This leaves only clean nuclear energy to respond to global warming. Nuclear energy is the only feasible clean energy that has the capacity that can help reduce global warming temperature increase.

Stresses of increased populations; increased hydrocarbon energy use; increased gross domestic product (GDP); and resulting increased global temperatures is evident. Most likely projections over time include uncontrolled population growth; limited technology changes; limited changes to energy use; critical political decisions not made; extensive political corruption; limited funding for effective clean nuclear energy; evil politicians; and several proposed impossible legislated changes to fundamental laws of physics by untoward politicians and surrogates. No one has proposed changes to global warming business as usual politics. There are no formed plans to alter the course or impact of life terminating global warming temperature increase. Global warming temperature increase concerns have been known by scientists since around the 1960s. Political global warming responses to date -- nil.  


U.S. national energy policies are in long-term political disarray. For now, other than the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, there is no apparent leadership or organization existing that is capable of planning what it takes to alter the rate of global warming temperature increase.   

Without very soon curbing human global warming greenhouse gas emissions, all human life ends from global warming temperature increase 2050-2099 CE, most likely closer to 2050-2055 CE.