Global Warming is a Threat to Global Security

In 1983, U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) called climate change "a cause for concern," which was an understatement. By the 1990s, special interests, politicians, media, and other untoward took over United Nations and national global warming responses.  

In an AUGUST 08, 2009 article 'Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security' global warming (aka, climate change) is seen as a direct threat to national security: "The world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest."  

"Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the climate legislation, said he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill." "[Senator Kerry] did not identify those senators, but the list of undecided includes many from coal and manufacturing states and from the South and Southeast, which will face the sharpest energy price increases from any carbon emissions control program." Of course the congressional left Democrats and President Obama did nothing to alter the course of global warming.  

"The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans — specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton [D] and John W. Warner [R], then senators. The department’s climate modeling is based on sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

By 1974 there were 54 operating nuclear reactors in the United States with another 197 on order. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1974 predicted that by the end of the century 50% of all U.S. electricity generation would come from nuclear power construction on existing orders. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Less than half of the reactors on order in 1974 under the NRC were ever completed. Politicians and coal, natural gas, and oil special interests took over the U.S. energy sector to grow use of fossil fuel -- global warming trends became more firmly established.

'The Wall Street Journal: Dismissing Environmental Threats Since 1976', AUGUST 02, 2012 -- Judging by political and media responses to issues of curtailing the threat of global warming, there would appear with consistency that few adequately communicate catastrophic events. "To forestall policy on climate change, the Wall Street Journal editorial board routinely downplays scientific consensus, overstates the cost of taking action, and claims that politics, not science, motivate those concerned about the climate. But an analysis of more than 100 editorials from 1976 to present shows that the Wall Street Journal used these same rhetorical tactics in previous decades on acid rain and ozone depletion and they did not stand the test of time." Still protecting Wall Street Journal investments in self interests, a September 2011 Wall Street editorial claimed that Al Gore and other "climate-change advocates" have "tried to bully anyone who keeps an open mind," which "is true of many political projects, but it is or ought to be anathema to the scientific method."  

For more than two decades scope and goals of global warming mitigations have been sidetracked by political process of deceit, misrepresentation, and corruption. Currently, with dictatorial powers in hand, left Democrats have furthered predicted the demise of human races. Media has intentionally played an important part misrepresenting the critical nature of need for quick global warming mitigations responses. Current major obstacles to securing a future for human races is President Obama, biased media, and a dedicated small but politically influential coal, natural gas, oil energy interests.

CHANGE IS NEEDED

Without changes now, human races are terminated 2050-2055. 

Saving human-races tasks are both time and government funding critical. Changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say. Currently, U.S. National Guards are now acting as forest and brush firefighters within some states.  

Climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia and all water systems, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises, and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response. Near term resulting number of lives lost will be in the millions.

An exercise in 2008 at an educational institute explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense) who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.

Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding "green" substitutes for fossil fuels, eliminating nuclear energy, and furthering unproductive negotiations toward an international climate treaty. A growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to national interest. Public review of global warming threats and security challenges are inadequate.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address -- not addressing global warming issues now and "kicking the can down the road" will make mitigations more expensive later. Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving legislation. If replacement nuclear energy is properly phased-in, significant energy price increases may not occur.

In 2009, said Senator Kerry, “I’ve been making this argument for a number of years, but it has not been a focus because a lot of people had not connected the dots.” Former conflict in southern Sudan, which killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is a result of drought and expansion of deserts in the north. “That is going to be repeated many times over and on a much larger scale,” Senator Kerry said. He said he had urged President Obama to make the case. Former Vice President Al Gore has also urged President Obama to respond to global warming.

The Pentagon and the State Department have studied issues arising from dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents. In February 2009, the Pentagon included a climate section in the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Military and intelligence planners are now aware of the challenge posed by global warming. Many of its critical installations are vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges. In Florida, Homestead Air Force Base was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Hurricane Ivan badly damaged Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2004. Military planners are studying ways to protect the major naval stations in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego from climate-induced rising seas and severe storms. Another vulnerable installation is Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean that serves as a logistics hub for American and British forces in the Middle East and sits a few feet above sea level. Global relocation now of some U.S. naval facilities may be required. Ocean level rise effects all coastal cities and ocean coastlines.

Global warming temperature rise has a profound effect upon marine life cycles and thus continued human existence. Needed is a great deal more clarification of impact of marine changes upon human food chains.

A lack of rain and has brought the worst drought in more than 50 years to America's Midwest that usually provides over half the corn and more than two-fifths of the soybeans to world markets, and counterproductive corn-ethanol to U.S. cars. The impact of the sustained drought goes beyond farming. Rivers in the Midwest are actually drying up, including a 100-mile stretch of the Platte River in Nebraska. In the Mississippi -- which carries 60% of the nation’s grain, 22% of its oil and gas and 20% of its coal -- the drought has dropped water levels so far that barges have been forced to carry less cargo as they try to navigate the shallow waters. River flows are maintained by groundwaters and are part of the water-cycle.

It is questionable if Midwest High Plains aquifer can sustain current irrigation rates much into the 2020s. The Colorado River is managed and operated since 1922 under numerous compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines collectively known as the "Law of the River." Satellite data aids in surface and groundwater level identification. Largely missing from media reporting is the management of California’s groundwater resources, which in dry years provide nearly 40 percent of the state’s water supplies. Changing regional water systems requires time.

Arctic Region melting presents new problems for the military. The shrinking of the ice cap, which is proceeding faster than anticipated only a few years ago, opens a shipping channel that must be defended and undersea oil, natural gas, and undersea methane resources are already the focus of international competition. Further warming of Arctic Region's huge amounts of natural methane and carbon emissions 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, which also results in (catastrophic) increased global warming.  

Global warming by itself has significant geopolitical impacts around the world and will contribute to a host of problems, including poverty, environmental degradation and the weakening of national governments. Assessments warn near term storms, droughts and food shortages result from a warming planet in coming decades will create numerous relief emergencies. “The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations,” a military report said.

Increased population and gross domestic product (GDP) directly increase energy used and increased greenhouse gases. In 1750, world population was estimated to be 700 million. Current global population is 7 billion and it is expected to exceed 9 billion before 2050. Energy demand is growing explosively to meet human needs and aspirations worldwide.  Much of this demand is currently being met by fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil). Historical energy use is unsustainable. Because most greenhouse gases come from the use of fossil fuels, the central task of a global emissions-reduction strategy must be to quickly transition to existing technology of high capacity clean nuclear energy. Natural and human global greenhouse gases are to peak by 2020 and decline thereafter.

NOTE:  Global greenhouse gas emissions must, before 2050, have an atmospheric content of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide that averts catastrophic climate change and averts end of human races.

President Obama and left Democratic promotion of "green" alternatives to nuclear energy has been ineffective correcting 250-years of global greenhouse gas emissions. Unbiased media should report on the more than two decades of motivations for politically promoting "green" unsound, ineffective, and unsustainable diversions from proper nuclear energy responses.   

Top ten world energy consumers by country in 2012 - units in million-billion BTUs (see energy unit Quads): United States 57.227, China 50.690, Russia 18.132, Japan 13.031, India 11.891, Germany 8.556, Canada 8.360, France 6.728, Brazil 6.335, Korea 5.891, and total Worldwide is 293.110. Nuclear energy production is 5.8% of total world energy production. Current and past coal, natural gas, and oil energy production has significantly added to atmospheric carbon content that increases global warming.    

By continually producing hydrocarbon (coal, natural gas, oil) energy infrastructures there results exceeding 'global carbon budget.' Exceeding global energy infrastructure catastrophic conditions are established about 2017. To alter the course of global warming events, there now must quickly be reductions of human and natural greenhouse gases with reductions of coal, natural gas, and oil infrastructures.

Over the coming five-years, the least-cost and only global warming option to lowering global warming is by steadily transforming global energy systems to nuclear energy zero greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn lowers human and natural carbon-cycle gas emissions.   

Unfortunately, too many world leaders, national politicians, and media remain committed to continuing coal, natural gas, and oil 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.  

For Congress to participate in preventing 2017 exceeding of 'global carbon budget,' Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) membership is to be replaced by four senior nuclear specialists and one presidential appointee. Revised scope of revised NRC membership is to include supervisions of U.S. 'Nuclear Fuel Cycle' and rapid expansion of U.S. nuclear energy. Global and U.S. plans for global warming reduction are to be produced by intelligence agencies with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).

Nuclear Reform is Necessary

Blogger: Nuclear Reform is Necessary

Key Words: small modular reactors, SMR, U.S. Navy, Yucca Mountain, Military, NRC. DOE, IAEA, USN, Obama, left Democrats, Yucca Mountain, Congress, human races, temperature, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program,     

Rev 31 Jan 2012
Rev 03 Feb 2012  
Rev 04 Feb 2012
Rev 05 Feb 2012
Rev 08 Feb 2012
Rev 21 Mar 2012  
==========================

There is revival of interest in small modular reactors (SMRs) for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat. This interest in small and medium nuclear power reactors is driven both by a desire to reduce capital costs and to provide power away from large grid systems. The technologies involved are very diverse and SMRs have been operating for decades. The U.S. Navy has been using SMRs on navy vessels for 60 years.

The problem with the U.S. civilian nuclear energy program is that Congress (Republicans and Democrats) for the last 40-years have been suppressing U.S. nuclear development to promote U.S. economic expansion of hydrocarbon coal, oil, and natural gas industry. Political nuclear suppression to benefit politicians economically has become so bad that the criminal element within the left Democrat political movement starting in 2005 promoted economically and environmentally unsound “alternative, renewable, green energy” as a replacement for nuclear energy. Shutting down the completed Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository was an act by the left Democrat Congress and President Obama to signal nuclear investors that politicians no longer consider the U.S. nuclear industry as politically correct. Nuclear energy is out while alternative renewable green energy, coal, oil, natural gas are to now to be the “energy diversification” driving energy force of the U.S. economy.

With what little time that humans have remaining, if Congress has its way, America will forever live off of global warming carbon producing coal, oil, natural gas, and the politically correct “green energy.” However, the global carbon budget is too soon reaching a 2017 CE saturation point that determines the fate of humanity -- there is no turning back once the global carbon budget infrastructure saturation point is exceeded. There is no more than five years to stop the chain of human infrastructure events.  

Important: Science vs Politics - Researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter (W/m2) atmospheric energy differential implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million (ppm) to restore Earth's energy budget to equilibrium. They say the most recent measurements put carbon dioxide levels at 392 ppm and those global warming concentrations are expected to keep rising, resulting in continuous increase of global warming temperature exceeding Earth’s capacity to sustain any of the lives of 9 billion people. There is NO safe carbon dioxide level above 350 ppm. Science has presented definitive evidence that global warming is occurring since preindustrial times 1750 CE. As a result of intransigent self serving U.S. political machinery, there is no turning back the clock. The infrastructure of the global carbon budget shall exceed the carbon emissions limit, beyond which the cost of global warming recovery becomes exceedingly expensive. Science tells us then the human races end 2050-2099 CE; but self serving politicians continue to serve their own money and power needs to be elected now.         

The problem is, Congress’ shut down of U.S. commercial nuclear energy over the last 30-years-plus has condemned Earth’s human races to global warming temperature increase destruction 2050-2099 CE. It is unlikely President Obama nor left Democrats will do anything to effectively alter global warming course of events. Earth’s human race survival depends upon both phasing out the U.S. left Democrat political machinery and rapidly expanding global nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is the only energy that provides both current technology and energy capacity necessary to possibly help save the human races. Nuclear energy must be fully implemented NOW.   

NRC

The only politically efficient way to start to correct U.S. long-term nuclear energy deficiencies is to fire and reorganize the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members. Most likely any attempt to reorganize the NRC membership will be blocked, ignored, or delayed by President Obama, congressional left Democrats, and Obama’s paid following.   

For four decades Republicans and Democrats have foiled efforts to shift America from its hydrocarbon economy. Since the 1990s, Left Democrats and European-U.S. neo communists have sidetracked the UN charter to address the issues of global warming. World leaders have foiled commercial nuclear energy efforts to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions.  

Nether the less, with six decades of experience, the U.S. Navy (USN) existing small and medium sized nuclear reactors (SMRs) technology can become available with some modification on the commercial nuclear market, within a year. The USN nuclear energy program has been long established and well run. There are also operating commercial SMRs that are of interest.  

Under President Ronald Reagan, Executive Order 12344 of Feb. 1, 1982, the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program is an integrated program carried out by two organizational units, one in the now politically oriented Department of Energy (DOE) and the other organization is in the experienced Department of the Navy (Chief of Naval Operation).   

The U.S. nuclear commercial energy sector is a global asset too valuable to be run by mostly unreliable politicians who arrange to have no accountability for there actions. Untoward politicians now control the NRC. The NRC member situation is untenable. No longer can human races survival depend upon the whims of politically appointed NRC’s lawyers and politicians.  

If human global greenhouse gases are to peak by 2020 CE and than continue to be reduced, NRC members are to be fired now and be replaced with three senior military nuclear representatives and one representative appointed by the President.  

U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program

The U.S. has a vast and successful professional nuclear development program, it is the best and most experienced in the world. The U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program comprises the military and civilian personnel who design, build, operate, maintain, and manage the nuclear-powered ships and the many facilities that support the U.S. nuclear-powered naval fleet. The Program has cradle-to-grave responsibility for all naval nuclear propulsion matters.

The U.S. Military, in particular the U.S. Navy has all of the necessary experience to direct the U.S. nuclear Renaissance that is necessary as part of a long-term human races salvation plan.

President Ronald Reagan, Executive Order 12344 of Feb. 1, 1982:
 

Executive Order 12344--Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program

By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, with recognition of the crucial importance to national security of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, and for the purpose of preserving the basic structure, policies, and practices developed for this Program in the past and assuring that the Program will continue to function with excellence, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Sec. 7. Within the Department of the Navy, the Secretary of the Navy shall assign to the director responsibility to supervise all technical aspects of the Navy's nuclear propulsion work, including:

   (a) research, development, design, procurement, specification, construction, inspection, installation, certification, testing, overhaul, refueling, operating practices and procedures, maintenance, supply support, and ultimate disposition, of naval nuclear propulsion plants, including components thereof, and any special maintenance and service facilities related thereto; and

   (b) training programs, including Nuclear Power Schools of the Navy, and assistance and concurrence in the selection, training, qualification, and assignment of personnel reporting to the director and of Government personnel who supervise, operate, or maintain naval nuclear propulsion plants.

Sec. 8. Within the Department of the Navy, the Secretary of the Navy shall assign to the director responsibility within the Navy for:

   (a) the safety of reactors and associated naval nuclear propulsion plants, and control of radiation and radioactivity associated with naval nuclear propulsion activities, including prescribing and enforcing standards and regulations for these areas as they affect the environment and the safety and health of workers, operators, and the general public.

   (b) administration of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, including oversight of program support in areas such as security, nuclear safeguards and transportation, public information, procurement, logistics, and fiscal management.

To reduce human greenhouse gases, the only tool that is quickly available is to quickly expand nuclear energy, building new nuclear reactors, and replace old hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) energy units.

To accomplish a U.S. nuclear Renaissance, the restructuring of the Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) membership is necessary. Currently, NRC members are no more than appointed politicians and lawyers whose paid job is to continue the more than 30-years of political blocking U.S. nuclear energy advancement. NRC current members have neither professional nuclear experience nor do they have the personal capability to lead an American nuclear energy recovery effort. Current NRC membership is to be replaced now.

An NRC makeup of three senior military nuclear representatives and one representative appointed by the President is the only regulation authority that might help the U.S. to provide enough clean energy in a timely manor.     

Global Warming  

How is the U.S. going to produce enough clean nuclear energy soon enough, which will save the human races from total destruction 2050-2099 CE?

Over the past three to four decades left Democrats have ridden hard to stardom with their forceful and manipulative denunciation of domestic and global nuclear energy. In the 1990s special political interest took over UN responses to global warming. Than in 2005 CE the left Democrats activated political “grassroots” support of alternatives to energy. In December 2009, at Denmark UN COP-15 meeting, President Obama promoted a transfer of wealth scheme that has derailed global responses to global warming. European-U.S. neo communist shutdown of Germany nuclear energy and in the place of nuclear energy promoted dependence upon alternatives to energy. Nations’ remain dependant upon expanding economies of hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas). Much of the U.S. government global warming and energy reporting is erroneous, with omissions, or information withheld. Political computer hackers with inside Cyber War skills roam the internet and suppress left Democrat opposition.  Resulting is human races demise 2050-2099 CE.

The only tool that is quickly available to reduce U.S. and global human greenhouse emissions is to quickly expand nuclear energy, building new nuclear reactors, and replace old hydrocarbon energy units. However, the 2005 “renewable energy drive” was further enabled by withholding permitting for U.S. expansion of U.S. and global nuclear energy; which allowed left Democrats’ European-U.S. neo communists to promote 2011 ₡ 96 billion euros (US$ 122.63 billion) special interest corruption carbon-cap-and-trade renewable energy funding. US$ 90 billions of ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009) renewable energy special interests corruption funding.

Reform of government is necessary to correct 30-years of U.S. Senate left Democrat political regulation of the Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC). The political Department of Energy (DOE) and political Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are also now under President Obama’s strict political control.    

With the exception of expanding nuclear power, all other U.S. national energy proposals and policies are NOT viable. U.S. energy policies simply do not reflect real clean energy needs and real energy growth demands. Life-cycle process of all human energy sources (except nuclear energy and hydroelectric) emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. Clean inexpensive nuclear energy CAN provide new jobs if political nuclear construction and operating costs are reduced for new nuclear energy expansion and the nuclear replacement of existing dirty hydrocarbon energy sources. INEXPENSIVE CLEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY DOES STIMULATE THE GENERAL ECONOMY AND THEREFORE DOES PRODUCE JOBS. Added benefits of nuclear energy are it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and reduces global warming temperature increase. Unlike renewable green energy, coal, oil, and natural gas, nuclear energy can become inexpensive as a tangible long-term economic stimulus. Inexpensive nuclear energy provides improved economies and increase employment while helping human races survival. There must be a large replacement of hydrocarbon energy, to be replaced by new nuclear energy.   

As a result of their systemic deficiencies, alternative renewable green power sources require massive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and requirements that utilities and public buy inefficient power. While not reducing fossil fuel use, poorly run European “cap and trade” programs will effectively ration our primary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy sources, resulting in energy demands exceeding supplies. Alternative energy policies result in direct and indirect increased cost to the world economy, while producing very little energy and no net reduction of greenhouse gases. Congress and individual U.S. states make long-term energy rules that unnecessarily increase costs to the industry.    

To have any reasonable 70% chance of avoiding greater dangerous climate change, global emissions will need to peak carbon emissions by 2015-2020 CE.  Nuclear energy, reprocessing of uranium, and the nuclear fuel cycle will be of utmost importance in the task of stabilizing Earth’s temperature increase. Left Democrats’ control of U.S. energy have made the U.S. global warming reductions tasks much more difficult. President Obama is suppressing U.S. paths to nuclear energy advancement and has given away essential nuclear technology to China.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

The revised NRC membership of three military and one presidential appointment first task is to produce NRC approval of a number of Small Modular Reactors (SMR). However, in the long-term, SMRs may do little to increase nuclear Energy Consumption by Major Sources from U.S. current ~8% level. SMRs have several viable foreign market applications.  

To make a difference in human global warming greenhouse gas emissions, there must be new and retrofit large nuclear reactors installed prior to 2017 CE. A very large number of nuclear reactors must be constructed (in less than five years). Since there is no official global warming planning, there is no estimate as to how to prevent Earth’s carbon budget lock-in resulting from human hydrocarbon emissions.  

Necessary planned successful responses to global warming temperature increase are essential, many, and varied and involve lives of more than 9 billion people.  No national leader has established a viable national or multinational response plan to counter global warming temperature increase. No nation maintains a viable organization to respond to countering global warming temperature increase.    

With global hydrocarbon infrastructure lock-in occurring around 2017 CE, and it takes about 3-4 years to build a large nuclear facility, the future of SMR nuclear energy will expand as new and retrofit clean energy sources.

The need for SMRs energy source has evolved from overall cost saving measures to more focused concerns on environmental impact and security issues, such as susceptibility of national grids and the reliance on foreign sources of liquid fuels.  

Most likely for now, U.S. approved SMRs are necessary as clean heat to extract oil from Alberta's oil sands, which are proposed to supply oil to the Canada-U.S.-China Keystone XL project. However, due the existing oil-sand construction time-line, most likely the heat oil-extraction process requires SMRs retrofit of planned oil/natural gas fired oil extraction units. Alberta's oil sands are part of the global problem of “global carbon budget infrastructure lock-in.” Much of the existing global hydrocarbon infrastructure needs to be retrofitted with clean nuclear energy to meet necessary reductions of carbon dioxide levels (to below 350 ppm) to reduce greenhouse gas levels necessary to sustain human lives past 2050-2099 CE.       

As nuclear power generation has been established since the 1950s, the size of nuclear reactor units has grown from 60 MWe to more than 1600 MWe, with corresponding economies of large-scale operations. At the same time there have been many hundreds of smaller power reactors built both for naval use (up to 190 MW thermal), yielding enormous long-term expertise in the engineering of SMRs. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines 'small' reactor as under 300 MWe, and up to 700 MWe as 'medium' – including many operational units from 20th century. Together they are referred to as small and medium reactors (SMRs) by IAEA.

Today, due partly to the high capital cost of large power reactors generating electricity via the steam cycle and partly to the need to service small electricity grids under about 4 GWe, there is a move to develop smaller units. These may be built independently or as modules in a larger complex, with capacity added incrementally as required. Economies of scale is not found in SMRs size but by the number and timeliness of units produced. There are also moves to develop small units for remote sites and special applications.

One of the “hottest” topics being discussed in the U.S. nuclear industry is the viability of deploying small modular reactors (SMR), those under 300 MW, into the nuclear land fleet to help address environmental concerns while keeping up with the demand for power. Isolated communities require new energy sources for economic development. They need to increase generation efficiency, reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, and find cleaner sources of electricity. This includes islands in the South Pacific, Caribbean, Mediterranean and remote communities in Alaska, Canada, South America, and Europe. In 2009, the global number of people completely without access to electricity was 1.4 billion or 20% of the world’s population. In 2010, there were 170 island communities with populations over 100,000 who could use SMRs.     

World primary energy (coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear) consumption projected in 2050 CE is to exceed 826 Quads. In 2001 CE primary energy consumed was 404 Quads. The U.S. current electricity demand is projected to increase by 28 percent by 2035. And annual carbon dioxide emissions for electrical generation are projected to INCREASE by 275 million metric tonnes, according to the U.S. DOE.     

Small Modular Reactors Are Hot

Power Engineering Magazine

02/01/2011

By Brian Wheeler, Associate Editor

   The DOE has a goal to decrease 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and it expects that the goal can be met with the help of small modular reactors. [Note: DOE too many energy statements are not helpful and difficult to apply to practical assessments. SMRs are speciality reactors; it is unlikely they will by themselves significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. --DGE]

   The concept is to install the small modular reactors to areas and applications under served by hydrocarbon plants, or sites that may not be able to support a large nuclear units. “But it is not a competition between large and small reactors,” said Paul Genoa, director of policy development at trade group the Nuclear Energy Institute.

   The idea of the SMRs is not new in the U.S. The U.S. Navy has been using small reactors on vessels for over 50 years. Using this design in the commercial energy industry, though, is new.

   Currently, the U.S. does not have any commercial SMRs producing power, but vendors such as Hyperion Power Generation and Babcock and Wilcox and others are moving forward towards NRC member’s design certification. Although, the NRC members’ expect the first deployment of an SMRs in the U.S. may not come until the 2018 to 2020 time frame.

   [NOTE: There must be more than two dozen SMRs active designs around the world. The U.S. Navy has been producing SMRs since the USS NAUTILUS was launched on January 21, 1954. China has CAP 100 that is a 100 to 150 MWe SMR being promoted by China National Nuclear Corporation, which aims to begin construction of a two-module demonstration plant by 2015. The International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) (made by an international team of companies, laboratories, and universities and coordinated by Westinghouse) is an advanced, light-water cooled reactor expected to be deployment-ready in 2015 - 2017. IRIS has capability to satisfy the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (previously IFNEC was GNEP) requirements for smaller-scale grid-appropriate reactors in the near term, and provides a viable bridge to long-term Generation IV reactors. Westinghouse’s SMR is an 225 MWe class integral pressurised water reactor with passive safety systems and reactor internals including fuel assemblies based closely on those in the AP1000 reactor. In the 1970s General Atomics developed an reactor having prismatic fuel blocks based on those in the 842 thermal power produced MWth, which ran 1976-89 in the USA. General Atomics licensing review by the NRC was under way until the projects were cancelled in the late 1970s. etc. There is much functioning SMR technology. Medium and Small (25 MWe up) reactors with development well advanced in 2012 CE, some SMRs models are: KLT-40S, VK-300, CAREM, IRIS, Westinghouse SMR, mPower, SMART, NuScale, CAP-100/ACP100, HTR-PM, PBMR, GT-MHR, SVBR-100, Hyperion HPM, Prism, FUJI. For more than three decades politicians have used the NRC membership as an instrument for holding up expansion of U.S. and global nuclear energy capacity. --DGE]  

   The [Obama] plan is to build SMRs later in 2018 to 2020, start generating power and bring more SMRs online to form a larger nuclear plant, as needed. The SMRs are expected to be ready, as the DOE calls it, to “plug and play” when the reactor arrives on-site. Sounds simple? There are still NRC obstacles that need to be defeated before the arrival of a commercial SMRs. NRC reviews and licensing are the number one challenges at this point.  

   [NOTE: President Obama’s SMRs plan within the DOE promote special interests and bypass existing long established NRC Staff nuclear reviews and licencing procedures. The left Democrat’s political machinery has special interest in retaining control of U.S energy. Nether the less, USN/DOE have several existing operational SMRs. Hyperion Power Generation (U.S.A.) now has mini nuclear fission reactors (called Hyperion Power Module) that provide electricity and hot water to remote locations, nearly all outside the United States. The reactor has been designed to deliver 70 MWth of heat (25 MWe of electricity) for a 10-year lifetime, without refueling. Hyperion Power Module (HPM), an advanced technology mini reactor. Based on intellectual property developed by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory and leveraging forty years of technological advancement, the HPM was designed to fill a previously unmet need for a physically small and transportable power source that is safe, clean, sustainable, and cost-efficient. Hyperion Power Generation reactor appears “shovel ready” to be now applied to reduce greenhouse gases within the oil sand field oil extraction process of the Canadian, Alberta. --DGE]   

   [Please NOTE: President Obama has established another level of political bureaucracy within the NRC members. His new Advanced Reactor Program agency is going to issue separate licensing review of SMRs. President Obama’s licensing of SMRs outside of existing established NRC Staff review process is ill advised, very unwise, poorly conceived, and subject to untoward politics that skirt historical and congressional legislated requirements. NRC political members’ continue to subject the national nuclear industry to very political special interest influences. Since 2005, huge amounts of political corruption within the U.S. is risen with promotion of alternatives to energy. Now a very large amount of unhealthily political corruption is on the rise with DOE’s and NRC members’ management of U.S. nuclear energy programs.        

   Because of the highly complex nature of nuclear technology, any changes to existing nuclear review and licensing is to be made by the experienced and qualified three military and a Presidential appointee of the newly revised NRC membership. President Obama’s nuclear politics is a global disaster happening. --DGE]   

   The funds for the research and development of new SMRs could pose a problem as well. However, Obama administration has requested $38.9 million for the 2011 fiscal year budget for the development and of SMRs. The DOE supports public and private partnerships to advance mature SMR designs and supports “research and development activities to advance the understanding and demonstration of innovative reactor technologies and concepts.”

   Among other goals, DOE plans to “solicit and select industry partners for cost-sharing the U.S. NRC review of design certification document for up to two of the most promising light water SMR concept(s) for near-term licensing and deployment” and “develop recommendations, in collaboration with NRC and industry, for changes in NRC policy, regulations or guidance to license and enable SMRs for deployment in the U.S.”

   And as the general interest in energy continues to grow, so does the interest in SMRs, said Philip Moor, vice president of consulting and management firm High Bridge Associates.

   If approved, the funding towards the development of small reactors in the U.S. may play a part of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) current estimate of between 49 to 97 SMRs built by 2030.

   Utilities may have more interest in SMRs once the NRC gains more     expertise and the uncertainty of deploying these reactors in the U.S. can be addressed. And if the regulator approves any of the designs for licensing, the U.S. may see a stronger nuclear renaissance take place. As we have seen, some operators have scaled back or completely pulled out on plans to build new large reactors due to the cost [and NRC members’ constraints and licencing constraints]. The ability to construct these SMR reactors in factories could lead to lower costs and shorter construction times. Of course, the upfront capital to develop and engineer the facility is going to be needed for new SMRs. But after that, the reactors can be built in the controlled environment in repetition to lower cost, which could in return lead to more clean energy on the grid.

   [NOTE: The statement “And if the regulator approves any of the designs for licensing...” indicates how much NRC members have control over the U.S. nuclear industry and how long approvals take and who receives final NRC member approvals. NRC members are part of the left Democrat congressional political machinery. NRC members are appointed politicians and lawyers lacking professional desire for public nuclear service to proper nuclear regulatory practices. President Obama, who is a European-U.S. neo communist, and the left Democrat political machinery have through “regulations” covertly nationalized the U.S. nuclear industry to keep the U.S. dependent upon national hydrocarbon energy of coal, oil, and natural gas. President Obama and congressional political machinery control energy corruption, no matter what will happens to human races. Please God, save us from Legions of politicians. --DGE]   

Fin

It Takes Work to Change Global Warming Direction

International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA's) estimate is that between 49 to 97 SMRs can be built by 2030, too late to make any global warming difference. The global infrastructure carbon budget cut off point is 2017 CE. It is going to take a rapid deployment of nuclear energy to make a difference with global warming. Who are going to be leaders to save human races? How will they save us from destruction? How can there be build in time enough clean energy nuclear capacity?  

USN has available, tested, AND operated 60 years of nuclear reactor technology research, development, design, procurement, specification, construction, inspection, installation, certification, testing, overhaul, refueling, operating practices and procedures, maintenance, supply support, and ultimate disposition, of nuclear propulsion (including components), and maintenance of nuclear plants and service facilities.

Construction of USS NAUTILUS was made possible by the successful development of a nuclear propulsion plant by a group of scientists and engineers at the Naval Reactors Branch of the Atomic Energy Commission, under the leadership of Captain Hyman G. Rickover. In July of 1951, Congress authorized construction of the world's first nuclear powered submarine. The USS NAUTILUS keel was laid by President Harry S. Truman at the Electric Boat Shipyard in Groton, Connecticut on June 14, 1952. After nearly 18 months of construction, USS NAUTILUS was launched on January 21, 1954.

Admiral Hyman G. Rickove quote:

   "An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.”

   "On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.”

   "The tools of the academic designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone sees it. The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. ......."

President Obama’s small modular reactor (SMR) plan is unnecessarily increasing the cost of nuclear energy, wastes time, and promotes political-machinery corruption. President Obama is reinventing a SMR nuclear reactor wheel that was developed by the US Navy and U.S. national lavatories more than 60-years ago. President Obama’s DOE, and NRC are regulated by political motivations, not technical. Politicians are not operating in the best U.S. interests. President Obama is refusing to implement available nuclear technology to reduce global warming temperature increase (which is very bad news for human races). It is President Obama’s self serving control of government resources and the U.S. political machinery that confirms U.S. economic destruction, and the too soon destruction of all human races.      

The global carbon infrastructure is exceed the carbon budget around 2017 CE saturation point. Unless there is a quick and effective political response to increased combined atmospheric levels of human and natural carbon dioxide and methane, there results a global warming temperature increase that terminates human life 2050-2099 CE.

The new NRC makeup of three senior military nuclear representatives and one President appointed representative will provide much needed professional U.S. nuclear direction. Nuclear energy is the only energy source that might produce enough clean energy to prevent human races destruction.

Without restructuring of the Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC) membership and expansion of global nuclear energy, the one hundred and sixty thousand year journey of the human races ends 2050-2099 CE.    

Global Warming Nuclear - Decades Late and US$ Millions Short

Rev 25 Jan 2012

Over the past three to four decades Left Democrats have ridden hard to stardom with their forceful and manipulative denunciation of domestic and global nuclear energy. Resulting is human races demise 2050-2099 CE.

The only tool that is quickly available to reduce U.S. and global human greenhouse emissions is to quickly expand nuclear energy, building new nuclear reactors and replace old hydrocarbon energy units. Reform is necessary of left Democrats Nuclear Energy Commission (NRC). The NRC members are no more than appointed politicians and lawyers whose paid job is to continue blocking U.S. nuclear energy advancement. “Renewable energy drive” was further enabled by withholding permitting for U.S. expansion of nuclear energy; which allowed left Democrats’ European-U.S. neo communists to promote 2011 ₡ 96 billion euros (US$ 122.63 billion) corruption carbon-cap-and-trace renewable energy funding and US$ 90 billions 2009 “Stimulus” renewable energy corruption funding.   

With the exception of expanding nuclear power, all other U.S. national energy proposals and policies are NOT viable. U.S. energy policies simply do not reflect real clean energy needs and real energy growth demands. Life-cycle process of all human energies (except nuclear energy and hydroelectric) emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. Clean inexpensive nuclear energy CAN provide new jobs if political nuclear construction and operating costs are reduced for new nuclear energy expansion and the nuclear replacement of existing dirty hydrocarbon energy sources. Added benefits of nuclear energy are it reduces greenhouse gas emissions and therefore reduces global warming temperature increase. Unlike renewable energy, inexpensive nuclear energy is a tangible long-term economic stimulus. Inexpensive nuclear energy provides improved economies and increase employment while helping human races survival.  

As a result of their systemic deficiencies, alternative renewable green power sources require massive government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and requirements that utilities and public buy inefficient power. Furthermore, while not reducing fossil fuel use, poorly run European “cap and trade” programs will effectively ration our primary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy sources, resulting in energy demands exceeding supplies. Alternative energy policies result in direct and indirect increased cost to the world economy, while producing very little energy and no net reduction of greenhouse gases. Congress and individual U.S. states make long-term energy rules that unnecessarily increase costs to industry rate payers.    

To have any reasonable 70% chance of avoiding greater dangerous climate change, global emissions will need to peak carbon emissions by 2015-2020 CE.  Nuclear energy and reprocessing of uranium will be of utmost importance in the task of stabilizing Earth’s temperature increase. Left Democrats’ have made the U.S. global warming reductions tasks much more difficult, if not imposable. President Obama and left Democrat leadership are suppressing U.S. paths to nuclear energy advancement and have given away essential nuclear technology to China.    

The U.S. nuclear energy sector is a global asset too valuable to be run by politicians. No longer can human races survival depend upon the whims of politically appointed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) politicians. The politically controlled untoward NRC and US DOE are under complete control of CONGRESSIONAL left Democrat leadership. If human global greenhouse gases are to peak by 2020 and than be reduced, then the NRC members are to be fired now and replaced by by Presidential appointment  three senior military nuclear representatives and one representative appointed by the President (confirmed by Congress).

Over the years the military has handled many successful nuclear programs. In 1951 December 20, Arco, Idaho, Experimental Breeder Reactor I produces the first electric power from nuclear energy, lighting four light bulbs. Later, 1952 June 14, the Keel for the Navy's first nuclear submarine, Nautilus, is laid at Groton, Connecticut. The U.S. military is very knowledgeable and experienced as to how to develop and manage large complex nuclear programs. Military nuclear program management organizational knowledge is necessary for the restructuring of the NRC and the restart of U.S. nuclear energy programs.       

No one size or type nuclear reactor meets current or future needs. There are many current and advanced designed nuclear reactors that meet the needs to reduce global warming greenhouse gas emissions. Small modular reactors (SMRs), approximately one-third the size of current nuclear plants, have compact designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, siting, construction, electrical capacity, and economic benefits.

Small and medium sized reactors (SMRs), i.e., reactors with the equivalent electric power of less than 700 MW. SMRs may provide an attractive and affordable nuclear power option for many developing countries with small electrical grids, insufficient infrastructure and limited investment capability. Multi-module power plants with SMRs may offer energy production flexibility that energy market deregulation might call for in the future in many countries. SMRs are also of particular interest for co-generation and many advanced future process heat applications. Some SMR designs may reduce obligations of the user for spent fuel and waste management and offer possibly greater non-proliferation assurances to the international community.

There are specific U.S. applications for SMRs; however, on the whole there are few cost effective advantages within the U.S. for SMRs.  As with left Democrats’ massive promotion of “alternative renewable green energy,” the U.S. DOE sending out SMR statements is much ado about nothing.   

"Energy Department Takes First Step to Spur U.S. Manufacturing of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors"

January 20, 2012 - 10:48am

News Media, Energy.Gov

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Energy today announced the first step toward manufacturing small and medium reactors (SMRs) in the United States, demonstrating the Administration’s commitment to advancing U.S. manufacturing leadership in low-carbon, next generation energy technologies and restarting the nation’s nuclear industry.  Through the draft Funding Opportunity Announcement announced today, the Department will establish cost-shared agreements with private industry to support the design and licensing of SMRs.

“America’s choice is clear - we can either develop the next generation of clean energy technologies, which will help create thousands of new jobs and export opportunities here in America, or we can wait for other countries to take the lead,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “The funding opportunity announced today is a significant step forward in designing, manufacturing, and exporting U.S. small modular reactors, advancing our competitive edge in the global clean energy race.”

Small and medium reactors (SMRs) modular reactors, approximately one-third or less of the size of current nuclear plants, have compact designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, siting, construction and economic benefits. Specifically, they could be made in factories and transported to sites where they would be ready to “plug and play” upon arrival, reducing both capital costs and construction times. The small size also makes SMRs ideal for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors, providing utilities with the flexibility to scale production as demand changes.

The draft Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) announced today solicits input from industry in advance of a full FOA, which will support first-of-a-kind engineering, design certification and licensing through a cost-shared partnership. The full FOA will fund up to two SMR designs with the goal of deploying these reactors by 2022.

Today’s announcement comes on the heels of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s certification of Westinghouse Electric Generation III+ AP1000 nuclear reactor design, which was supported through a cost-shared agreement with the Energy Department. The Department’s efforts, in coordination with the NRC and private industry, have helped American companies lead the way in obtaining certification and licensing approvals for new reactor designs, which will further streamline these processes for future investments in the U.S. nuclear industry.  

[NOTE: By the time of the 1994 shutdown, the U.S. Argonne National Laboratory had essentially demonstrated mastery of the necessary Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) technology components for reprocessing nuclear fuel. President Obama gave the IFR nuclear fuel-reprocessing technology to China's No. 404 Factory. China now has a closed fuel cycle capability. Around 2009, President Obama gave more than 50,000 AP1000 detail manufacture and construction drawings to China. China is quickly and cheaply building US DOE-Westinghouse AP 1000 reactors. Westinghouse AP 1000 is a major reactor advancement for China's move to Generation III+ nuclear technology, and involves a major U.S. to China technology transfer agreement. By so doing, President Obama gave away critical U.S. nuclear technology to a significant economic adversary to the U.S. Chinese designers are developing a variation of the AP 1000 technologies, trumpeted as the "hone-grown" CAP 1000, as well as an updated CAP 1400 nuclear reactors. U.S. Argonne Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program significantly advances China’s nuclear fuel cycle along with Generation III+ CAP 1000 and CAP 1400 nuclear reactors; thus providing China significant reduced construction time and costs and reduced lifetime economic costs over U.S. nuclear providers, within the growing global clean nuclear energy markets. --DGE]      

For more information on SMRs, please visit the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy website.

Fin

Critics can only present information. It is up to politicians to save human races from global warming temperature increase 2050-2099 CE destruction.