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.

US Global Warming Policies/Plans

Rev 05 Jan 2012  

Without now reducing natural and human greenhouse emissions Earth’s average temperature shall soon exceed a level that is capable of sustaining human races. Without political changes, the one hundred and sixty thousand year journey of modern man ends 2050-2099 Cristian Era (CE).  Global warming is the world’s greatest growing security threat.  

U.S., and several other important nations’ covert global warming energy policies and plans are to continue expansion of economic dependence upon hydrocarbon economies of coal, oil, and natural gas.  There will be global economies collapse in anticipation of the social and economic impact of higher global warming temperatures. Continued expansion of the use of hydrocarbon energy leads to continued global temperature increase that exceeds a +5 oC rise above 1750 CE preindustrial temperatures.  

To avoid ending the human races, the political economic priority at this time is to avoid hydrocarbon energy “infrastructure lock-in” and to reduce natural and human carbon emissions.  Without energy changes soon, the point of no return is exceeded and the human races are destroyed 2050-2099 CE.   

To aid in describing causes of the global warming crises, some additional technical and political rational for the end of life scenario is presented at BLOGGER website ‘Global Warming 2050-2099 “GLOBAL WARMING TO THE END.”’

"SAFE" GLOBAL WARMING?

Population size and gross domestic product (GDP) size drives human (anthropogenic) energy consumption and carbon dioxide levels.  From human hydrocarbon energy use originates increased natural carbon dioxide and increased natural methane atmospheric levels.  The 1750 CE Industrial Age start of global warming gases (GHGs) methane and carbon dioxide have accumulated within the atmosphere in massive amounts.  By 1866, the combination of natural and human GHG accumulations influences global temperature increase produces a clear “thumbprint” of human impacts on climate change.  Concentrations of atmospheric GHGs and their radiative forcing and other factors have continued to increase as a result of human activity.  Scientists suggest that left unchecked, too soon Modern Global Warming accumulated warming forces will exceed natural carbon dioxide and methane heating effects produced by the 252.28 Ma Siberian Traps volcanic eruptions (Ma - megaannum is a unit of time equal to one million years).  

There is NO SAFE greenhouse gases concentration stabilization level above 350 ppm carbon dioxide, much less above 450 ppm. Over the coming decades, the least-cost global warming option is to now lower Earth global warming by steadily transforming global human energy systems to lowered human GHG emissions, then lower to zero human GHG emissions. Difficult to reduce are Arctic Region natural methane/carbon levels that are ocean-current temperature dependent and land surface air temperature dependent. Arctic Region natural methane/carbon forms a reinforced positive feedback loop that is directly temperature related.  Arctic Region GHGs are now increasingly critical in establishing global warming temperature increase.  

It does appear that by quickly reducing human carbon emissions aided by nuclear power, humans might forestall a global warming temperate increase extreme.    

2017 POINT OF NO RETURN

Paris based International Energy Agency’s (IEA) new “World Energy Outlook 2011” (WEO 2011) report states key issues to curbing global warming “infrastructure lock-in” of the “carbon budget.” Carbon budget refers to the contribution of various sources of carbon dioxide on the planet. Carbon budget has nothing to do with political agendas, climate change legislation, carbon controls, carbon storage, the economy, or geopolitical carbon footprint. Carbon budget is a physical event. Infrastructure coal plants and oil extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Canada, the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now.  This infrastructure is going to last another 50 years plus, at least.  Those nations and others are “locking-in the global carbon budget.”  

There is a large time lag to rebuild a clean energy infrastructure that results in a Earth temperature responses to emitted GHGs. Once we edge near carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm it becomes imposable to turn off the global warming effects of the 1750 CE to date hydrocarbon energy used (coal, oil, natural gas) and natural methane/carbon dioxide release. The IEA found we are about five years away from building enough carbon-spewing infrastructures to lock-in a hydrocarbon infrastructure and make it extremely difficult — if not impossible — to avoid greatly exceeding 450-ppm carbon dioxide. The point of global warming no-return comes around 2017 CE.  

END-PERMIAN MASS EXTINCTION

Tools for assessing the expected climate effects of actual levels of human-made and natural changes of atmospheric composition include (1) Earth's paleoclimate history, showing how climate responded in the past to changes of boundary conditions including atmospheric composition, (2) modern climate change, especially global satellite observations, coincident with rapidly changing human-made and natural climate forcings, and (3) climate models and theory, which aid interpretation of observations on all time-scales and are useful for projecting future climate/temperature under realistic most probable to 2099 CE human and natural temperature forcing scenarios.

Stresses of increased populations, increased hydrocarbon energy use, increased gross domestic product (GDP), and resulting increased global temperatures is evident.  Human factors have not changed to accommodate necessary greenhouse gas reduction and resulting global warming temperature increase. Most probable projections over time include uncontrolled population growth, limited technology changes, limited changes to energy use, critical political decisions not made, limited funding for effective clean nuclear energy, and several proposed impossible legislated changes to fundamental laws of physics by untoward politicians and surrogates.  Note that the worst case temperature forcing scenario is the most likely global warming scenario.    

Atmospheric gas composition, physical properties, and quantities determine rate of Earth’s global warming properties. Within the End-Permian Mass Extinction Period, natural volcanic gases and natural ocean methane clathrates and carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates. However, within Modern Global Warming, human hydrocarbon economy energy use (coal, oil, natural gas) and responding natural ocean methane clathrates and carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates.

A major difference between Modern Global Warming temperature increase event and End-Permian Mass Extinction 252.28 Ma is that Modern Global Warming temperature increase during the beginning stages is about 10 times faster than the End-Permian Period and there are more than 9 billion people involved.

LACK OF GLOBAL WARMING PLANNING

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.

It is necessary to stop human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Over time, by stopping human GHGs there occurs temperature stabilization (i.e., atmospheric GHGs concentrations match systems of natural methane/carbon dioxide feedback). There are only three anthropological avenues available that might alter the course global warming, environmental, and human events: ● Stop (extremely limit) using hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) ● Modify land, groundwater, and sea use practices ● Limit the size of the human population rate of growth.  Additionally, implementation of some form of geoengineering is to be considered. Implementing stop (extremely limit) using hydrocarbon energy is the most feasible and timely action.   

Europe-U.S. politicians are locked into funding “alternative fuels renewable energy” and eliminating nuclear energy.  China-India governments are building hydrocarbon “infrastructure lock-in” with their greatly expand hydrocarbon based economies.  To save the human races involves within decades the reduction of human carbon dioxide emissions to zero, which is a several trillion USD political change.  Changing political dynamics poses the major obstacle to changing national hydrocarbon economies to that of hydrocarbon free economies.   

Human and natural global warming greenhouse gas concentrations now exceed critical temperature stabilization “trip points.” Predictions of the loss of animal and plant diversity around the world are common under models of future climate change. However, a new study shows that because these climate models do not account for species competition and movement, they could grossly underestimate future extinctions.  

Some resulting impacts are abrupt and irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the global warming temperature increase, climate change, human population impacts, energy use, and the most important natural methane clathrates venting.

U.S. GLOBAL WARMING POLITICS

In the selling out of human races, U.S. politicians (and other politicians) use anti-nuclear and “environmental” feelings to promote political and special interests rewards of many $10s of USD billions. Since the 1990s U.S. global warming planning has been rather straight forward.  Anti-nuclear, “environmentalists,” and U.S. politicians appeared to be supporting stopping all nuclear energy development and favored development of socially acceptable energy forms corn-ethanol, solar, wind power, energy “efficiency,” and carbon cap and trade.  The forms of “alternative renewable energy” are very limited in capability to produce significant quantities of clean energy and have not produced any reduction in GHGs or reduced global warming temperature increase. Note that the real UN and nations political agenda is to expand hydrocarbon energy use through “climate change” programs in order to feed government money to political supporters through promoting money transfers with carbon cap and trade. Resulting from self-interests controlling U.S. energy policies, the economic and social consequences are very grave.

U.S. news media, foreign governments, and college/university departments, and U.S. government agencies are controlled and corrupted by the Obama administration. Since late 1990s, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been undermined by the World Leaders resistant to transitioning from hydrocarbon energy to clean nuclear energy. The likable and good speaker President Obama’s unwillingness to be responsible for failed and misleading U.S. global warming energy policies has significantly contributed to the ultimate end of human races.  With President Obama’s shifting the U.S. energy policies to a pro transfer of wealth proposal and promotion of multinational “alternative renewable energy,” the UNFCCC fifteenth meeting (COP-15) held in Copenhagen November 2010 was used as a turning point to favor pro hydrocarbon-economy industry supporters.    

Regarding the failure of 2009 Copenhagen COP15 conference environmentalist wrote: "...In a single day, in a single space, a spectacle was played out in front of a disbelieving audience of people who have read and understood the stark warnings of humanity's greatest scientific minds.  And what they witnessed was nothing less than the very worst instincts of our species articulated by the most powerful men who ever lived." We are now at the end of the last chance to appropriately respond to global temperature increase.  Mass suicide 2050-2099 CE now faces Earth’s human races.   

Science has provided the necessary information and advance warnings concerning global temperature increase. It is the political undermining of science that was the bases of too many political special interests derailing appropriate global warming responses. In order to remain on hydrocarbon economies, World Leaders from 1990s on have delayed recognition of global warming temperature increase.   

SOME UNTOWARD POLITICAL RESPONSES TO GLOBAL WARMING

Understanding special interest maneuvering within the seventeen sessions of the UN Conference of the Parties (COP) talks, there must first be acceptance that the talks (and all further UN talks) will fail to reduce global warming temperature increase.  We are in fact looking at the continued collapse of human races resulting from increased populations, excessive use of hydrocarbon fuel (coal, oil, and natural gas), accelerating increases of atmospheric natural methane, with exceptional high corruption within governments that promote subsidized “renewable energy,” “carbon-cap-and trade,” and wealth transfer diversion schemes to “poor” national leaders.

Germany and the U.S. politicians have paid anti-nuclear leaders to make “renewable energy” corruption profitable.  The EU Commission chose to take an "agnostic" stance regarding faith-based anti-nuclear radical elements.  The EU left it up to member states to decide the future of nuclear energy.  Obviously the EU Leadership is leading from behind on a topic involving the lives of 9 billion people and trillions of USD.  

Media global warming reporting and discussions might distract from politically crafted topics of the November 2012 elections. Therefore, Republicans and Democrats arrange for the media to forget about the global warming problems for which the Washington DC politicians are responsible. U.S. Republicans and Democrats ignore global warming because warming is a poorly recognized by the public.     

UN Kyoto Protocol - Kyoto Protocol created carbon trading mechanisms such as the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme that saw a big business of political corruption applied to global warming. Politically connected hydrocarbon players saw their expanded role with every European carbon unit of European Union Emissions Trading Scheme “validated” by UNFCCC.  In 2006, California's AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) created a similar to EU’s carbon cap and trade paper trading schema. Although greenhouse gas reductions are “mandated” by the California Legislature, effective greenhouse gas reductions are impossible to achieve lacking GHG reduction infrastructure and lacking global warming temperature reduction support.

President Obama’s global warming response is to turn California AB 32 mandates into a U.S. national program for political control of the U.S. energy sector by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Only two years ago the EU and UNFCCC carbon cap and trade scheme of global warming corruption was predicted to be the biggest legitimate commodity and industrial market in the world.  

Since there is no political accountability for global warming funds spent, to date, the U.S. and EU’s energy and climate change 'package' remains a costly unjustified failure that promotes hydrocarbon carbon “infrastructure lock-in” and  global warming temperature increase. Politics of the UN’s “climate change” talks is designed to continue increasing production of multinational hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) while passing on increased energy corruption costs with increasing survival risk to all human races. Under existing EU-US global warming policies/planing, there is an assured global mass human suicide caused by global warming temperature increase.     

UN IPCC Reporting - If humans want to regulate Earth’s temperature, it is first necessary for humans to control ocean temperatures in order to regulate ocean methane clathrates release of methane.  In the 1990s, there was UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “business as usual” scenario reporting.  UN “businesses as usual” lost out to politicians promoting “alternative renewable energy” and the politics of not reporting powerful greenhouse gas methane.  

To minimize the political importance of “climate change” and maximize funding of renewable alternative energy while promoting transfer of wealth to special interests though carbon trades, the funding of Copenhagen 2009 COP15 wealth transfers became “lets build lots of alternative renewable energy” that does not work.

IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR 1990) and Second Assessment Report (SAR 1995) reported methane activity.  Later, as a cover and diversion to not properly representing the roll of global warming greenhouse gases, leading World Leaders published a new set of political scenarios in 2000 CE reports.  IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR 2001) and IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4 2007) hardly mention the powerful global warming methane gas.  Within the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (AR3, 2001) and within the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007). ‘Special Report on Emissions Scenarios’ (SRES) scenarios became a diversion to reporting necessary global warming mitigation foundations. Since 2001 CE, the intended purpose of IPCC’s AR3, AR4, and proposed AR5 is to covertly continue World Leaders’ hydrocarbon economies of coal, oil, and natural gas by promoting "alternative renewable energy" and the dismantling clean nuclear energy.  Implementing clean nuclear energy poses funding competition to not workable renewable alternative energy. Net political result is assured mass destruction of human races.  

The 20-years and the failed seventeen talks held since the UNFCCC ‘Earth Summit of 1992’ are the most important negotiations ever undertaken in the history of humankind. Thanks to the abysmal and unforgivable failure of World’s Leadership, 17 rounds of UNFCCC "climate change" negotiations have failed to give full effect and deliver a fair, ambitious, and binding GLOBAL WARMING deal that stabilizes climate change.  

If There Is No “Change” - Climate science is unequivocal that the opportunity to limit warming to safe levels will close in this very 2010-2020 CE decade.  

We will get a very different climate change with an increase of 2 oC, which is what international organizations are setting as a goal.  A +2 oC increase is too large and is actually a prescription for global disaster.  Recognizing that politicians will exceed the +2 oC limit, scientist have identified requirements to make the exceeding the +2 oC limit a temporary event.  

In fact, carbon-intensive infrastructure, including power stations, buildings, and factories, planned over the next five years will lock the world into a high-hydrocarbon emissions trajectory.  If emissions do not plateau by 2020 and rapidly decline thereafter, temporally exceeding the 2 oC target will slip out of reach.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Typically, more than 36 million kilowatt-hours of electricity are produced from one tonne of natural uranium. The production of this amount of electrical power from fossil fuels would require the burning of over 20,000 tonnes of black coal or 8.5 million cubic metres of natural methane gas. Clean energy alternatives to nuclear energy — such as renewable alternative energy sources, increased efficiency, and carbon sequestration — all have laws of physics limitations and cannot be counted upon to save human races. Therefore, nuclear energy is the only proven timely energy form that has the clean energy capacity to help correct destructive global warming temperature increase. There are 200 nuclear U.S. plants now supplying 20% of our power. Coal provides about half our power. So you need about 400 new nuclear plants to displace all U.S. coal power plants.   

Stopping human greenhouse gas emissions over time produces Earth temperature-stabilization. Stabilization occurs when atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations match systems of natural methane/carbon dioxide feedback. There are only three anthropological (human) avenues available that might alter the course global warming, environmental, and human events: ● Stop using hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) ● Modify land, groundwater, and sea use practices to conserve resource usage ● Limit the size of the human population and rate of population growth.  Of the anthropological changes considered, only stopping use of hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) implementation can reduce human and natural greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 CE.    

Human energy consumption is the 61% major contributor of human greenhouse gases.  Within energy consumption, 40% is electricity and heat generation, another 20% is transportation, and the remainder is heat and industry use.  Other greenhouse gas factors (including increasing natural methane releases) contribute 39% of the GHGs. Deploying a large number of global nuclear reactors might produce necessary timely clean energy production required by 2020 CE.

Nuclear energy is low cost clean energy competition to political “green, alternative renewable energy.”  Therefore, to maintain their political monopoly over energy sectors and ongoing global warming corruption, paid European-U.S. anti-nuclear and neo-communists over decades eliminated and delayed construction of national nuclear energy sectors.  U.S. anti nuclear protesters seek anti nuclear jobs, leadership power, and acknowledgment while U.S. communism has grown to become the left Democrat political movement.  For more than three decades, U.S. government anti nuclear political obstacles has resulted in the few newly constructed nuclear facilities. Existing U.S. nuclear energy sector provides about 20% of U.S. firm energy.  President Obama controls the politics of the powerful U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members’ costly regulations/rulings and the de-funded the Yucca Mountain nuclear geologic repository. Untoward U.S. politics resulted in increased energy costs and the protracted forced shutdown of the U.S. nuclear energy sector.

U.S. President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel elimination of national nuclear energies was to remove the nuclear energy competitor to their nation’s “green energy” alternative renewable energy and permit continued special interests hydrocarbon energy corruption.  Without nuclear energy, global warming greenhouse gas emission-thresholds shall too soon greatly exceed livable temperatures.  

Nuclear China - China can build Western-designed nuclear reactors in less than 4 years at less than 40% Western nuclear cost and less than 25% U.S. nuclear costs.  Timeline is 50 months from first concrete to nuclear fuel loading, and then six months to electrical grid connection, with first-costs expected to reduce significantly for the following units.  China wants to have 100 nuclear reactor units under construction and operating by 2020 CE.

The first four U.S. designed Westinghouse AP1000 reactors are built from modules fabricated adjacent to each site. Now, after securing U.S. AP1000 design drawings, China is to build AP1000 as a Chinese domestic CAP 1400 design with follow on CAP 1700 design. The technology for China’s CAP 1400 is based on the advanced Generation III+ AP1000 pressurised water reactor (producing a net 1154 MWe) that was introduced into China by Westinghouse  Toshiba Group and multinational Shaw Group. President Obama’s nuclear technology transfers was a key part of the AP1000 deal with China. China soon will move beyond CAP 1400 MWe to develop a CAP 1700 MWe version of the technology while the U.S. is phasing out nuclear energy in favor of useless 1990s alternative renewable energy funding. U.S. nuclear technology has allowed China to acquire the key Generation III+ nuclear technologies necessary to build 3ed Generation reactors. Chinese target construction nuclear reactor cost is $1000/kW.

Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) - In the U.S., several fast-neutron reactors have been designed, and five of them have achieved operation. There has also been one U.S. Navy application of a liquid-metal reactor. The principal provision of the electricity-generating U.S. Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) advanced nuclear reactor is its inexhaustible, domestic, non-fossil, fuel supply. U.S. IFR provides revolutionary improvement in the all important areas of nuclear power fuel efficiency, safety, waste, and non-proliferation. In 2009, President Obama’s administration transferred U.S. IFR technology from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) nuclear reprocessing project to China, along with the Westinghouse AP1000 Generation III+ design and construction drawings.  

DOE’s Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR) program combined with GE’s Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM) as the preferred reactor technology is to be used with the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program. In the decade from 1984 to 1994, scientists at Argonne National Laboratory developed advanced IFR technology that promised safe nuclear power unlimited by used nuclear fuel (UNF) supplies, with UNF waste product sharply reduced both in radioactive lifetime and amount.  

As part of the ALMR program, a January 1994 review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published "Preapplication Safety Evaluation Report for the Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM) Liquid-Metal Reactor," concluded that “no obvious impediments to licensing the PRISM design had been identified.” However, by 1994, left Democrats had decided to shutdown U.S. nuclear energy and made the long-term U.S. energy-transformation commitment to the under performing "alternative renewable green energy" that left Democrats are still promoting.  With GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy PRISM reactor less than five years from commercialization, the ALMR-PRISM/IFR program was terminated later in 1994 by the Clinton administration.  Thus, in the 1990s left Democrats roundly rejects science because it contradicted basic social assumptions of the left socialist movement.  The commitment to hydrocarbon energy was cast in 1994 for the 2050-2099 CE human races termination.       

Fast breeder reactor technology, such as the shutdown U.S. IFR program, is very advanced nuclear technology. Virtually every major country with a nuclear power program: India, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea even, are aiming to transition to breeder reactors and a closed fuel cycle (i.e. no long-lived nuclear waste).  

IFR offer the prospect of vastly more efficient use of uranium resources. IFR is one form of fast-reactor technology (metallic fuel with pyroprocessing), but there are others - inferior, according to the IFR scientists.  Some 400 reactor-years experience has been gained in operating 20 Fast Neutron Reactors have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some supplying electricity commercially.  Generation IV reactor designs are largely Fast Neutron Reactors.  

Currently, used nuclear fuel (UNF) is safely stored in pools of water or in dry casks at U.S. nuclear plant sites. However, 95% of the material in UNF is considered untapped energy that could still be used to generate electricity. PRISM provides a viable means of closing the nuclear fuel cycle by recycling components of UNF.  The 1994 Clinton administration terminated ALMR-PRISM/IFR program that is intended to recycle UNF and reduce operating cost of nuclear electrical generation.

Some left Democrats tie the nuclear fuel cycle to the start of making material for nuclear weapons. This is not the case.  UNF material reprocessing are many processes and materials removed from what is needed for nuclear weapons profanation. Case in point.  Iran has announced they have produced their first nuclear fuel rod. However, Iran making weapons grade material is a very different process than the process and materials used for making a nuclear fuel rod used for electrical generation.        

The important thing these days is to get the U.S. back into a leadership role in the development and management of nuclear power, recognizing that recycling in fast reactors is necessary if the long-lived waste is to be consumed, and if the full energy potential of the uranium fuel cycle is to be fully exploited.  

Nuclear Reactor Costs - In 2009, the published cost for four AP1000 reactors (1000 MWe pressurized water reactor) under construction in China was a total of $8 billion.  As more Chinese reactors are built, costs of follow on nuclear reactors is expected to be less.  April 2008, U.S. Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle, GA, at an estimated final cost of $14 billion plus $3 billion for necessary transmission upgrades. Long-term costs of U.S. left Democrats’ anti-nuclear energy politics are huge (about 425% greater U.S. costs per constructed nuclear unit than that of Chinese costs).    

American and German huge costs in the nuclear industry result from untoward political overhead, over regulation, state and federal labor laws, and litigation.  In spite of the fact that America and other industrialized nations prosper with cheap energy, U.S. politicians refuse cheap clean nuclear energy to favor political special interest funding of expensive not working "alternative renewable energy."  It is European-U.S. politicians who control developed nations’ energy costs and it is the politicians who are increasing rise of global warming temperature.  

Prior to 2020 CE, if Europe and U.S. are to engage in saving human races, they are to now look to look to China for contracting construction of a very-large number of affordable AP1000, CAP 1400, and CAP 1700 Chinese nuclear reactors within Europe and U.S.A.       

Used Nuclear Fuel (UNF) Management - After 12-24 months use in a reactor, nuclear fuel is removed because of the build up of fission products and elements that absorb neutrons that would otherwise take part in the nuclear reaction.  Used nuclear fuel is stored and may ultimately be disposed. With large cost savings, UNF can also be reprocessed to separate the uranium and plutonium from the waste products so that the uranium and plutonium can be recycled to make new fuel (this is a reference to above DOE Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program).  

When removed from a reactor, a fuel bundle will be emitting both radiation, principally from the fission fragments, and heat. Used nuclear fuel (UNF) is unloaded into a storage pond immediately adjacent to the reactor to allow the radiation levels to decrease. In the ponds the water shields the radiation and absorbs the heat.

Used fuel can be stored safely in these ponds for long periods. 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. Depending on policies in particular countries, some used fuel may be transferred to central storage facilities.

There are two alternatives for spent nuclear fuel:

➲ Reprocessing to recover the usable portion of it -- Reprocessing of spent fuel occurs at facilities in Europe, Japan and Russia with capacity over 5000 tonnes per year and cumulative civilian experience now at 90,000 tonnes over almost 40-years.
➲ Storage and final disposal without reprocessing -- The longer used fuel is in interim storage the easier it is to handle, due to the progressive diminution of radioactivity. There is also a reluctance to dispose of used fuel because it represents a significant energy resource which could be reprocessed at a later date to allow recycling of the uranium and plutonium.  For more than 40-years there have been many studies to determine the optimum approach to the disposal of used nuclear fuel, as well as wastes from reprocessing. 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. Even after the vitrification process, nuclear material can be retrieved for further processing.  The general consensus favours container placement into deep geological repositories, initially recoverable. Many geological formations such as granite, volcanic tuff, salt, or shale are suitable for geologic nuclear repositories.  

Yucca Mountain - U.S. President George W. Bush gave the go-ahead for the Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear waste repository in 2002. Despite the 2002 Senate approval of the repository site, the future construction of a repository at Yucca Mountain was subjected to the vagaries of left Democrat untoward anti nuclear politics.  However, Yucca Mountain geologic nuclear repository construction is now "shovel ready" to receive long-term storage of high level nuclear waste, but Yucca Mountain has been discontinued by the nuclear left Democrat political cabal.

The political cabal of President Obama, the left Democrat Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and National Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Jaczko on October 1, 2010 instructed NRC staff to stop work on completing the 2002 CE Congressional mandated Yucca Mountain application to the NRC. The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) estimates that about $9 billion has been spent on Yucca Mountain so far. A railway connection needs to be built.  State politics and opposition-group litigation against Federal nuclear projects remains a concern for Yucca Mountain opening and for other Federal/state nuclear projects.  

2008-2011 “Stimulus” - Left Democrats “stimulated” the economy with an expensive ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009) that included over $90 billion in unproductive alternative renewable energy investments.  Note that the Yucca Mountain project funding is paid for by nuclear utility companies and not the Federal government.  It appears that most of ARRA stimulus funding was arranged to feed government funds to left Democrats supporters and voter districts with very little stimulus of U.S. capitalism.  

GERMANY  

Electricity prices paid by German households are to rise more than 20% by 2020 CE as Chancellor Angela Merkel pushes to remove her German nuclear energy.  In June 2011, a nuclear exit by 2022 CE became German law.  With the ‘Nuclear Exit Law’ (or Atomic-Exit Law), Chancellor Merkel and her SPD-Green Party put into place the ending all of Germany’s reliance on nuclear energy.  German unworkable “renewables” would have to generate an incredible/impossible 42.4% of German’s electricity in 2020 to compensate for Green Party displaced nuclear energy.  Germany's plan to shut all its nuclear power plants by 2022 CE will add up to 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually as the country turns to increasing fossil fuels used for its economy.

The real intent of Chancellor Angela Merkel push to shutdown her German nuclear energy is counter-productive to stopping global warming temperature increase. Chancellor Merkel is honoring promises to the socialist German Green Party to shut down German nuclear energy (no matter the costs) and remain dependent upon growing German’s union based hydrocarbon economy.   

U.S.A.

There are no carbon dioxide emission estimates for the U.S. socialist/communist left Democrat’s phase-out of nuclear facilities.  Nor are there hydrocarbon estimates for President Obama’s “national energy plan.”  There are no estimates that identify President Obama’s long-term costs for his U.S. nuclear energy phase-out.  The October 1, 2010 nuclear cabal’s closure of Yucca Mountain nuclear geologic repository has no long-term energy impact summary. There is no U.S. global warming response plan. There is no U.S. energy planning, only limited responses to energy crises.

A U.S. nuclear repository is necessary for America's nuclear fuel cycle and is an integral part of American energy needs, nuclear electrical generation, and national defense programs, which satisfies defense needs and also global greenhouse gas reductions goals.  The current blocking of nuclear energy and political increased risk-to-nuclear-investment, with increased costs in U.S. nuclear power, prevents new nuclear reactor construction.  Well into the 21st Century, lack of a Yucca Mountain Repository long-term storage development has profound implications for U.S. nuclear base-load electricity generation availability and a functioning U.S. nuclear fuel cycle.  

A global ideological effort is at play to impose a radical climate social agenda on the developing world at the behest of left Democrat “green” environmentalist groups.  Obama’s White House as stated in December 12, 2011, that "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA 2009] also included over $90 billion in clean energy investments."  None of President Obama's planning or funding involves addressing global warming temperature increase.  None of Obama’s invested alternative energy $90 billion has or will produce any reduction in greenhouse gases or reduction in global warming temperature or improve national security, health, or safety.  President Obama and congressional Democrats/Republicans have engaged in a massive waste of green-energy funding that accomplish no benefits and is counter productive to reducing global warning temperature increase.

Reporting of Global Warming - All U.S. government departments are now under direct control of President Obama and department functions and reporting are influenced by those favored by left Democrats. U.S. government department reporting is politically manipulated and now is untrustworthy.  U.S. universities and colleges who are subject to federal or state funding are therefore very subject to following the direction of special interests politics, even science reporting must adhere to prevailing political dogma. Because U.S. and European media reporting is now intertwined with politicians’ retention of power corruption, and nationalist agendas - major media and internet reporting also can no longer be trusted. U.S. global warming temperature recovery effort is in a spiral of assured human life destruction.  

CANADA

December 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol to not be held accountable for global warming greenhouse gases resulting from access to Canadian Athabasca Oil Sands and Keystone XL synthetic crude oil pipeline project.  The environmental and global warming issues of reducing oil sand to synthetic crude oil is not well understood by the public.  

Long-term concerns about about Keystone XL pipeline siting or a leak in the pipeline are not real major environmental issues.  Nor will stopping construction of the pipe line decrease the amount of oil used within the U.S. Nor does stopping Keystone XL project reduce oil consumed around the world.  U.S. political opposition to the north-south Keystone XL access to Canadian Athabasca Oil Sands has more to do with international foreign exchange agreements keeping U.S. dependent upon importing Mid East foreign oil at around 20% of domestic use.  

Resulting from OPEC's 1970s oil crisis was a U.S. commitment to purchase OPEC oil at increased prices.  That is why the Obama administration is now committed to keeping the U.S. energy dependent upon foreign resources.   Buying Canada’s Keystone XL oil and developing nuclear energy cuts into U.S.A. diplomatic Mid East oil purchase obligations.   Reasons enough to reject Canada’s Keystone XL oil.   

Once a footnote in the story of world oil production, Canada's oil sands are part of the solution to declining conventional oil reserves elsewhere in the world. Canada has over 170 billion barrels of oil recoverable with today's technology, making it second only to Saudi Arabia as an oil resource country. There are an estimated 2.5 trillion barrels of bitumen in the Canadian resources and it is possible to produce 2.5 million barrels of oil per day for over 200 years. That is more than enough to supply all of Canada's needs and make a significant contribution to America, China, and other oil importers for generations to come. Canadian oil sands will long outlast the survival of Earth’s humans.  

The Keystone XL Pipeline System is a pipeline system to transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta, Canada to multiple destinations in the United States.  Synthetic crude is an intermediate product produced when an extra-heavy or unconventional oil source is upgraded into a transportable form. Synthetic crude is then shipped to U.S. and Canadain oil refineries where it is further upgraded into finished products.  Alberta's tar sands are one of the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world. Production from them is expected to grow strongly, but could be limited by the amount of greenhouse gases emitted when using hydrocarbon heat extraction during synthetic crud extraction and bitumen processes.

Oil sands exploration incorporates both mining ("conventional" methods) and in-situ (“non-conventional”) production methods. Mining of the oil sands involves excavation of the bitumen-rich sand using open pit mining methods. This is the most efficient method (ie, least costly) of extraction when there are large deposits of bitumen with little overburden. In-situ methods involve processing the oil sand deposit so that the bitumen is removed while the sand remains in place. These methods are used for oil sands that are too deep to support surface mining operations to an economical degree. 80% of the resource in Northern Alberta lies deep below the surface.  

Open pit strip mining remains the main extraction method, but two in situ techniques are likely to be used more in future: cyclic steam stimulation and steam-assisted gravity drainage. These methods inject steam into the formation to heat the bitumen, allowing it to flow and be pumped to the surface or extracted from Canadian Athabasca Oil Sands.  The heating extraction process releases massive amounts of global warming gases.   

Free of greenhouse gas nuclear power could make steam and electricity and use some of the electricity for high-temperature electrolysis for hydrogen production while extracting sand oil.  One proposal from Energy Alberta suggested that a single Candu 6 reactor configured to produce 75% steam and 25% electricity would replace 6 million cubic metres (220  terajoule (TJ)) per day of natural gas and support production of 175-200,000 barrels per day of oil. It would also save the emission of 3.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.  A 600 MWe capacity nuclear reactor could supply a processing plant producing 60,000 barrels of synthetic crude oil per day. Hence almost 20 such reactors would be needed to meet the production growth planned, when Canadian oil output from tar sands is forecast to reach three million barrels per day. Smaller reactors (perhaps even GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy PRISM reactors), with capacities of some 100 MWe, could be more suitable for individual projects, given the limitations of supplying steam over more than 25 km.

Problem with any proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the steam extraction process is that the process increases the oil cost per barrel.  The selling of “alternative renewable energy” is the left Democrats’ stated U.S. national energy policy.  Therefore, U.S. left Democrats, President Obama, anti-nuclear groups, and “environmentalist” oppose both completing the Keystone XL pipeline and also oppose using clean nuclear energy in the oil extraction process.  With the left Democrats locked into conflicting unreasonable energy policies, there will be no timely U.S. political responses to U.S. need for energy self sufficiency or to curbing global warming temperature increase. Therefore, U.S. oil energy prices and global warming greenhouse gas emissions are to continue to increase.

LARGE SCALE DESALINATION

Resulting from increased populations and increased global temperature, there is now chronic groundwater over drafting occurring. Very large scale potable water desalination projects will be needed to meet the world’s future fresh water needs.  Desalination is one of the few ways to "create" FRESH WATER.

How much energy does desalination require? The most efficient (reverse osmosis based) desalination plants consume about 5 kWh of energy per cubic metre of fresh water produced.  Desalination efficiencies can be improved over time.

Large-scale desalination typically continuously uses extremely large amounts of energy as well as specialized, expensive infrastructure, making it very costly compared to the use of fresh water from conventional sources such as rivers or groundwater.  The world's largest desalination plant that uses hydrocarbon energy is the Jebel Ali Desalination Plant (Phase 2) in the United Arab Emirates. A number of factors determine the capital and operating costs for desalination: capacity and type of facility, location, feed water, labor, energy, financing, and concentrate disposal.  Desalination makes sense only if you are running out of water and after less expensive options are exhausted, including recycling water, fixing broken infrastructure, and implementing aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) water resources management.

There is certainly enough seawater, but how much energy does it take to convert seawater to potable water?  The “low” water use scenario uses 34 GWe of electrical power worldwide, to provide 10% of the world’s water needs by desalination. For comparison, global electricity generation in 2005 averaged 2100 GWe constant generation. That is, with the “low” water use scenario the entire world population can have 10% of its water needs met by desalination with less than 2% of the world’s present day electrical energy. The “maximum” water use scenario requires over four times the world’s average electrical power generation (8400 GWe) generated in 2005, but this is an extreme upper bound.  

Very large scale desalination is a viable way to extend fresh water resources if hydrocarbon energy is not used to power desalination facilities. Even the “low” water use scenario that uses 34 GWe of electrical power worldwide adds a intolerable amount of global warming gases to an already greenhouse gas saturated atmosphere.  Future and current large scale desalination facilities need to be powered with clean nuclear powered electrical generation.  

2012 GLOBAL WARMING POLITICAL RESPONSES

Without clean nuclear energy, global warming temperature increase is accelerating and shall cross +2 oC limit 2030-2040 CE.  

Bottom Line - For the last two decades resulting from politicians’ clean energy goals and planning, there has been only massive increases in atmospheric global warming greenhouse gases. Soon, very soon, humans exceed a global warming point of no return. The rate of Modern Global Warming temperature increase is about 10 times faster than that experienced during 252.28 Ma End-Permian Mass Extinction.  Unless nuclear ‘change’ happens very soon, the Modern Global Warming Mass Extinction commitment occurs and human races are extinguished 2050-2099 CE.      

Science defines the global warming issues while it is up to the politicians to effectively respond to global warming temperature increase.  There is little doubt that over the last two decades current European and U.S. politicians have destroyed possibilities to save human races from global warming temperature increase.

It is the responsibility of politicians to act upon the fact that we will get a very different climate change with an global warming increase when exceeding +2 oC limit.  A +2 oC increase is too large and is actually a prescription for global disaster.  Recognizing that politicians will exceed the limit, scientist have identified requirements to make exceeding +2 oC limit a temporary event. Solutions that prevent end of humans 2050-2099 CE are available, but must be acted upon quickly.        

Deploying a large number of nuclear reactors might produce necessary timely clean energy production required by 2020 CE.  

Rational scientific thinking is not part of the U.S. political decision process.  To communicate with politicians about global warming you must first threaten them with loosing their jobs. You and your neighbor should ask your election campaigning politician what he/she is doing about saving the lives of everyone now under the age of 30 years.