[NukeNet] [no-new-nukes-yall] More on PU Shortage and NASA Missions

[Dolph Honicker]

  Please scroll down and read Kay Cumbow's message first.
 
What do they mean run out of plutonium?  As long as nuclear plants operate, each reactor is producing plutonium.  GNEP plans to start reprocessing again.   How much plutonium is at SRS now, since they have started taking it all there from Hanford, Rocky Flats, and elsewhere, even some we bought from Russia, remember?  
 
Think of all the plutonium in spent fuel pools and dry casks storage,  and with 104 operating reactors in the U.S. and more in the pipeline and on the drawing board, they will never run out of plutonium.  Mr. Wyka stated at the first hearing in North Augusta in February at the  Bomplex, (Complex Transformation) hearing that there are 10,000  (plutonium) pits at Pantex, and 20 more are being built at Los Alamos  every year.  You all know that a pit is the core of an apple and of a nuclear bomb.  So, where are they getting the plutonium to build 20 more "pits" per year which NNSA is currently doing? 
 
Oh yes, the Bombplex EIS has four options, one of which they call " Distributed Centers of Excellence Alternative"  " Main decisions are related to plutonium pit production:  - Upgrade facilities at Los Alamos (2 upgrade options up to 80/pits/year or 125 pits/year)"
or - "Build a new facility (125 pits/year) at either Los Alamos, Nevada Test Site, Pantex, SRS, or Y-12 (Oak Ridge)"   
 
Then there is the "Consolidated Centers of Excellence Alternative", which would consolidate plutonium pit production at one or two sites.  Still there is production. No numbers were given in the handout from which I am quoting.  
 
The "No Action Alternative" is to continue doing what they are doing now (20  new  pits per year at Los Alamos) with other work on the bombs at all 8 sites.  
 
The forth option is called "Capability-Based Alternative," which would have a capacity of approximately 50 weapons/year.  
 
So, none of the four options is to  cease making nuclear bombs and to follow the mandates of the Non-Proliferation  Treaty that mandates that all nuclear weapons states reduce their nuclear arsenals to zero in return for non nuclear states abstaining from building these weapons of mass destruction.     
 
If you want to read the Supplemental Draft EIS before you respond, try www.complextransformationspeis.com
 
 
The GAO has reported that Bombplex, (Complex Transformation) will cost $150 billion.  How would you rather that money be spent?  Fair question to answer in your response.
 
The bigger question is, why do we need to build even one more pit or one more bomb?  What are the political implications of even having this proposal to build more nuclear weapons?  We have approximate 10,000 nuclear bombs now with about 6,000 "deployed" and the remainder on "standby".  That's in addition to the 10,000 pits at Pantex  plus the new ones that are being produced now at Los Alamos.  
 
What will be the environmental implications if even one more nuclear bomb is ever used?  All out nuclear war?  The end of life on earth as we know it?  Nuclear winter?   (The DOE's answer to Global Warming?  After all they are promoting Nuclear Power plants as the answer to global warming.  This is a logical conclusion.)
 
Remember we have until April 10 to respond..  In case you have misplaced the mailing address, and want to respond now while you are thinking about it,  or wish to forward this to someone who may not have gotten an earlier notice, here it is again:
 
Put: "Complex Transformation, Draft Supplemental Programmatic EIS(SPEIS)" in your subject line.
 
Mail by snail mail to:
 
Mr. Ted Wyka, NNSA
Office of Transformation NA-10.l
1000 Independence Ave. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
 
or by email to complextransformation at nnsa.doe.gov.
 
of by fax to 1-703-931-9222

 
Jeannine
 
 
 


To: no-new-nukes-yall at yahoogroups.comFrom: kcumbow at greatlakes.netDate: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 11:16:13 -0500Subject: [no-new-nukes-yall] More on PU Shortage and NASA Missions




Looking at the positive...Of course, what an opportunity, to run out of plutonium for further space missions! It is an enormously expensive fuel, with huge ramifications, both in the production and also in case of accidents on the launch out (or the way back in, if there is miscalculation or intended return.)  - KayPlutonium Shortage May Thwart Future NASA Missions to Outer Planets By Brian BergerSpace News Staff Writerposted: 6 March 20081:58 pm EThttp://www.space.com/news/080306-nasa-plutonium-shortage-fin.htmlThis story was updated at 4:15 p.m. EST, March 7. __._,_.___ 
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic 
Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar 

 Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe 


Recent Activity


 1
New MembersVisit Your Group 


Y! Messenger
Send pics quick
Share photos while
you IM friends.

Moderator Central
Yahoo! Groups
Join and receive
produce updates.

Yahoo! Groups
w/ John McEnroe
Join the All-Bran
Day 10 Club.
. __,_._,___ 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20080309/18c8ac70/attachment.html