Hearing set in challenge to Los Alamos building

[jpak]

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MKA1HO0.htm

A watchdog group is going to court in its attempt to halt a multibillion-dollar plutonium building at Los Alamos National Laboratory until the government does an environmental study.

The Los Alamos Study Group wants a preliminary injunction to prohibit all further funding of the Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility.

U.S. District Judge Judith Herrera will hear arguments from the organization and the U.S. Department of Energy on April 27 in Albuquerque.

The group's lawsuit, filed last August, alleges the Energy Department and its National Nuclear Security Administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act by preparing to build the facility without a new environmental impact statement.

<more>

[madokie]

1. Why do we need more plutonium anyway

8000 some odd bombs worth isn't enough or what?
rec

[jpak]

2. But they are OLD bombs you see - not bright and shiny new ones

and besides it's all a State Secret anyway

so don't ask any silly questions

they know better

yup

[PamW]

3. We don't and we haven't....

Why do we need more plutonium anyway
=====================================

We don't and we haven't made any new plutonium in decades.

However, in order to maintain reliability and safety of the nuclear weapons,
they have to be serviced and refurbished as you would certainly wish that
your airline would do for the airliner you are going to fly on.

If the CEO of United said he was closing down all of United's maintenance facilities
because he wanted to save money, and some reporter asked about the safety of United's
planes. Suppose the CEO said, "Those planes were certified safe by Boeing when they
left the Boeing factory". Would you accept that as an assurance of United's safety?

Of course not. Anyone knows that airliners are machines and have to be properly maintained
in order to continue to be safe.

Likewise, nuclear weapons are machines, and it is the job of Los Alamos and its sister labs
Lawrence Livermore and Sandia along with the DOE production complex facilities like Pantex
to maintain the safety of those weapons.

http://www.merrick.com/images/uploads/project_sheets/2982.pdf

Congress made the ratification of the recent START Treaty conditional on the
"modernization" of the nuclear weapons complex ( the "Kyl Amendment" ). The CMMRR at
Los Alamos and a new facility for uranium at Oak Ridge's Y-12 complex are part of the
modernizations negotiated during the START Treaty ratification.

PamW

[txlibdem]

4. +1

But trying to use logic and common sense with anti-nukes is like trying to open a combination lock using only your knees. It may be possible but the outcome is doubtful.

[madokie]

5. Have you ever tried using either

So far I've not seen it around here if you have :-)

[txlibdem]

6. Thank you for proving my point (n/t)

[madokie]

7. You're delusional if you think I proved your point

[kristopher]

8. Nuclear Weapons Proliferation is a Major Problem with deploying Nuclear Fission

The rhetorical hoops our "altruistic" nuclear fission proponents engage in to minimize the major, unsolvable obstacle of associated nuclear weapons proliferation is beyond belief - literally. There is simply no basis in my experience where people who claim to embrace altruistic values are simultaneously able to argue that the spread of nuclear weapons is either acceptable or good.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x277176
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x276183

[txlibdem]

9. Not with Thorium cycle, perfected in 1968, abandoned because you CAN'T make bombs with it

Whoops! You just lost one more boogie-man.

[kristopher]

10. Cost, waste, safety AND proliferation all have to be solved in ONE design.

France, Russia, Japan, Canada, S.Korea, and the US are all competing to produce reactors to sell around the world. And yet, none of them are marketing this miracle solution that was "perfected in 1968".
That's a bit odd, don't you think?

Thorium is just another link in the endless circle-jerk of technologies that fission lovers use to try and pick the public's pocket.

But what do you care anyway? According to you every country should have its own nuclear arsenal. Since that is your stated belief why would you try to pretend that thorium is something desirable?

[txlibdem]

11. Supply and demand

In my energy plan we would have either 30% or 40% nuclear, which means that the 100 year projected supply of Uranium dwindles to 50 years or less. The cost of Uranium fuel will eventually reach as high as the cost of using coal as fuel. That's not a good sound business decision, it's jumping from one undesirable fuel to another.

Had you read my entire post you would surely have read the part where I say Thorium cycle reactors and only mass produced small reactors or larger reactors made from all mass produced parts.

Cost, waste, proliferation and safety all in ONE design... check.

It's funny that you would be the one to use the term for a circle of men all gratifying each other. It reminds me of your tiny yet vocal gang of anti-nuke posters always pumping your posts and vice-versa (no pun intended). Pot calling the daffodil... (PS, I'm the daffodil).

[kristopher]

12. What reality are you in possession of that these actual suppliers are not?

They are the ones coping with reality.

You are promoting a fantasy designed to make it appear that nuclear fission can deliver in a way that is impossible.

If there were a solution perfected in 1968 it would be on the market now instead of being a fissionophile's pipe-dream.

[txlibdem]

13. reread my post, then reread it again

That may help you find your mistake. Good hunting.

[PamW]

15. Another design that does it all it Argonne's IFR

Cost, waste, proliferation and safety all in ONE design... check.
--------------------------------

Another design that does it all is Argonne's IFR:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?

A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.

It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.


Additionally, the fact that IFR spent fuel is impossible to make into a nuclear weapon was
certified by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the two nuclear weapons design
labs in the USA. The IFR is the only fuel cycle with such a certification by an actual
nuclear weapons design laboratory. ( That doesn't mean others can't get theirs certified too )

PamW

[Nihil]

14. Yep, I can see that would be dangerous ...

> ... a multibillion-dollar plutonium building ...

Seeing all the fuss going on about dust-sized amounts of plutonium on the other
side of the planet, I'm really surprised that even LANL thought they'd get away
with making an entire building out of it ... Do they think that no-one watches
the news or something? Damn ivory-tower scientisty people ...

:hide: