Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire - Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry. Nuclear Activities
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, November 2011
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, November 2011
Israel's Former Intelligence Chief Seeks To Avert An Israeli Attack On Iran's Nuclear Facility
Israel's Former Intelligence Chief Seeks To Avert An Israeli Attack On Iran's Nuclear Facility
Union of Concerned Scientists is concerned about Davis-Besse reactor building
Union of Concerned Scientists is concerned about Davis-Besse reactor building
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Project Provides Coastal Power Plant Environmental Stewardship Blueprint
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Project Provides Coastal Power Plant Environmental Stewardship Blueprint
French propose new 'hard core' approach to nuclear safety
French propose new 'hard core' approach to nuclear safety
Fukushima-like accident can be avoided at Kudankulam:A P J Abdul Kalam
Fukushima-like accident can be avoided at Kudankulam:A P J Abdul Kalam
Editorial: Think globally on clean energy
Editorial: Think globally on clean energy
An alarming increase in global CO2 emissions makes clear the need to plan for a cleaner future.
Va. North Anna restart decision likely this week-NRC
Va. North Anna restart decision likely this week-NRC
MIT Energy Finance Forum
MIT Energy Finance Forum
Friday, November 18 at the MIT Media Lab
Register Here: http://mitenergyfinanceforum.
The necessity to go deeper and further for oil, controversies surrounding shale gas extraction, the future of nuclear power in a post-Fukushima world, the fate of renewable energy in the face of political uncertainty. This year’s MIT Energy Finance Forum will explore these and other tensions in the energy space on Friday, November 18 at the MIT Media Lab, 75 Amherst Street in Cambridge, MA.
Now in its second year, this forum will gather industry professionals, senior business executives, academics, and students from the area’s leading schools for panel discussions and networking opportunities. Speakers include Venrock Managing General Partner Ray Rothrock, NuScale Power Chief Executive Officer Dr. Paul Lorenzini, Former US Representative Bob Inglis, MIT Sloan School of Management Senior Lecturer Dr. John Parsons, AIG Chartis Executive Vice President - Project Finance Advisory Services Bob Percopo, and many more. For more information or to register for the conference, please visit: http://mitenergyfinanceforum.
Register before tickets sell out! Early bird discounts end Friday, November 11!
Friday, November 18 at the MIT Media Lab
Register Here: http://mitenergyfinanceforum.
The necessity to go deeper and further for oil, controversies surrounding shale gas extraction, the future of nuclear power in a post-Fukushima world, the fate of renewable energy in the face of political uncertainty. This year’s MIT Energy Finance Forum will explore these and other tensions in the energy space on Friday, November 18 at the MIT Media Lab, 75 Amherst Street in Cambridge, MA.
Now in its second year, this forum will gather industry professionals, senior business executives, academics, and students from the area’s leading schools for panel discussions and networking opportunities. Speakers include Venrock Managing General Partner Ray Rothrock, NuScale Power Chief Executive Officer Dr. Paul Lorenzini, Former US Representative Bob Inglis, MIT Sloan School of Management Senior Lecturer Dr. John Parsons, AIG Chartis Executive Vice President - Project Finance Advisory Services Bob Percopo, and many more. For more information or to register for the conference, please visit: http://mitenergyfinanceforum.
Register before tickets sell out! Early bird discounts end Friday, November 11!
COST OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM IN DISPUTE from Secrecy News
COST OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM IN DISPUTE
In the last few weeks, members of Congress have presented radically different estimates of the cost of the U.S. nuclear weapons program. The disparate estimates, which vary by hundreds of billions of dollars, reflect a lack of consensus about how to properly assess the cost of nuclear weapons.
"The U.S. will spend an estimated $700 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next ten years," according to an October 11 press release from Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). Citing that estimate, which was based on an analysis by the Ploughshares Fund, Markey and 64 other Democratic members wrote to the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose a cut of $200 million in spending on nuclear weapons.
But Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said last week that the entire nuclear weapons budget for the next ten years is only about $214 billion. He said that the cuts proposed by Democrats would therefore "amount to unilateral and immediate nuclear disarmament by the United States" with "catastrophic impacts to our national security and global stability."
In his own letter to the Super Committee, Rep. Turner, chair of a House Armed Services Subcommittee, cited November 2 testimony from Administration officials including Thomas D'Agostino of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), who said that "The 1251 report [on nuclear force structure] makes clear that the total for the Department of Defense and NNSA will cost approximately $200 billion over the next 10 years, not the $600 billion or so that some are claiming."
That seemingly authoritative statement might have settled the issue -- but it did not, according to Stephen I. Schwartz of the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
"Here's the fundamental problem: No one in the government knows exactly how much has been spent or continues to be spent on nuclear weapons because there is not and has never been a unified, comprehensive budget to monitor all their costs across departments and agencies and over time," said Mr. Schwartz, an author of several studies on nuclear weapons spending.
The nominal budget for nuclear weapons, said Mr. Schwartz, "excludes a number of very expensive and critical programs that make the nuclear arsenal usable, including overhead and support costs; most research and development costs for delivery systems and support equipment; all costs for tactical nuclear weapons; airlift and sealift costs for strategic and tactical nuclear weapons programs; most centralized command, control, communications programs associated with nuclear weapons; all intelligence programs that support the nuclear weapons mission; and some training costs."
To remedy the ambiguity in nuclear budgeting, Mr. Schwartz proposed that Congress enact a new framework for financial transparency and accountability in the nuclear weapons program. In principle, he said, such a framework should appeal to political leaders and analysts of all persuasions.
"If Congress (and the interested public) had a clear understanding of what it costs to sustain the nuclear arsenal, or of, for example, the annual expenditures required to secure vulnerable nuclear materials in the United States and overseas, we could have a rational and logical discussion about the costs and benefits of these programs."
"Unfortunately, we do not, which means that rhetoric and assumptions will most likely replace facts when it comes to making important decisions about the future of US nuclear security spending," he wrote in a recent paper. See "Building Budgetary Transparency and Accountability for the US Nuclear Weapons Program" by Stephen I. Schwartz, September 8, 2011.
In the last few weeks, members of Congress have presented radically different estimates of the cost of the U.S. nuclear weapons program. The disparate estimates, which vary by hundreds of billions of dollars, reflect a lack of consensus about how to properly assess the cost of nuclear weapons.
"The U.S. will spend an estimated $700 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next ten years," according to an October 11 press release from Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). Citing that estimate, which was based on an analysis by the Ploughshares Fund, Markey and 64 other Democratic members wrote to the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose a cut of $200 million in spending on nuclear weapons.
But Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said last week that the entire nuclear weapons budget for the next ten years is only about $214 billion. He said that the cuts proposed by Democrats would therefore "amount to unilateral and immediate nuclear disarmament by the United States" with "catastrophic impacts to our national security and global stability."
In his own letter to the Super Committee, Rep. Turner, chair of a House Armed Services Subcommittee, cited November 2 testimony from Administration officials including Thomas D'Agostino of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), who said that "The 1251 report [on nuclear force structure] makes clear that the total for the Department of Defense and NNSA will cost approximately $200 billion over the next 10 years, not the $600 billion or so that some are claiming."
That seemingly authoritative statement might have settled the issue -- but it did not, according to Stephen I. Schwartz of the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
"Here's the fundamental problem: No one in the government knows exactly how much has been spent or continues to be spent on nuclear weapons because there is not and has never been a unified, comprehensive budget to monitor all their costs across departments and agencies and over time," said Mr. Schwartz, an author of several studies on nuclear weapons spending.
The nominal budget for nuclear weapons, said Mr. Schwartz, "excludes a number of very expensive and critical programs that make the nuclear arsenal usable, including overhead and support costs; most research and development costs for delivery systems and support equipment; all costs for tactical nuclear weapons; airlift and sealift costs for strategic and tactical nuclear weapons programs; most centralized command, control, communications programs associated with nuclear weapons; all intelligence programs that support the nuclear weapons mission; and some training costs."
To remedy the ambiguity in nuclear budgeting, Mr. Schwartz proposed that Congress enact a new framework for financial transparency and accountability in the nuclear weapons program. In principle, he said, such a framework should appeal to political leaders and analysts of all persuasions.
"If Congress (and the interested public) had a clear understanding of what it costs to sustain the nuclear arsenal, or of, for example, the annual expenditures required to secure vulnerable nuclear materials in the United States and overseas, we could have a rational and logical discussion about the costs and benefits of these programs."
"Unfortunately, we do not, which means that rhetoric and assumptions will most likely replace facts when it comes to making important decisions about the future of US nuclear security spending," he wrote in a recent paper. See "Building Budgetary Transparency and Accountability for the US Nuclear Weapons Program" by Stephen I. Schwartz, September 8, 2011.
Jaczko Explains Yucca Shutdown and Discouraging License Applicant
By Rod Adams, November 8, 2011
On November 3, 2011, Thalia Assuras of EnergyNow conducted an extended interview with NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko regarding Yucca Mountain, used fuel storage, the lengthening process of getting a license from the NRC, the reasons why nuclear license applicants are getting discouraged, and the possibility that the courts might direct the NRC and the DOE to complete the process of licensing the Yucca... » Continue...
On November 3, 2011, Thalia Assuras of EnergyNow conducted an extended interview with NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko regarding Yucca Mountain, used fuel storage, the lengthening process of getting a license from the NRC, the reasons why nuclear license applicants are getting discouraged, and the possibility that the courts might direct the NRC and the DOE to complete the process of licensing the Yucca... » Continue...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)