Tag: Nuclear Debate

2022 Scientific Breakthrough

The ‘Holy Grail’ for scientist has been the search for ‘fusion’ reactor and the 2022 big news is that finally a breakthrough by some brainiacs in California….

But is it all that and a bag of chips?

There was great hoopla—largely unquestioned by media—with the announcement this week by the U.S. Department of Energy of a “major scientific breakthrough” in the development of fusion energy.

“This is a landmark achievement,” declared Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Her department’s press release said the experiment at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California “produced more energy from fusion than the laser energy used to drive it” and will “provide invaluable insights into the prospects of clean fusion energy.”

“Nuclear fusion technology has been around since the creation of the hydrogen bomb,” noted a CBS News article covering the announcement. “Nuclear fusion has been considered the holy grail of energy creation.” And “now fusion’s moment appears to be finally here,” said the CBS piece.

But, as Dr. Daniel Jassby, for 25 years principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab working on fusion energy research and development, concluded in a 2017 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, fusion power “is something to be shunned.”

Fusion. Really?

Some are saying do not believe the hype.

In a dramatic scientific and engineering breakthrough, researchers at the Bay Area’s Lawrence Livermore National Lab recently achieved the long-sought goal of generating a nuclear fusion reaction that produced more energy than was directly injected into a tiny reactor vessel. By the very next day, pundits well across the political spectrum were touting that breakthrough as a harbinger of a new era in energy production, suggesting that a future of limitless, low-impact fusion energy was perhaps a few decades away. In reality, however, commercially viable nuclear fusion is only infinitesimally closer than it was back in the 1980s when a contained fusion reaction – i.e. not occurring in the sun or from a bomb – was first achieved.

While most honest writers have at least acknowledged the obstacles to commercially-scaled fusion, they typically still underestimate them – as much so today as back in the 1980s. We are told that a fusion reaction would have to occur “many times a second” to produce usable amounts of energy. But the blast of energy from the LLNL fusion reactor actually only lasted one tenth of a nanosecond – that’s a ten-billionth of a second. Apparently other fusion reactions (with a net energy loss) have operated for a few nanoseconds, but reproducing this reaction over a billion times every second is far beyond what researchers are even contemplating.

Nuclear Fusion:  Don’t Believe the Hype!

So my question is….was this the ‘big’ story that it was hyped up to be?

Any thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Iran And Nukes And Sanctions

The news is that the new president, Joe Biden, will return to the nuke deal with the Iranians……but what will all that mean after the gutting of a deal from the Trump clowns?

Iran has stated that they will return to the table as soon as the US does….

Reiterating his desire to return to the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday that Tehran could come into compliance with the agreement within an hour of the US doing so.

Rouhani also said that Iran would not accept any preconditions for returning to the deal, known as the JCPOA, including limitations on Iran’s ballistic missile program.

(antiwar.com)

The IAEA has said to return to the Nuke deal would require a new agreement…..

The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog told Reuters in an interview published on Thursday that a new agreement would be needed to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.

Over the past year, Iran began gradually violating its commitments to the JCPOA, a response to the US unilaterally withdrawing from the deal in 2018 by reimposing sanctions. Iran’s president and other officials insist these violations are easily reversible and that Iran can quickly come back into compliance in exchange for sanctions relief. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seems to disagree.

“I cannot imagine that they are going simply to say, ‘We are back to square one’ because square one is no longer there,” Rafael Grossi told Reuters. “There is more (nuclear) material, … there is more activity, there are more centrifuges, and more are being announced. So what happens with all this?”

…

Iran’s public stance on the deal is that they will not negotiate any new arrangements with Washington until the US lifts sanctions and returns to its commitments under the JCPOA. For his part, Joe Biden has said he plans to work with Iran to return to the JCPOA and then negotiate a follow-on deal on top of it. Biden’s plan seems like it could be acceptable with Tehran, but Grossi’s comments are a sign of the complications ahead.

(antiwar.com)

Will the sanctions against Iran be rolled back by the Biden Admin.?

According to a report from Reuters, the incoming Biden administration will continue to use sanctions as a foreign policy weapon, a favorite tool of President Trump.

Sources told Reuters that when Joe Biden is inaugurated on January 20th, he will immediately begin to reshape US foreign policy but will take time to deliberate over sanctions on top targets like China and Iran.

The report raises questions about Biden’s Iran policy. The former vice president has said he plans to work with the Islamic Republic to return to the 2015 nuclear deal, which would require the US to lift sanctions.

…

The report said Biden will sort through the Trump administration’s sanctions to decide what will be kept in place and what could be lifted. The sources said that while his strategy might be slightly different, Biden will make it clear that sanctions are still on the table.

“It won’t be a pullback or a push forward,” one source close to Biden’s transition team told Reuters. “It will be a readjustment in the use of the sanctions tool.”

Some changes Biden could make, according to the sources, are lifting sanctions on the International Criminal Court that the Trump administration slapped on over the court’s investigation of US war crimes in Afghanistan. Biden could also increase sanctions on Russia for its alleged role in the poisoning of Alexei Navalny.
(antiwar.com)

This will be an interesting test for the Biden policies…..I think he will try hard to make his own way….but will it succeed?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Can We Talk Nukes?

Closing Thought–30Jul19

Nukes for Iran….Nukes for North Korea….nukes for the Saudis…..plus the nations that already have a cache of nukes…US, India, Pakistan, Russia, China,UK, France, Israel……

So how about putting the issue of nukes on the table for these debates?

Don’t you―as stand-ins for the American people―think it might be worthwhile to ask the candidates some questions about how best to avert a global catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude?

You mass media folks lead busy lives, I’m sure. But you must have heard something about nuclear weapons―those supremely destructive devices that, along with climate change, threaten the continued existence of the human race.

Yes, thanks to popular protest and carefully-crafted arms control and disarmament agreements, there has been some progress in limiting the number of these weapons and averting a nuclear holocaust. Even so, that progress has been rapidly unraveling in recent months, leading to a new nuclear arms race and revived talk of nuclear war.

Do I exaggerate? Consider the following.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/29/dear-moderators-pre

Not to worry for these candidates will not face any demanding questions like nukes…instead the MSM will give them softball questions to answer and the higher in the polls the softer the questions.

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Saudis And Nukes

If it is Tuesday….then it must be the Middle East…….

Recently the Trump admin announced that the kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be getting nuclear energy (thanx to special deals made with MbS by Jared)……I have been writing against this happening

https://lobotero.com/2018/02/27/nukes-in-the-middle-east/

https://lobotero.com/2019/03/05/saudis-nuclear-dream/

Of course the Saudis did what they ALL do…..claim that they will run out of oil soon and will need an alternative…….

Recent media reports have drawn a lot of attention to Saudi Arabia’s nuclear energy ambitions and US nuclear diplomacy toward Riyadh. This explainer provides context and background information in order to better understand the dynamics at play. 

Saudi Arabia is interested in the development of a nuclear power programme to meet growing electricity demand and to diversify its energy sources. Riyadh has outlined plans to construct up to 16 large nuclear reactors over the course of 20 to 25 years to provide the kingdom with 17 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2040. Riyadh started soliciting proposals for the construction of two reactors in November 2017 and has been in talks with Russia, China, France, South Korea and the United States. The official tender should be launched in early 2020.

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/2019/04/saudi-arabia-nuclear-energy-programme

The one thing that got me laughing the loudest was their statement that “they will need to meet a growing electricity demand”….and nukes will provide for that demand…….

Seriously?

Think about that for a moment. (pause here for contemplation)

How much sunshine does the peninsula get yearly? How about the winds from the desert? Maybe think about tidal cycles.

The US needs to act like a global leader and start encouraging these countries off nukes and toward renewables……

Instead of straining to control these programs, or even facilitating them, the U.S. should encourage less risky, cheaper, clean non-nuclear alternatives.

The case for nuclear power in the Middle East has never been strong. First, the national electrical systems there are relatively small. Put large amounts of electricity (nuclear or non-nuclear) on their grids and you risk overloading them and causing blackouts. This is particularly worrisome for nuclear reactors whose safe operation depends on a steady, external supply of electricity to run their coolant and safety systems (think Fukushima).

Second, because large reactors can be used to make nuclear explosive materials, they’re prime military targets. Iran, Israel, and the United States each attacked Iraq’s Osirak reactor (Israel successfully). Iraq bombed Iran’s Bushehr reactor. Egypt and Iraq targeted Israel’s Dimona reactor. Israel successfully bombed Syria’s reactor at Al Kibar, and, more recently, the Iranian-backed Houthis claimed they fired missiles at the UAE’s nuclear reactors. Any such strikes risk radiation releases and rattling even the strongest of regimes to its roots (think the Soviet Union’s political meltdown, catalyzed, in no small part, by Chernobyl). There is also the danger of insider and cyberattacks that could result in catastrophe.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2019/05/09/no-one-in-the-sun-and-gas-soaked-middle-east-needs-nuclear-power/

An excellent idea!

Too bad we have NO ONE with the brains or the balls to implement this.

North Korea: As The Date Draws Near

June 12, 2018 is the date for the new efforts to make the Korean Peninsula nuke free…Trump is suppose to meet Kim in Singapore…..but there may be a snag seems that both leaders are pushing back at each other as the date draws near……

North Korea is ratcheting up its threats—and potentially inching away from the table. After canceling high-level talks with South Korea planned for Wednesday and warning the US it could cancel Kim Jong Un’s meeting with President Trump over joint military exercises between the US and South Korea, another wrinkle. The Guardian reports Pyongyang is adding to the list of things that could imperil the planned June 12 summit: A statement released by KCNA on Wednesday says the North would bow out if the US maintains its “one-sided demand for us to give up our nukes.” The report quotes first vice minister of foreign affairs Kim Kye Gwan, and the New York Times has the statement in full. More on what it says, and reaction to it:

  • The statement references the “so-called Libya mode of nuclear abandonment” on more than one occasion, saying US comments about complete denuclearization amount to “a manifestation of awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq which had been collapsed due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers. … It is absolutely absurd to dare compare [North Korea], a nuclear weapon state, to Libya which had been at the initial state of nuclear development.”
  • Time addresses the Libya angle, explaining the fact that Moammar Gadhafi “was toppled with US backing despite acquiescing to demands to denuclearize has long been a thorn in US efforts to reach a deal with North Korea—one likely sharpened by Trump’s recent decision to nix a hard-fought denuclearization deal with Iran.”
  • Reuters notes the statement also offered harsh words about US national security adviser John Bolton, who has been promoting a Libya-style denuclearization. “We shed light on the quality of Bolton already in the past, and we do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him,” it read, with Reuters recalling North Korea having called Bolton “human scum” when he worked for the Bush administration.
  • At the Times, Gerry Mullany sees “a pattern by the unpredictable regime,” and outlines five other times when North Korea “did a sudden about-face.” Read them here.
  • A senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists offers his take to the Guardian: “The North Koreans know how to make an explicit threat. By their standards, this is pretty circumspect. It could very well be a play for additional leverage or to see how the Trump team reacts.”
  • At Time, Korea expert Professor Stephan Haggard echoes that but sees a second possibility: That Kim has “gotten cold feet—they just want an out.”
  • As for the South, Yonhap reports South Korea Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “held emergency phone talks Wednesday in a show of solidarity against North Korea’s renewed brinkmanship.” The Guardian reports the joint US-South Korean military exercises, codenamed Max Thunder, started Friday and will continue.

The theater of the absurd continues….a tit for tat…..each trying to out tat the other……but how could a denuclearization be achieved?

The Brookings has a plan……

The recent news about the upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un on June 12 in Singapore is exciting and encouraging. It would not have seemed remotely possible a year ago—or even six months ago. Back then, war seemed much more likely. It is impossible to know whether the decision to hold a summit is primarily due to Kim’s newfound confidence in his missile and nuclear capabilities, or his fear of Trump’s military threats, or a result of the pain his country has endured from U.N.-imposed economic sanctions, which have cut North Korea’s external trade in half. Perhaps the charm offensives that Kim, Trump, President Moon, and Secretary Pompeo have been showering on one another led to the summit. In truth, it is probably some combination of most of those factors.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/14/a-step-by-step-plan-for-denuclearizing-north-korea/

The point is that if people are waiting for an instant “art of the deal” moment then they will be sadly mistaken.

Time will tell.

The Art Of The Deal

WE have seen or heard the the president will meet with Kim in Singapore in June to discuss the denuclearzation of the Korean Peninsula….but in light of his, Trump, decision to bow out of the Iran nuke deal what must North Korea be thinking?

Why bow out?  What could the real reason be for the decision……

Donald Trump doesn’t hate the Iran deal because it is a bad deal. He hates it because it is by all accounts a decent deal that has actually been working.

If you doubt this statement, ask yourself: What sensible argument has Trump ever offered to support his opposition to the deal? Sure, he has used his ever-expanding and descriptive vocabulary to call it some grandiose names, but he hasn’t actually explained what is wrong with it.

If the deal is so bad, why would he even want to bother pursuing a deal with North Korea? What deal could he possibly make that wouldn’t involve an arrangement similar to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? (We will turn to this point in a moment).

http://theantimedia.com/why-trump-abandoned-iran-nuclear-deal/

Sounds logical…..

A thought about the Iran Deal……

So, he did it. Trump announced on 8 May that he would reimpose sanctions against Iran. This is a breach of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed by President Obama with Iran, the UK, Germany, France, Russia, the EU and China in 2015. The other signatories may now scramble to do what they can to salvage the deal, but it is likely that Iran will simply turn its back on it.

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/middle-east/2018/05/donald-trump-ending-iran-nuclear-deal-outbreak-organised-stupidity

That aside what are the chances that the nuke deal can be saved….not by the US but by the European nations.

A couple of thoughts……

Despite months of E3-US negotiations to avert an unnecessary crisis over the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump has declared a hard exit from the nuclear agreement. The decision demonstrates that the US has decided that confrontation with Iran is both necessary and inevitable, regardless of what European allies think. The US administration looks set to increase tensions with Tehran and promote an implosion of Iran’s economy in ways that significantly increase risks of greater military escalation in the Middle East. Moreover, in the coming weeks, United States looks set to lead an economic and political assault on European interests.

The E3 should now acknowledge that its negotiating tactic of accommodation and comprise with Trump has failed. If Europe is to have any influence forthcoming US policy on Iran, European governments should quickly shift tack, unifying behind a more assertive diplomatic strategy aimed at deterring the worst-case scenario of renewed Iranian nuclear program and more instability and violence in a region close to its borders.

http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_after_trump_iran_decision_time_for_europe_to_step_up

A group that I have worked with in the past also has an idea and they think that Europe can fill the void left by the US……

Why does it matter? U.S. withdrawal from the deal might kill it instantly; more uncertainty over the deal’s fate might suffocate it, as opinion in Tehran is turning against it. Iran could cancel the deal; target the U.S. or its Middle East-ern allies; or leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – all exacerbating the regional turmoil.

What should be done? Europe should develop a plan B to keep Iran party to the deal regardless of what the U.S. does on 12 May. This plan should include short- and medium-term measures to build trade with Iran, contingent upon verification of continued Iranian compliance with the deal and additional re-forms.

https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iran/185-how-europe-can-save-iran-nuclear-deal

I wish them luck in their endeavor……

But will the talks go forward at all?  Who will be the first to derail these talks?

President Trump is supposed to have a historic meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un next month—but now North Korea, angry over joint military exercises between the US and South Korea that started Friday, is threatening to cancel it. The Korean Central News Agency called the Max Thunder drills between the South Korean and US air forces that are taking place in South Korea over a period of two weeks “an intentional military provocation running counter to the positive political development on the Korean Peninsula,” per Yonhap News. The KCNA said high-level talks with South Korea planned for Wednesday were canceled, per the Hill, and that “the United States will also have to undertake careful deliberations about the fate of the planned North Korea-US summit in light of this provocative military ruckus jointly conducted with the South Korean authorities.”

The USA just could not stop the muscle flexing…….

Aerial combat drills involving US and South Korean warplanes are riling North Korea, whose state media referred to the exercises as a “provocative military ruckus.” North Korea has responded by postponing some high-level talks with South Korea set for Wednesday in the DMZ.

North Korea’s statement also admonished the US to “undertake careful deliberations about the fate of the planned North Korea-US summit.” North Korea submitted a notice to South Korea on the Wednesday postponement, but the US State Department says they’ve received nothing suggesting a change in summit plans.

The Kim-Trump summit has been confirmed for June 12 in Singapore, and US officials say there is no sign that this sudden increase in tensions is in any way putting that in jeopardy. The talks are expected to focus chiefly on denuclearization.

(antiwar.com)

It would be a great day if this deal can be preserved….any deal that minimizes or eliminates nuclear weapons is a good deal….In my book.

Closing Thought–25Sep17

Over the weekend North Korea’s Li’l Kim has threatened to explode an H bomb over the Pacific…..

Tensions between the US and North Korea continue to escalate. First the leader of the former threatened to wipe out the latter. Then Kim Jong Un followed up by calling Trump a “mentally deranged US dotard,” and Trump capped that off with a new warning Friday, tweeting that Kim “will be tested like never before!” But the North this week also suggested a move that goes beyond words—and could lead to a “lot of dead fish”: detonating a nuclear bomb a few hundred miles over the Pacific Ocean, per Reuters. North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho dropped hints on a South Korean news channel (his own apparent musings, not official word from Kim) that the North may conduct “a historic aboveground test of a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean,” per the Wall Street Journal.

Yang Uk, a Korea Defense and Security Forum researcher, tells Reuters that North Korea “may be bluffing”—or seeking an excuse, like Trump’s words, for a test. The last time a nation experimented with an atmospheric detonation was in 1980, when China did so. MIT professor Vipin Narang says such a move would be “provocative” and, if anything goes awry, a possibly “world-changing event.” Radioactive fallout would be a danger—though Narang says it may not be so bad if the detonation took place high enough—as would the effects of electromagnetic pulses. A US missile analyst tells the Journal North Korea could also pack a hydrogen bomb on a ship and set it off in the sea. (Here’s what “dotard” means.)

This juvenile chest thumping has got to cease….if these two cannot find a way to tone down this rhetoric then I say put them in a ring and let them fight until one goes down for the 10 count (think of the cash that could be made with pay-per-view).

You know that in a decade this situation will become a case study on diplomacy.

Yes, We Have A Treaty

Nope, has little to do with the two egocentric leaders that met just a couple of days ago……very little……

There was news that was lost during the Putin/Trump meeting……news that would have been the talk of the town if it had occurred a few days earlier or later…..

For decades presidents and world leaders have been trying to ban nuclear weapons…..while the two major leaders were massaging each other the rest of the world did something about all these WMDs.

Those who want to rid the world of nuclear weapons can celebrate a milestone at the UN Friday—122 nations backed the first global treaty to ban them. The big caveat? The nine nations known to have a nuclear arsenal, including the US, boycotted the negotiations, reports the Guardian. So what’s the point? Advocates say they hope that once the treaty is in force—which will formally happen when 50 nations ratify it later this year—the nations that currently have nukes will eventually come around.

‘Starting point’: “We don’t expect them to sign the treaty right now, but it’s a good starting point for changing perceptions,” Beatrice Fihn of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons tells the New York Times. Indeed, the treaty includes language that would allow nuclear weapons states to join, reports the AP.

  • The treaty: See the 10-page treaty here. Those who sign it promise not to develop, test, manufacture, or possess nuclear weapons. Nor would they allow any nuclear arms to be stationed within their borders.
  • The vote: Of those nations that took part in the negotiations, 122 voted in favor and only one—the Netherlands, which has nuclear weapons from the US on its territory—voted against. Singapore abstained.
  • US objection: “We have to be realistic,” said Nikki Haley, the American ambassador to the UN, earlier this year. “Is there anyone who thinks that North Korea would ban nuclear weapons?”
  • All in favor: At National Geographic, Ari Beser assesses the pact and thinks it’s long overdue. He channels Winston Churchill, saying that while this might not be the end of the age of nuclear weapons, “it is the end of the beginning of the battle to rid Earth of this terrible scourge.”
  • The 9 nations: 24/7 Wall St ranks the nine nations with nukes, ranging from No. 1 Russia, with 7,000 warheads, to No. 9 North Korea, with 10 to 20. The US is No. 2 with 6,800 warheads.

Reagan was working to this end….Carter was working to this end…..few others in leadership tried to bring about this ban with little success…..personal thought….this will not fly with the Trump cabal…..

Wonder how this will play in the news?

Nuclear Power Is Losing Money

I try not to be a one trick pony meaning I try not to post on only one subject….I feel my readers would like an extended view of what is happening in the world these days.

For the past couple of elections there has been a solution to our energy problem….nukes.  It has been debated and debated but this time it is not so important because of fracking.

And now it looks like Nuclear Power may have been on its last leg…..

Half of existing nuclear power plants are no longer profitable. The New York Times and others have tried to blame renewable energy for this, but the admittedly astounding price drops of renewables aren’t the primary cause of the industry’s woes — cheap fracked gas is.

The point of blaming renewables, which currently receive significant government subsidies, is apparently to argue that existing nukes deserve some sort of additional subsidy to keep running — beyond the staggering $100+ billion in subsidies the nuclear industry has received over the decades. But a major reason solar and wind energy receive federal subsidies — which are being phased out over the next few years — is because they are emerging technologies whose prices are still rapidly coming down the learning curve, whereas nuclear is an incumbent technology with a negative learning curve.

Source: Nuclear Power Is Losing Money At An Astonishing Rate | ThinkProgress

Should we continue to explore this as an energy source even to the point of a bail-out…..a solution that many do not like……what should we do?

Iran: Let’s Make A Deal–Part 2

Holy crap!  As I was listening to foreign news I was completely awaken by the announcement that a deal has been made between P5+1 and Iran on the nuke negotiations……..

After 18 days of intense and often fractious negotiation, diplomats declared today that world powers and Iran have struck a landmark deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from international sanctions—an agreement designed to avert the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and another US military intervention in the Muslim world. The accord will keep Iran from producing enough material for a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years and impose new provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites.

The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was reached after more than two weeks of furious diplomacy, during which negotiators blew through three self-imposed deadlines. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and US Secretary of State John Kerry, who conducted most of the negotiations, both threatened to walk away while trading accusations of intransigence. The breakthrough came after several key compromises, diplomats say, including the continuation of a UN arms embargo on the country for up to five more years and an agreement to allow UN inspectors to press for visits to Iranian military sites as part of their monitoring duties.

Now we can have the Right go batcrap crazy!

This should move foreign policy to the forefront of the 2016 election circus for the GOP…..that way they do not have to talk about domestic problems of which they have NO answers……..

And I wait!