Monday, June 27, 2005
Department of Looney Tunes: Plutonium Redux
I can think of almost nothing worse than this in terms of establishing America's credentials as a bastion of responsible scientific research. Where the hell are the demonstrators against the "culture of death" when we really need them?
Get this:
You might want to brush up on your understanding of plutonium from Theodore Gray's engaging summary. The plutonium batteries which the article describes are not the same as these -- which are basic NiMH batteries used in radio-controlled racers (cars), simply bearing the brand name "Plutonium Batteries." Rather, these are so-called "radioisotope power systems," or RPS. The alphabet-soup-heavy environmental impact statement for the Department of Energy's proposal outlines the history of Pu238 production in the US and why they seek to consolidate all production facilities in Idaho Falls: security. (The Idaho Falls facility is heavily secured, and by consolidating all production at one location the security issues associated with transporting the plutonium are, presumably, minimized.)
While it's a few months out of date, this Snake River Alliance page describes many of the concerns Idaho residents have about the project (despite the tenor of the NYT article, which almost implies that Idahoans are just fine with it -- it's those nutty Wyomingers who are causing all the trouble).
And here's the DOE's own statement of potential environmental hazards (from the environmental impact statement):
I've had enough dealings with governmental bodies in my personal and professional life to know one thing: these institutions are monumentally stupid when it comes to recognizing their own fallibilities. Once "studies" are instituted, projects take on a life of their own, and this surging-forward inertia feeds back into the study in all kinds of insidious (albeit implicit) ways. The feeling seems to be, Hey, we've invested so much in studying the solution it scarcely makes sense not to implement it!
If I were living anywhere within a hundred miles of Idaho Falls, you can bet I'd already be making plans to relocate -- regardless of whatever action I was taking otherwise to stop the freaking DOE/Idaho Falls train.
As an off-topic aside, I almost lost a mouthful of Diet Coke at this:
Update, 7:20 pm: For a different point of view on the NYT piece, penned by an informed insider, see Cheryl Rofer's post at WhirledView. Ms. (Dr.?) Rofer is a chemist, with special interests in "international environmental projects, nuclear and strategic issues." An early version of this update referred to it as "an opposing point of view" -- which, as you can see, is not quite the case; the WhirledView post is actually quite nuanced.
Get this:
Project managers say that most if not all of the new plutonium is intended for secret missions and they declined to divulge any details. But in the past, it has powered espionage devices.What, you may wonder (as I did), would plutonium be used for national-security reasons without involving nuclear arms, satellites, or weapons in space? The answer comes a little further down:
"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Timothy A. Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the Energy Department, said in a recent interview.
He vigorously denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space.
Federal and private experts unconnected to the project said the new plutonium would probably power devices for conducting espionage on land and under the sea. Even if no formal plans now exist to use the plutonium in space for military purposes, these experts said that the material could be used by the military to power compact spy satellites that would be hard for adversaries to track, evade or destroy.It's going to be a tough world. Got that? This may be needed. Technologically, the plan makes sense -- even if on few other levels.
"It's going to be a tough world in the next one or two decades, and this may be needed," said a senior federal scientist who helps the military plan space missions and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the possibility that he would contradict federal policies. "Technologically, it makes sense."
You might want to brush up on your understanding of plutonium from Theodore Gray's engaging summary. The plutonium batteries which the article describes are not the same as these -- which are basic NiMH batteries used in radio-controlled racers (cars), simply bearing the brand name "Plutonium Batteries." Rather, these are so-called "radioisotope power systems," or RPS. The alphabet-soup-heavy environmental impact statement for the Department of Energy's proposal outlines the history of Pu238 production in the US and why they seek to consolidate all production facilities in Idaho Falls: security. (The Idaho Falls facility is heavily secured, and by consolidating all production at one location the security issues associated with transporting the plutonium are, presumably, minimized.)
While it's a few months out of date, this Snake River Alliance page describes many of the concerns Idaho residents have about the project (despite the tenor of the NYT article, which almost implies that Idahoans are just fine with it -- it's those nutty Wyomingers who are causing all the trouble).
And here's the DOE's own statement of potential environmental hazards (from the environmental impact statement):
- Potential impacts on ecosystems, including air quality, surface, and groundwater quality, and plants and animals.
- Potential health and safety impacts to on-site workers and to the public resulting from operations including reasonably foreseeable accidents.
- Potential health and safety, environmental, and other impacts related to the transport of radioactive materials to the consolidation location.
- Considerations related to the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes including the potential acceptability of waste at appropriate disposal facilities.
- Potential cumulative impacts of Pu-238 mission operations, including relevant impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities at the consolidation site.
- Potential impacts on cultural resources.
- Potential socioeconomic impacts including any disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations.
- Pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities.
New plutonium facilities [at the Idaho Falls National Laboratory] would take five years to build and cost about $250 million, Mr. Frazier said. The operations budget would run to some $40 million annually over 30 years, he said, for a total cost of nearly $1.5 billion.So to recap: a national security need for this stuff has been identified now. (Currently, any Pu238 we're using is leftovers handed to us by the Russians, and there are evidently only a few pounds of it left.) This timetable -- assuming an unlikely scenario in which anything to be built by the government actually meets its target date -- will have us churning out plutonium eight years from now, which we will continue to do until around 2043, producing in the process not just the very-important-to-our-security plutonium batteries but also "51,590 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste." And of course once the reactor gets cranking, how feasible (given the $1.5 billion estimated lifetime investment) will it be, politically, to turn it off?
An existing reactor there would make the plutonium. Mr. Frazier said the goal was to start production by 2012 and have the first plutonium available by 2013. When possible, Mr. Frazier said, the plutonium would be used not only for national security but also for deep-space missions...
I've had enough dealings with governmental bodies in my personal and professional life to know one thing: these institutions are monumentally stupid when it comes to recognizing their own fallibilities. Once "studies" are instituted, projects take on a life of their own, and this surging-forward inertia feeds back into the study in all kinds of insidious (albeit implicit) ways. The feeling seems to be, Hey, we've invested so much in studying the solution it scarcely makes sense not to implement it!
If I were living anywhere within a hundred miles of Idaho Falls, you can bet I'd already be making plans to relocate -- regardless of whatever action I was taking otherwise to stop the freaking DOE/Idaho Falls train.
As an off-topic aside, I almost lost a mouthful of Diet Coke at this:
...Jackson Hole, famous for its billionaires, celebrities and weekend cowboys, including Vice President Dick Cheney.Weekend cowboy indeed. Would that he limited that instinct to weekends!
Update, 7:20 pm: For a different point of view on the NYT piece, penned by an informed insider, see Cheryl Rofer's post at WhirledView. Ms. (Dr.?) Rofer is a chemist, with special interests in "international environmental projects, nuclear and strategic issues." An early version of this update referred to it as "an opposing point of view" -- which, as you can see, is not quite the case; the WhirledView post is actually quite nuanced.
