about nuclear energy

Nuclear is the smallest footprint C02 emissions free energy source on our planet . . . It's time WE reclaim nuclear technology!

We support Green Energy 100%. Its success requires continual research just as any large production method of electricity generation. It has to achieve cost competitive productivity and sustainability by:

• Efficient Solar • Clean Coal • Efficient Wind
• Clean Nuclear • Efficient Tidal • Clean Natural Gas

“Think About It” We cannot energize our future by demonizing our energy of the past or demonizing our energy of the future. Thus, coordinating, cooperating and integrating all forms of energy generation is the only way to “solve” our growing energy needs. Most of us establish “our opinion” about topics based on only a small percentage of the subject matter of the dialogue. In the context of “energy”, the “players” are naturally engrossed in their specialty, be it wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, coal, tidal, natural gas, etc.

Our challenge to the science and engineering community is to maximize the cost efficiency of “energy generation” to a wholesale production cost of 4¢ to 8¢ per kilowatt hour. The only way “we” can compete with worldwide industrial manufacturing is to reduce our energy costs at ALL levels nationwide.

Knowledge of the cost effective value of energy must become a “national initiative” in public education and through grassroots educational foundations like USNEF. We urge you to get involved for our future and our children's children's future. Industry cannot educate the grassroots public. “We” have to become more accountable for our “self” knowledge of worldwide events and direction.

In 1983, Dr. Bernard L. Cohen proposed that uranium is effectively inexhaustible, and could therefore be considered a renewable source of energy. For those of us today who continue to believe this proposal, we must continue to propose this to the ENERGY COMMUNITY!

Dr. BERNARD L. COHEN: 1924-2012: Was Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh. He has been a staunch opponent to the so called Linear no-threshold model (LNT) which postulates that there is no safe threshold for radiation exposure.

Cohen has written six books, including Heart of the Atom (1967), Concepts of Nuclear Physics (1970), Nuclear Science and Society (1974), Before It's Too Late (1983), and The Nuclear Energy Option (1990). He has also written about 135 research papers on basic nuclear physics, about 200 scientific papers on energy and environment (e.g. nuclear power, health effects of radiation, radioactive waste, risks in our society), and about 60 articles in popular magazines such as National Review, Oui, Science Digest, Catholic Digest, and American Legion Magazine.

Cohen has received the American Physical Society Tom Bonner Prize (1981) for his nuclear physics research. He was also elected to Chairman of the A.P.S. Division of Nuclear Physics (1974–75).For his research on energy and environment, Cohen received the Health Physics Society Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award, the American Nuclear Society's Walter H. Zinn Award (1996),[7] Public Information Award, and Special Award. He was also elected to membership in National Academy of Engineering, and to Chairman of the American Nuclear Society Division of Environmental Sciences (1980–81). In 1983, Cohen proposed that uranium is effectively inexhaustible, and could therefore be considered a renewable source of energy.

(Dr. Cohen was scheduled as our first speaker in 2007 when his doctor declined his travel request. We sadly removed him from our contact list after learning of his passing.)

Dr. ERNEST TREMMEL lives in Washington, D.C., for about eight months each year, also maintains a part-time business, Ernest B. Tremmel Inc., through which he is a nuclear energy consultant for a number of clients. As a result, he is a Capitol Hill regular. “I go along with our companies' lobbyists and explain energy to the senators and congressmen,” he says. At 94, Tremmel says there's not much chance he'll slow down.

He graduated from Aquinas High School in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, and enrolled at UW-Madison. From 1941 to 1973, Tremmel's career traces the history of U.S. nuclear physics. When he graduated from college in 1941, in the midst of The Great Depression, he was so eager to take a job that he skipped commencement ceremonies. He worked for just two months as a draftsman for Curtiss-Wright Corporation, a St. Louis company that built essential war products. Then he joined the Army Corps of Engineers, first helping supervise the construction of the $90 million St. Louis Ordinance Plant.

By then, the United States had entered World War II and Tremmel joined the Corps of Engineers Manhattan District. He began working in Wilmington, Delaware, as a control engineer. At the time, the corps' Wilmington office administered contracts with the E.I. duPont de Nemours Company to construct the Clinton Engineering Works (later the X-10 research reactor at Oak Ridge, Tennessee) and to construct and operate a plutonium production plant in Hanford, Washington. Tremmel directly assisted the area engineer in establishing and organizing the Wilmington office and administering its contracts. He also was responsible for the Wilmington office's and outside contractors' role in the controlled materials plan and the Manhattan priority program.

In 1945, he was temporarily assigned to the office of Gen. Leslie Groves, who directed the Army Corps of Engineers Manhattan Project (the country's endeavor to build an atomic weapon before Germany or Japan did). The government gave him a telephone number and didn't tell me the name or where I would be working. When Tremmel arrived in CA, he found the Calexico Engineering Works. Tremmel's role was to help negotiate and expedite procurement of parts for the atomic bomb, which was being developed at a secret facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico. “The purpose was to ship all of the parts to Los Angeles, then at night, Navajo Freight Lines would take the parts to Los Alamos to assemble the first atomic bomb,” he says.

Eventually, Tremmel moved to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to pursue peaceful applications of nuclear energy. He worked first in the AEC Chicago office, where he helped Argonne National Lab and other contractors obtain a variety of reactor-related materials and supervised government contracts for research and development in research, biology, medicine and reactor development. He became deputy manager of the AEC Cincinnati office before establishing and becoming manager of its Hartford, Ct., office. That office held a contract with Pratt and Whitney Aircraft to develop a nuclear-propelled aircraft.

Following a few years as special assistant to the AEC commissioner in Washington, he spent the last 12 years of his career as director of the AEC Office of Industrial Participation, which bolstered the commission's participation with U.S. industrial organizations and helped to strengthen competition in private enterprise in the atomic energy field.

We mourn the loss of Theodore Rockwell, who passed away peacefully in his home on March 31, 2013, predeceased by his wife of close to 65 years Mary Juanita Compton Rockwell and his eldest son Robert C. Rockwell. He is survived by his children W. Teed Rockwell, Lawrence E. Rockwell and Juanita C. Rockwell, along with granddaughters Cyrena Rockwell and Angela Cescati, and great-granddaughter Viviana Cescati.

The family will celebrate his life at 3 p.m. on August 17, 2013, at Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church, 1 Chevy Chase Circle, Washington, DC.

In lieu of flowers, tax deductible donations may be made to Montgomery Hospice (www.montgomeryhospice.org) or given towards his documentary on the life of Admiral Rickover, made out and sent to: Public Media Lab, 5508 Surrey Street, Chevy Chase, MD 20815, noting "Friends of Ted Rockwell."

TED ROCKWELL: has over 60 years of experience in nuclear technology, and is a founding officer of the engineering firm MPR Associates, Inc., and of Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc., an international public interest group addressing the question of radiation science and policy. During World War II, Rockwell worked at the Manhattan atomic bomb project in Oak Ridge, Tenn. From 1949-1964 and also at the Naval Reactors headquarters, the last 10 years as Technical Director of Admiral Rickover's program to build the nuclear Navy and the world's first commercial atomic power station at Shippingport, Pennsylvania.

Ted Rockwell was given Distinguished Service Medals by the Navy and by the US Atomic Energy Commission, and the first "Lifetime Contribution Award, henceforth known as the Rockwell Award," by the American Nuclear Society. Rockwell holds several patents, including one listed in "a selection of [27] landmark US atomic energy patents from all the patents issued to date." He was the only non-medical member of the Advisory Group on the National Artificial Heart Program (1966) and a member of the Advisory Council, Princeton University Department of Chemical Engineering (1966-72). From 1965 to 1968, he served as Research Associate with the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (in connection with nuclear proliferation research). Mr. Rockwell was also Chairman of the Atomic Industrial Forum's Reactor Safety Task Force (1966-72) and Consultant to the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy (1967).

Author/editorial projects include: The Reactor Shielding Design Manual, author of The Rickover Effect: How One Man Made a Difference, author of Creating the New World: Stories & Images from the Dawn of the Atomic Age, and co-author of Arms Control Agreements: Designs for Verification used in US-USSR talks at the White House. I co-authored The Shippingport Pressurized Water Reactor, selected as one of the 13 official U.S. presentation volumes at the 1958 Atoms for Peace Conference at Geneva.

Dr. ALAN WALTAR served as President of the 16,000 member American Nuclear Society (ANS) during 1994-1995. He was Professor and Head, Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University from 1998 to 2002. Alan served on the ANS Ethics Committee and has been a member of the CNF Advisory Committee since the 1980s. Alan has authored several books including Radiation and Modern Life and numerous technical papers. He was instrumental in the formation of the World Nuclear University Summer Institute (SI) and has served as a mentor and a member of its faculty for several years. Alan currently serves as consultant to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Sustainable Nuclear Power Initiative), the International Atomic Energy Agency (recent Chair of Nuclear Knowledge Management Working Group), the U.S. Department of Energy (Independent Review Group for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership), and several private nuclear firms. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Washington, an M.S. in nuclear engineering from MIT, and a PhD in engineering science from the University of California Berkeley.

Mr. VIC UOTINEN founded the Christian Nuclear Fellowship in 1976 and has served as the coordinator (director) of CNF activities since that time. Vic has served on the Executive Committees of two technical divisions of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) - the Reactor Physics Division and the Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Division. He also served three years on the ANS Special Committee on Ethics (which he chaired 2003-2004). During his career in the nuclear technology field, Vic worked for Battelle Northwest, Babcock & Wilcox, and Framatome (the predecessor of Areva), and published several journal articles and many technical papers on topics related to reactor physics, plutonium recycle and various other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. Now serving full-time as Director of Missions at his church, Vic still serves on the ANS Membership Committee. He earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in physics from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and also completed additional graduate studies at the University of Michigan (in physics) and the University of Washington (in nuclear engineering).

MIKE OLIVER Born in 1928 in Kaunas, Lithuania, both his parents were killed by the Nazis while his oldest brother was killed by the Communists, who preceded Hitler in occupying his homeland.During the Nazi years, Mike was imprisoned in the Kaunas Ghetto, and was later transferred to Camp 10 of the Landsberg-Kaufering Outer Camps of Dachau. Many of his friends perished there, but he was lucky to survive and be freed by U.S. troops.

In 1947, Mike immigrated to the US, and by 1948 enlisted in its Air Force for a five-year term. During that time, he attended evening university classes, studying physics, mathematics, and electrical engineering. In 1953, he was honorably discharged, and was hired by General Electric in New York as an engineer developing early warning radar systems.

In 1995, Mike wrote a 500-page treatise on the danger posed by so-called greens to the US economy and existence. Titled “Environmentalism Gone Berserk”, It was praised by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences, and President Emeritus of The Rockefeller University, and was well accepted by Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy (SE₂), of which he was a member for many years. SE₂ is no longer active, but included six Nobel Laureates in physics and one in chemistry. Founded by Professor Miro Todorovich, a renowned physicist himself, SE₂ included other world renowned physicists, Dr. Edward Teller, and Dr. Van Allen. Together with Dr. John Hospers, Professor Emeritus of the University of Southern California, Mike wrote articles on energy which were published in The Freeman, as well as The American Enterprise. The article in the latter magazine was published in September, 2001, two weeks before 9/11.

The nuclear energy industry worldwide has been wrongfully demonized by environmentalists, the media and ill-informed politicians for nearly half a century. No matter how much it is erroneously demonized to the public, it remains the safest, cleanest most economical high volume electrical generation known to mankind. America’s continued avoidance of nuclear power will be surpassed by China, India, Korea and other growing countries unless citizens, bureaucrats and business wake up to make nuclear energy a national renewable energy initiative. An industry we once owned, we let slip away because of political and social misconceptions. The appropriate statement is, what were we thinking?

Established in 1949 the Idaho National Laboratory is known as
United States’ National Nuclear Laboratory

Following is some data on the impacts of this national laboratory on the state of Idaho:

This data is represented by the following criteria: Goods and services purchased within the state; number of employees, income of employees, the tax revenue generated by the lab.

l The TOTAL impact generation is more than 3.5 billion annually.
l The lab boosts the Idaho personal income by 2 billion annually.
l It drives more than 24,000 jobs in the state.
l The lab DIRECTLY employ’s 7,000 to 8,000 people.
l The secondary employment caused by the lab is about 16,000 people.
l INL accounts for 6.5% of the statewide economic output.

Directly and indirectly the lab accounts for $135 million in personal income, corporate income and sales taxes paid to Idaho. The average wage for 8,000 employees is $80,000 annually. They expend 2.5 million to colleges for continuing education; charitable contributions of 3.3 million and employee donated hours are valued at 10 million.

The INL facility is the largest of the multi-program national laboratories with 890 Sq. miles of desert operations in rural eastern Idaho. INL is managed by Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) its primary activities are the Advanced Test Reactor Complex and the Materials & Fuels Complex. Educational attainment is high with employees well above state and national averages. The high educational nature of employees correlates to a highly paid workforce.

The Yucca Mountain Repository both as a permanent storage facility AND a potential reprocessing facility has the potential of exceeding such an economic impact by tenfold if the FOCUS is directed to technology diversification. We would urge the business community and citizens of Nevada to encourage our elected representatives to establish a non-partisan Nuclear Technology Commission to establish a safe economic feasibility study for a nuclear Nevada

Remember how we said that small businesses grow from big businesses, like nuclear companies? READ THIS!

Freshman Congressman Amodei is the only Nevada representative who believes that the Yucca Mountain Project should be open for discussion to include research, reprocessing and minimal storage. Science estimates that TOTAL consumption of waste fuels can be accomplished by fourth generation reactor designs within the next 100 years.

L to R Dr. Dennis Moltz, Dick Westrup, Gary Duarte, Congressman Amodei, Dana Allen, John Weiss

Although seldom documented, many nuclear technology advancements have continued over the past 30 years increasing safety, stability and economics. The greatest importance is to educate our citizens on these basics of nuclear as the most efficient carbon free energy source available to secure our future energy needs and accomplish energy independence.

The Case for Nuclear Energy
“A 2012 Initiative”

We believe that many of America’s economic problems are a result of “energy costs”. For many years our nation’s establishment politics and media have demonized nuclear power and it is time that our citizens appraise themselves of the science and engineering of nuclear technology instead of political and media rhetoric.

We are advocating that like-minded public organizations participate in this initiative by encouraging your members to review our publication:

“The Public-Private Case for Yucca Mountain”

RALPH M. HALL CHAIRMAN

Staff Report on Yucca Mountain Safety

YUCCA MOUNTAIN:
The Administration’s Impact on U.S. Nuclear Waste Management Policy
Executive Summary

“Other than the termination of the Department’s Super Conducting, Super Collider Project in Texas in 1998, we know of no comparable single project termination in the Department’s recent history as consequential as Yucca Mountain, given the importance of its intended mission, the massive investment in real and personal property and the development and compilation of huge quantities of Project-related, intellectual property.”

DOE Inspector General, July 2010

**********************************************************

“Energy costs are a critical factor of industrial manufacturing in ANY country”

Without new nuclear we will lose our ability to compete with industrial manufacturing worldwide.

Designing, engineering and building a major reprocessing facility is an absolute must!

**********************************************************

l Yucca Mountain is another prime example of bureaucratic collapse! Technological issues such as this are NOT going to be resolved without the involvement of the grassroots public, provided with sufficient information to arrive at logical conclusions.

l In all these years of the Yucca Project no one has been able to disprove the science and safety of the Yucca Mountain study. This proof positive is contained in the final DOE license application. Pulling this process for bureaucratic rather than scientific reason is a disservice to the American public.

l Our foundation is vetted and scrutinized by every entity and the people we contact mostly because, "we speak the TRUTH" aloud. Our society is so engrained in the requirement of "political correctness" that we sacrifice TRUTH and science for self-serving bureaucracy, continuing on a path of diminishing our morality.

l The knowledge "gap" between science, business, bureaucracy and the public is widening as our systems work to "normalize and average" intellectual independence. One of the biggest problems with mankind is “understanding” where we are!

Patrick Moore: From Greenpeace Dove to Nuclear Power Phoenix

Source: George Mack of The Energy Report (9/29/11)

Go read this article!

http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/11079

OUR BLOG RESPONSE

"Greenpeace Dove to Nuclear Power Phoenix". Dr. Patrick Moore: Articles like this are critical to the "truthful" discussions about nuclear power. The entire industry and its associations should make such dialogue available to the grassroots public. They are the people whose perception of nuclear energy has been tainted by media and politics.

*** WANTED ***

People or groups to develop USNEF Chapters in YOUR town!
Don't just sit there, do something contact USNEF

775 224-2089

comments@usnuclearenergy.org

Japan Page

AREVA and Fresno Nuclear Energy Group
Sign Contract for Clean Energy Park in California

PDF_Press Release

Nuclear Advocacy for the People
Helping our citizens to understand Nuclear Energy

We have to work together to achieve an equal balance and fair share
of the energy market for new nuclear development.

It is “time” for us to promote ENERGY as a
“2012 Nuclear Energy Initiative”

Click here check our "headline links" daily!

Our report on the ANS Winter Meeting 2010 in Las Vegas

SQUAW VALLEY INSTITUTE, GREAT PRESENTATION ON NUCLEAR ENERGY

USNEF GOES TO SQUAW VALLEY: We mentioned in our last newsletter that the Squaw Valley Institute held a neutral discussion about nuclear energy. Three of their people spent several months putting the project together and they did a great job with the presentation. Not only was it a great show but they also attracted nearly 80 of their members including about 10 of us who took the normally one hour ride to Squaw Valley to return in a snow storm, we all made it.

http://squawvalleyinstitute.org/

Great to see larger numbers of grassroots people learning about nuclear!

We can only “plan” our future with our “dreams” TODAY!

“Clean Energy Parks” with the concepts designed to include wind, solar, biomass and nuclear plants. These themes are beginning to populate worldwide, China is getting shovel ready with some 19 nuclear plants, the BEST solution for carbon free power.

The worst we can do is "watch with interest" as the rest of the world builds advanced nuclear power technology!

The more we communicate the more we educate!

SEP 17th we had a booth at the NCET Expo
Nevada’s Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology
Each time we attend a business show or public presentation many people are open to learning a little about nuclear energy. Nuclear does not get the air play that renewables get, but when we have a chance for open discussion not all of what they "thought" was true.

Captain John W. Weiss and Gary Duarte

VIP Headline Links
Click here moved to their own page
These are excellent targeted links to current articles that are focused on the
nuclear industry, reprocessing technology and deep geologic storage

james m. hylko
our resident editorial advisor
James M. Hylko is a Nuclear Contributing Editor for POWER Magazine

Energy Type	Cents per kWh	1250 kW/h Ave Bill

Nuclear	7.0¢	$87.50
Coal	7.1¢	$88.75
Natural Gas	7.8¢	$97.50
Geothermal	9¢	$112.50
Petroleum	10.6¢	$132.50
Wind	11.4¢	$142.50
Biomass	11¢	$137.50
Solar -- Thermal	21¢	$262.50
Solar - Photo Voltaic	1.11	$1,387.50

SIMILAR ASSESSMENT

We try to be careful with these numbers – and provide all of the assumptions which are key. We know for instance that the renewable folks don’t tend to account for the cost of subsidies in their calculations which has a huge impact on the true cost numbers.

Modeling of new plant costs indicates that estimates of busbar costs are sensitive to more than just the overnight cost of the facility. They are sensitive to assumptions about the debt-equity ratio of the project, the cost of capital, capacity factors, useful life, the scope of work included in the project cost, and other variables.

These numbers were found on a “Consumer Session” set of PowerPoint slides on the Nevada PUC website (link below). These PPT slides cite no sources for the numbers presented, so we have no way of determining their basis or checking their assumptions independently.

The value shown for the cost of each resource type was the high end from a range of values presented in the original data published on a Nevada PUC website. The coal and gas costs shown in the original PPT slides assume a cost of carbon described only as “$6-$8 per ton”. [In work with Cambridge Energy Research Associates and others, the anticipated price of carbon is well above this range, more on the order of $20 per ton or more. Moreover, CERA and others estimate that cost per ton must rise to $50 or so to have a substantial effect on reducing carbon emissions under most scenarios.] The range of values presented in the Consumer Sessions PPT file, with and without a carbon price, is shown below:

Resource Type	Cost w/o Carbon Charge (Cents/kWh) Est. wholesale	Cost w/Carbon @ $6-$8/ton (Cents/kWh)
Nuclear	5-7¢	Virtually no carbon emissions
Pulverized Coal	6 to 6.5¢	6.6 to 7.1 TOTAL = .12¢
Natural Gas Combined Cycle	6.5 to 7.5¢	6.8 to 7.8¢
Geothermal	6 to 9¢	Virtually no carbon emissions
Wind	6.4 to 11.4 w/tax credits	Virtually no carbon emissions
Biomass	7 to 11¢	Virtually no carbon emissions
Solar-thermal	11 to 21¢	Virtually no carbon emissions
Solar-photovoltaic	1.11 w/battery backup + 20¢ to 30¢ w/o battery backup	Virtually no carbon emissions

We note some differences with the consumer costs presented in the table generally applied to Nevada. According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, the average Nevada residential customer consumed 986 kwh per month in 2007, not the 1250 kwh. According to the EIA, the average residential price for electricity in Nevada was about 11.8 cents per kwh in 2007.

Definitive work on new plant costs compares the cost of new nuclear plants to other baseload technologies, including pulverized coal, IGCC, and combined cycle gas turbines.

We find that 0.07¢ /kWh cost of nuclear is on par with the levelized busbar costs we estimate for new nuclear plants using an NEI Financial Model.

ABOUT OPERATING COSTS The Electric Utility Cost Group collects the most complete and pedigreed data on operating plant costs. The Nuclear Committee of EUCG has labored for years to define and implement a consistent set of cost metrics across the operating fleet. Their metric of choice, called Total Generating Costs, includes O&M, Administrative and General, Fuel, and Annual Capital Improvements, but excludes “Carrying Costs”. The Carrying Costs include return on investment, depreciation, and decommissioning funding. The “mortgage costs” are excluded from the EUCG’s Total Generating Cost because the cost basis of every plant differs due to changes in ownership and changes in the structure of the owner/operator/holding company, to say nothing of differences in the treatment of capital costs from state to state. The other EUCG generation committees (Fossil, Hydro) do not yet have Total Generating Cost data to permit us to compare nuclear plant operating costs on the same basis as fossil and hydro plants. In our review of the EUCG’s most recent complete year’s data, from 2007, the median value of Total Generating Cost appears to be about $25 per MWh (2.5 cents per kWh), about what you recalled.

The Economic Impact of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear
Waste Repository on the Economy of Nevada

Prepared by
Mary Riddel
Martin Boyett
R. Keith Schwer
Center for Business and Economic Research
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
September 29, 2003

This snippet is significantly abridged but the full text of the summary of this report is LINKED HERE. Consideration should also be assessed for the time frame economics from 2003 to 2010 and further.

This research summarizes the current and expected future economic impacts of the YMP on the state of Nevada. The findings show that YMP could provide a stable source of revenue, income, and employment for the state.

In 2000, the YMP contributed $195.7 million to the Nevada economy and an additional $188.6 million in 2001. The YMP was responsible for 3,650 jobs in 2000. This translates into a real disposable income of roughly $131 million earned each year in the state of Nevada . . . New employment linked to the project is expected to peak during the construction phase at nearly 4,500 jobs . . . Employment gains will average 2,000 to 2,500 above and beyond the baseline job forecast during the transportation and operations phase. Wages, salaries, and in-state procurement activity are expected to boost state GSP by as much as $228 million during the peak of the construction phase in 2006. Average annual GSP impacts over the transportation and operations phase exceed $102 million annually, topping $127 million in many years.

YMP jobs will be concentrated in relatively high-wage industries such as construction, professional services, and engineering. As such, they can provide a steady stream of income to Nevada residents that are largely independent of national and international economic cycles. This study does not address any potential of evaluating the possibility of locating a used nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in Nevada to reprocess the planned waste.

Special Guest, Dan R. Keuter,
Vice President Planning & Innovation, Entergy Nuclear Inc.

The deal with Mitsubishi builds on a memorandum of understanding signed in April 2008. It will see Areva take a 30% stake in a new company that will "be a fully-fledged nuclear fuel supplier, integrating development, design, manufacturing and sales of nuclear fuel."

The remainder of the company would be held by: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (35%), Mitsubishi Materials Corporation (30%), Mitsubishi Corporation (5%). It will be built out of the existing Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel company, in Tokai-mura.

The new company is yet to be named, but statements from the firms said it would be established in the first half of 2009, and expects Y50 billion ($550 million) in sales by 2020 in the Japanese market. It would employ around 550 people and will supply fuel for light-water reactors and high-temperature gas-cooled models including MOX. It will offer reconversion services and would market MHI-designed fuel assemblies outside of Japan.

Areva and MHI also confirmed that they want to invest in a nuclear fuel fabrication facility in the USA.

In France, Areva has agreed a framework for the reprocessing and recycling of Electricité de France's used nuclear fuel from 2008 to 2040. It covers Areva's pick-up and transportation of the used fuel from EdF's 20 nuclear power sites, its reprocessing and the separation of re-usable materials followed by packaging and minimization of waste volumes for eventual disposal.

The companies said the new framework gave them long-term visibility - especially in the context of EdF's desire to increase volumes sent for reprocessing from 850 to 1050 tonnes per year and the need to step up manufacture of MOX fuel from recycled materials from 100 to 120 tonnes per year.

Our long term mission is to mobilize citizens in Nevada and across the U.S. to drive Government, media and our nations business community to design build and construct new 3rd and 4 generation nuclear power reactors and spent fuel reprocessing technology throughout America!

We are 100% supportive of renewable energy our challenge is getting it cost comparative and we urge renewables and green proponants to support nuclear as “part” our entire clean energy mix!

US Nuclear plants set records for electricity production, efficiency and in low cost in 2007
Link to FULL TEXT

We would like to clarify that although our focus is nuclear energy, we are 100% supportive of all renewable and green energy alternatives. However, the criteria is that they must be "cost effective"!

The highly discussed topic of Green Energy is going to require a "socioeconomic acceptance", meaning, society will have to accept that the development of wind, solar, etc. will increase your electrical power costs. This is ok for the affluent portion of our society but it will be very difficult for low-income and fixed income people in retirement to manage their ever increasing energy costs!

They will say, if we build 200 solar farms, the production cost will come down and it will, but if we build 200 new nuclear plants, those costs will come down as well and the "production output" of nuclear energy far exceeds that any other source!

l We started losing our US manufacturing industries in the 80s due to high energy costs and that trend has been devastating to many “industrial” products moving offshore partially as a result of energy costs. Today, the cost of energy is a world competition not just a US competition. Energy IS the driver of all economies worldwide, we cannot afford to lose this competition!

l Nuclear kilowatts today are sold at about .9 cents per KWH. The best German designed solar systems are “trying” to achieve .22 cents per KWH. Pennies here but billions when they accumulate. We need renewable sources but, we really need to “reduce” our energy costs in order to compete with the “world” industrialization. Not only are they out performing us with labor productivity, they are also building nuclear power plants and it's these combinations that are making it very difficult for US to stay competitive.

The riff about Data Falsification at Yucca Mountain, read the truth! Click-the-link!

The mission for this website is to provide an “informational educational source” about Nuclear Energy compared to other forms of “comparable volumes” of electrical energy production. Our purpose is to present scientific studies and logical conclusions to average Citizens, news media, government and business representatives about the efficiency, productivity and safety of Nuclear Energy Power Plants.

01) We are a grassroots informational group to educate average citizens about the benefits of nuclear energy and the Yucca Mountain waste repository. Environmentalists, government regulation and the media have created a negative perception about the safety of nuclear energy and the repository for its spent fuel. Our mission is to bring the facts of the science to the public.

02) We believe nuclear energy is the best alternative to fossil fuels for energy needs of the present and future. We believe nuclear energy is the best alternative energy source to provide quality jobs in America. We believe the Yucca Mountain project is the best solution to the nuclear waste by-product issue.

03) We believe the pursuit of nuclear energy research will contribute to the development of many new nuclear power generator designs which are more efficient and safer then their predecessors.

04) We believe the development of more nuclear power plants will significantly reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, which will improve our economy on many levels while reducing long-term energy costs and our dependency on foreign oil.

We need to re-build America’s nuclear ENERGY industry. Nearly every industrialized country in the world including “oil rich” middle east countries are building nuclear power plants because they are a “maximum efficiency energy source”. In the early years we over reacted to the fear of "radiation effects, accidents, etc." of the 60-70s (SEE THE CHERNOBYL tab). Nuclear technologies today are well advanced from when we developed our first nuclear plants. We are foolish not to excel and benefit from this efficient energy source which would have far reaching benefits of stabilizing America’s energy requirements and independence from the oil producing nations.

We need YOU to become Pro-Active. Our US energy requirements exceed our production requirements and our fossil fuels are KILLING us and they are the largest contributors to our global “greenhouse effect” problems. Eliminating our consumption is not an option. We are learning to conserve and we are developing alternative sources, wind, solar, etc. However, the fact remains, the sooner we resolve to “educate ourselves” about NUCLEAR ENERGY and notify our state and federal governments that we want this directive addressed, the sooner we “will resolve” our energy needs for our children and grandchildren. America’s energy has extremely important ramifications for YOUR American freedoms. If you share these views then we urge you to lend a hand!

Patrick Moore: From Greenpeace Dove to Nuclear Power Phoenix

A Renegade Against Greenpeace