Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

10% of US electricity generated from old Russian Nukes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:59 PM
Original message
10% of US electricity generated from old Russian Nukes
Power for U.S. From Russia’s Old Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear missiles prepared for destruction at a base near the city of Nizhny Novgorod in Russia. Utilities have been loath to publicize the Russian bomb supply line for fear of spooking consumers

By ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: November 9, 2009

MOSCOW — What’s powering your home appliances?

Multiple warhead ballistic missiles like the ones deployed at this site north of Russia's border with Kazakhstan are being dismantled. Some nuclear material goes to the United States.


A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.
Go to Blog »
For about 10 percent of electricity in the United States, it’s fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs, including Russian ones.

“It’s a great, easy source” of fuel, said Marina V. Alekseyenkova, an analyst at Renaissance Capital and an expert in the Russian nuclear industry that has profited from the arrangement since the end of the cold war.

But if more diluted weapons-grade uranium isn’t secured soon, the pipeline could run dry, with ramifications for consumers, as well as some American utilities and their Russian suppliers.
Already nervous about a supply gap, utilities operating America’s 104 nuclear reactors are paying as much attention to President Obama’s efforts to conclude a new arms treaty as the Nobel Peace Prize committee did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html?_r=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Every kilo of plutonium or uranium...
...has huge amounts of man-hours and kilowatt-hours of labor and energy built into it, mostly in the refinement process. It only makes sense to "burn" it up.

Kinda nice it's Russian, though. Very symbolic. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Nice had nothing to do with it, $$$$ did.
Edited on Thu Nov-12-09 01:53 PM by Statistical
We have agreement to buy the weapons grade material from them.

We did it for 3 reasons
1) it gets rid of nuclear warheads
2) it got weapons grade material out of the politically unstable Russian states (program was started at end of cold war)
3) it supplements natural uranium supplies

Russia needed money badly at the time. Still it is good they agreed and we were willing to buy it. Truly a win-win-win arrangement.

A little factiod is that our currently nuclear arsenal could power all our nuclear power plants for about 60 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProleNoMore Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. You Mean Sarah Palin's Alaska Runs In Part On Ruskie Fuel Rods?
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. No. Unfortunately Alaska has zero nuclear power plants. It is a dangerous fossil fuel hell hole,
sort of like Maine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indenturedebtor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. What a win-win! Those rockets are damn impressive
I wonder what the world would be like if both the US and Russia had invested in infrastructure and education instead of all those missiles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I wonder if we could do anything besides recycling with the missiles themselves.
Might not be practical, but I wonder if they could be retrofitted to launch low-orbit satellites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Nice idea...
I don't think ICBM stages have the delta-v for LEO, but I like your thinking. Maybe something like atmospheric research? Doing the same stuff as weather ballons, but on a rapid-response basis.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. The Soyuz, Atlas and Titan launch vehicles were all developed as ICBMs
Edited on Thu Nov-12-09 06:10 PM by GliderGuider
Plenty of dV.

The solid fuelled ICBMs of later vintage are not suitable due to generally low throw weights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Cool
Filed under "Things I didn't know I didn't know"... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-13-09 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. A "rapid-response" weather balloon?
That should scare the shit out of NORAD & friends ...

"Sorry guys, stand down - it was just the Russian Met Office again!"

:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Cost of US nuclear weapons program from begining till end of cold war was about $7 trillion dollars.
Edited on Thu Nov-12-09 01:52 PM by Statistical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indenturedebtor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Yowsers... is that adjusted for inflation by year or is that just cash money? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Which is scarier? Bomb-ready uranium and plutonium or nuclear power plant fuel?
I'd much rather have the nuclear power plant fuel, thank you. In a perfect world all the bombs would be converted to power plant fuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-12-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. But somebody might make the fuel back into bombs!
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC