Not up on nuclear energy, but this one seems to fit what that older american nuc expert on Youtube mentioned years ago, couldnt find the link. How does it sound to anyone up on this stuff? This is from today's -- http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/
This is the answer to the question why Jimmy Carter Banned nuclear fuel reprocessing:
Admin insert - Get this, it's as good as ANY joke!
'The suspension of the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods tied in with nuclear non-proliferation. There existed the serious threat of the diversion of materials from the civilian fuel cycle into military use. The effort, initially undertaken by President Ford, was also done to encourage other countries to curb their production of nuclear weapons. I hope this answers your question. Thank you.
Keith J. Shuler
This is a COMPLETE load of BUNK BECAUSE: Allowing the closing of the nuclear fuel cycle would keep the same fuel rods in the reactor for 50 or more years. One reactor, ONE FUEL CORE FOR LIFE.
Banning the closed loop fuel cycle made damn good and sure that each reactor produced 35 or more entire fuel cores that could spread around the world and proliferate.
So whoever came up with "closing the nuclear loop causes proliferation" ruse is either an idiot or a full blown scammer.
And on that note it is NOW time for an ENCORE:
"Federal government" BUSTED for forcing American nuclear industry to become a ticking time bomb
Banning the closed loop nuclear fuel cycle put an end to America's free energy future and created a nuclear nightmare that was never supposed to happen.
Jim Stone, Updated on July 22, 2013
Americans have been told their nuclear waste must go somewhere. Americans have been told their spent reactor fuel needs to be stored inside a mountain in the desert, where it will sit as a threat and menace to the world for millions of years. Americans have been told there is nothing they can do about it. But what if they have been told a lie? What if that "spent fuel" was not spent at all? What if a technology existed which allowed the same fuel to be used over and over, twenty times in fact, and expended so fully that fuel rods would be safe enough to handle directly out of the reactor? Think any "spent fuel pools" would be full? And even if this technology never existed,
What if foreign nations, (France was one) offered to buy this fuel from America for billions of dollars only to have the American Government refuse the offer for no reason at all? Certainly allowing France to have it would solve the problem of getting rid of it. And the final question, WHY would the American Government want so much nuclear material sitting around the country - enough to make countless atomic bombs - only to have it become a threat to America's national security? Could it be that for many years America has not had a legitimate government, and instead has had a band of invaders in power who have intentionally set America up for a fall? After reading this report, I believe you will be inclined to think so.
This report consists of hard scientific fact and even harder answers.
During my journey of discovery in my investigation into the Fukushima disaster, I interviewed an 85 year old nuclear engineer who worked in the nuclear industry during America's glory days, an engineer who earned GE over 100 patents. He was one of the engineers who designed Fukushima, so naturally when conducting an investigation into such a disaster a journalist would want that type of reference. He was surprised when my prior study of reactor systems was so thorough that he had no information about Fukushima I did not already dig up, and he was very surprised when I told him details about the inner workings of his own reactor design he never expected anyone in the media to know.
When I started to think I was going to walk away with nothing new, he began to talk about an entirely different subject. He began his new direction in the discussion with the phrase "My team succeeded in closing the nuclear loop, and Carter banned our miracle with an executive order
"I started in the American nuclear program all the way back at the time of the Manhattan project, and have been involved in reactor design and nuclear engineering my whole life. There was one answer we all searched for, and it was how to close the nuclear loop.
When a reactor such as a boiling water reactor uses fuel, the waste products, which are highly radioactive isotopes that have a different fission characteristic than the original fuel, build up in the fuel and change the nature of the nuclear reaction. A reactor such as a boiling water reactor can only use the fuel until it gets contaminated by these isotopes enough to change the nature of the nuclear reactions taking place. The reaction environment inside a boiling water reactor is only one such environment which will work to trigger a chain reaction, and if that spent fuel is put into a reactor made from different materials, those materials can favor the burning of the isotopes which interfere with the chain reactions in the boiling water reactor and use these interfering isotopes as fuel until they are consumed. After this process, which restores the fuel to it's original state is complete, the fuel can go back into the boiling water reactor and used as new with no reprocessing - the exact same rods can be exchanged between reactors.
We perfected the second reactor design which used liquid sodium as a coolant and the reactor ran much hotter - 1100 farenheit as opposed to 550 in a boiling water reactor. The liquid sodium circulated inside the reactor instead of water, with the heat of the reaction being removed from the system by a heat exchanger which produced steam outside the reactor for use in producing electricity. The temperature difference and coolant characteristics in the complimentary reactor facilitated the burning of the isotopes, and you got to use both sides of the reaction - the boiling water reactor produced electricity while producing unwanted isotopes, and the sodium cooled reactor produced electricity while burning the unwanted isotopes out. This process could be repeated 20 times, and when it was finished the fuel was DEAD and no longer hazardous because all of it's radiological potential was used up. It was a clean energy dream come true, and Carter banned it by executive order!"
He specifically stated that the burn down was so complete that the spent fuel was safe to handle directly with bare hands, and needed no special care or maintenance at all, and after I questioned him about exactly how safe, said you could safely sleep on it. I questioned him several times, saying he must be exaggerating, but he said ALL radiological potential was used, and the fuel was completely inert at the end of the final cycle.
Many people know about the liquid sodium breeder reactor developed by General Electric in the late 1970's but few people know the real story about this reactor, which this engineer developed. To back stab the public image of this reactor, it was stated that it's rods would stick and that liquid sodium was too dangerous to use as a coolant. But this engineer, the man who developed it, stated that this media campaign was a pure psy op which like many things the media and government says had no truth to it at all.
He then went on to lament about what a waste of money it was to have the technology banned because nuclear fuel is expensive and they were only able to use it to about five percent of its total potential without implementing this technology. He lamented the fact that his life's greatest accomplishment got banned for no good reason, and it was a tremendous waste of money to not use the technology his team developed. Electricity would have been cheap. So cheap that homes would not have been heated with oil or natural gas, electricity would have been the only sensible choice. Furthermore, with a reduction in the price of electricity by at least 10X, electric cars would have quickly become a standard.
This would have been America's free energy future, with the only real cost being maintenance of infrastructure.
He was sad that we were now paying too much for electricity. I guess that's how an engineer thinks. He had read my article about Fukushima and liked it, so it is an easy guess that his eyes were open to the global conspiracy. But I think he missed the obvious in what he said.
Here is what I think about this technology being banned, and it has nothing to do with preservation of resources or free energy.
Nuclear reactors are huge. They have an enormous amount of nuclear material in them. One boiling water reactor core the size of the ones at Fukushima, which have a thermal potential of three gigawatts and an electrical generating capacity of one gigawatt can easily hold enough fissionable material to make many atomic bombs. And with the technology that makes re-using that fuel illegal, it builds up in the cooling pools at a rate of 25 tons per electrical gigawatt YEAR. This means that after 40 years of fuel buildup even small 500 megawatt facilities have approximately a million pounds of highly radioactive fuel sitting in their pools waiting for the right combination of problems to cause a disaster.
Because the Japanese were at least allowed by their government to use a reprocessing technology inferior to what this engineer spoke of, Fukushima only had approximately 250,000 pounds of "spent" fuel at each reactor site, which remained intact throughout the disaster. But because in America no reprocessing is allowed at all in any form, the fukushima equivalents in America, such as TVA operated Browns Ferry and NSP operated Prairie Island have no fewer than two million pounds of "spent" fuel at each reactor site, which means that Browns Ferry alone could, in a worst case scenario, far exceed the damage done by Fukushima.
Contrary to what the scamming mainstream press has reported, Fukushima reactor 3 was destroyed entirely while at 3,000 PSI (far beyond specifications) which resulted in a complete core expulsion. This threw approximately 100,000 pounds of fuel into the environment, much of it in the form of brown dust that badly contaminated the entire surrounding area and was found around the world. Seldom reported in the press is the fact that the Fukushima site was so badly contaminated that it could not be approached, and remote control and robots were used in the months following the disaster to get the radiation down to a survivable level after the first three people to explore the site died. At 100,000 pounds of expelled material, reactor 3 could have produced at most 2 percent of the total contamination possible from a large American nuclear facility. This puts the possible disaster from Browns ferry at 50 to 100 times worse than Fukushima. Multiply that by Prairie Island and the over 100 other similar sized nuclear facilities in America and it is not hard to calculate that a serious national security threat exists.
America's nuclear waste problem was intentionally created
When GE and others designed the nuclear facilities both in America and abroad, they had calculated that they would indeed succeed in closing the nuclear loop. So they designed the nuclear facilities with an approximate 20X safety margin in the fuel pools, because they did not have a clear date on when the technology would be perfected. It was my impression from this engineer that they got it sooner than expected. So fortunately the fuel pools were over built, but despite being over built they were never designed to withstand the fuel burdens that would result from a political decision to destroy the closed loop fuel cycle technology altogether.
So now, 40 years after the ban, America has fuel pools around the country that are so full that they have exceeded even the extremely generous safety margins they were originally designed to have, and even modest pools often have over 400 tons of highly active isotope ridden "spent" fuel in them.
Having functional fuel pool cooling systems was never intended to be necessary. GE and others wanted only a fractional core of fuel sitting in a pool at any one time, with at most one or two entire cores, not 15 or 20. If all cooling systems failed with only the intended maximum of one or two cores sitting in a pool there would be no boiling of the water in the pool, no pending disaster possible from equipment failure no matter how severe. But the way it is now, if there is any sort of attack or disaster which prevents fuel pool maintenance at any of the facilities in America for a period exceeding three days, the water will boil off, the fuel will catch fire and a nuclear disaster of unimaginable magnitude far in excess of Fukushima will take place. And it never needed to be this way, in fact, the situation is criminal.
Foreign nations offered help, but the American government said NO
Upon recognizing the lunacy of America's Federally mandated nuclear sabotage, countries like France and Germany offered to buy America's 5% spent fuel for billions of dollars. They were not held political hostage by a hostile government, and could certainly use a source of cheap fuel. But rather than accept this offer,the American government mandated NO transport of the fuel to foreign nations, no further use whatsoever. American nuclear facilities were forced by Federal regulation to use approximately 5 percent of the fuel's radiological potential, leaving 95 percent of the radiological hazard remaining, and subsequently forced to keep it in a fuel pool that needs continuous maintenance. While arguing against this report, shills have said it was the import/export restrictions which caused such a dangerous situation in America, but since those laws were written by the same government that banned the closing of the "nuclear loop", the export restrictions are only a further indictment of the FED for causing this problem.
Simultaneous with the intentional building of the threat from having so much nuclear material sitting around came all the government scandals and lies about needing to put the fuel somewhere. Inside a mountain in the desert. Inside a dry cask. Maybe in the ocean, all the while the general American public was kept oblivious to the obvious answer: If they were not allowed to use it because of a nonsensical piece of legislation, why not let someone else have it, when other nations are willing to even pay for it?
Here is what I believe is the answer. And this answer needs to be spread far and wide.
]Whatever you think of Kennedy, on the day of his death he was America's last hope. No President since has been anything other than a puppet for an enemy infiltrator, The enemy is not only inside the gates, it has been taking a paycheck from the American people for over 45 years.
Consider this: America's government intentionally put in place policies that de-industrialized America. That's an act of war. The American government put in place policies that intentionally destroyed America's schools. That's an act of war. And I consider forcing via mandate the buildup of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of nuclear warheads worth of perfectly good reactor fuel just waiting for a disaster to be an act of war as well - Only an enemy would intentionally mandate the creation of such a threat, who on earth would, other than someone who hated America? Not only did America lose a marvelous clean virtually free energy future, that future got converted into a threat that could very easily destroy the nation and take much of the world with it. All it would take to kill America, with America's nuclear facilities drastically overloaded with 5% spent fuel, is 150 smart bombs. One successful bombing run and it is over. And that's not even taking into consideration other disaster scenarios, such as earthquakes and computer virus attacks.
The enemy of America is now in complete control of the nation
Ever since Kennedy's assassination America has not had a true representative government, especially starting with Carter. When I worked for the NSA, I saw a few computers which were identical to the early vote counting computers, and they could be set to loop a single ballot over and over again. With a scammed vote, America got over-run by outsiders who wanted the country destroyed. Prior to 1973 America was only going upward, and anyone who wanted to see America destroyed or enslaved would never permit Americans to get virtually free energy. The enemy would lose oil profits. They would potentially lose control of energy, leaving the financial system the only means of forced social compliance outside of a hot war and the enemy wanted control options. True clean energy had to be stopped.
The enemy of America is a sinister enemy. It is a small group of religiously "elite" people who weaponize everything. They have weponized sympathy, victim status, water systems, vaccines, genetically modified organisms and even terror - anything they have been able to think of, and have used these things and many more to cause destruction. And the nuclear industry, now blocked from a dream come true technology, can be used as a weapon.
The truth in this is undeniable
There is plenty of proof. No shill can stop people from checking out the history of other nations, such as Germany, France and Russia offering America BILLIONS for this not so "spent" fuel, which can only sit as a hazard after a political decision banning technologies which allow for it's purification at the same time additional political decisions have banned it's export. This hazard has been unnecessarily and intentionally accumulating for years. It's the equivalent of keeping a 5,000 gallon tank of petrol in your bedroom. Better hope all is well with it.
I honestly feel that banning this miracle technology; you should have heard the sparkle, the awe in the old man's voice when he said they closed the "nuclear loop", and the sadness, despair and anger expressed at it's being banned; I feel it was an act of war against America. There were never any accidents associated with this technology, according to this engineer everything negative said about it was a bold faced lie spoken by people of ill intent. America's nuclear waste problem is not scientific, it is political.
I believe this nuclear engineer opened up and told me about this because I was the first journalist he ever encountered that actually understood nuclear technology. He knew I would understand what he said and subsequently bring this story to the public. But outside of making the public aware by telling his story in an article such as this, what more can I do when the power structure that could remedy this problem immediately is the enemy of the American people?