This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
AMERICAN Government Forces Re-Start of Japanese Nuclear Reactors
Archaic nuclear reactor designs such as those used at Fukushima – built by American company General Electric – were chosen because they were good for making nuclear bombs. The U.S. secretly helped Japan develop its nuclear weapons program starting in the the 1980s. Therefore, the U.S. played a large role in Japan’s development of nuclear energy, albeit indirectly.
After the Fukushima disaster – in an effort to protect the American nuclear industry – the U.S. has joined Japan in raising “acceptable” radiation levels. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also signed a pact with her counterpart in Japan agreeing that the U.S. will continue buying seafood from Japan, despite the fact that the FDA is refusing to test seafood for radiation in any meaningful fashion. So U.S. actions are helping to protect a pro-nuclear policy in Japan.
Indeed, mainstream Japanese newspaper Nikkei reports that it was President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton who have pressured the Japanese to re-start that country’s nuclear program after the Japanese government vowed to end all nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.
Ex-SKF reports:
Japanese media has been saying for some time that it was the US government who pressured the Noda administration to drop the “zero nuke by 2030″ (which morphed into “zero nuke sometime in 2030s) from its new nuclear and environmental policy decision. Tokyo Shinbun reported it a while ago, and now Nikkei Shinbun just reported it with more details. There is no news reported in the US on the matter.
The difference of the Nikkei Shinbun’s article is that it names names: President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
It’s hard for me to believe that this president has time for trivial matters like actually governing the affairs inside and outside the US in the election year (he must be very busy right now preparing for the big “debate”), but that’s what Nikkei Shinbun wants us to believe. The article also mentions Secretary of State Clinton pressuring the Noda administration officials by strongly indicating it was the wish of President Obama and the US Congress that Japan scrap that silly nuclear energy policy.
And then, one added twist: the Nikkei article has disappeared. [Washington's Blog has located a version of the article cached by Google.]
***
Here’s Nikkei article:
The US request that Japan continue nuclear power plant is “the President’s idea”
2012/9/25 0:12
It has been revealed that the United States government was strongly urging [the Japanese government] to reconsider its policy of “zero nukes in 2030s” which was part of the energy and environmental strategy of the Noda administration, as “President Obama wishes it”. [The US objection] was based on the fear that the framework of Japan-US cooperation for non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy might collapse [under the new policy]. [The Noda administration] eventually shelved the cabinet decision, but this ambiguous resolution may cause further trouble in the future.
According to the multiple government sources, as the Noda administration was moving in August toward explicitly putting down “zero nuke” in the official document, the US strongly requested that Japan reconsider the “zero nuke” policy, saying the request was “the result of discussion at the highest level of the government“, indicating it was the Obama administration’s consensus, from the president on down.
On September 8, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda met with the US Secretary of State Clinton during the APEC meeting in Vladivostok in Russia. Here again, representing the US president, Secretary Clinton expressed concern. While avoiding the overt criticism of the Noda administration’s policy, she further pressured Japan by stressing that it was President Obama and the US Congress who were concerned.
The Noda administration sent its officials, including Special Advisor to Prime Minister Akihisa Nagashima, to the US on an urgent mission to directly discuss matters with the high-ranking White House officials who were frustrated with the Japanese response. By treating the new strategy as only a reference material, the Noda administration averted the confrontation with the US with the “equivocal” resolution (according to the Japanese government source) which allowed the US to interpret the Japanese action as shelving the zero nuke policy.
(According to Former Deputy Energy Secretary Martin,) the US government thinks that “The US energy strategy would be more likely to suffer a direct damage” because of the Japan’s policy change toward zero nuclear energy. It is because the Japanese nuclear policy is closely linked also to the nuclear non-proliferation and environmental policies aimed at preventing the global warming under the Obama administration.
In the Atomic Energy Agreement effective as of 1988, Japan and the US agreed to a blanket statement that as long as it is at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, reprocessing of the nuclear fuel is allowed without prior consent from the US. Japan’s most important role [in the agreement] is to secure the peaceful use of plutonium without possessing nuclear weapons.
The current Japan-US agreement will expire in 2018, and the government will need to start preliminary, unofficial discussions [with the US] as early as next year. There is some time before the expiration of the agreement, but if Japan leaves its nuclear policy in vague terms the US may object to renewal of permission for nuclear fuel reprocessing. Some (in the Japanese government) say “We are not sure any more what will happen to the renewal of the agreement.”
- advertisements -


This will end well....
GE...
We bring good things to life.
Like Godzilla.
Archaic nuclear reactor designs such as those used at Fukushima – built by American company General Electric – were chosen because they were good for making nuclear bombs.
This is completely false. Actually, light water reactors are the least suitable type of reactor for production of weapons grade plutonium. The reason is that light water absorbs a lot of the neutrons that could otherwise be used for producing plutonium. The thermal neutron capture cross section of hydrogen is about 100 times higher than the cross section of carbon and about 600 times higher than the cross section of deuterium. The best reactor types for weapons production would be graphite-moderated (like the US Hanford plutonium production reactor and the Soviet Chernobyl reactors) or heavy-water moderated (like Iran's IR-40 reactor at Arak).
Also, weapons grade plutonium requires much lower neutron irradiation levels than are encountered in power reactors to minimize production of heavier plutonium isotopes that can severely limit yield. So for bomb production you ideally would want some method to continuously cycle fuel through the reactor without shutting it down. The GE designs don't have this feature, so trying to use them to produce weapons grade plutonium would be a real pain.
If the first sentence of an article is completely false, how good can the rest of the article be?
History and hundreds of Nuclear Physicists that worked in the field when the choice was made by the Department of Energy on what type of reactor would be built have commented on this exact thing.
They all stated that all of the current crop of reactors were chosen over the alternative, Thorium based designs, because the Uranium could be used and processed for weapons use. Not all nuclear weapons are based on Plutonium either.
This was a decsision made in the 50's.
The majority of the US weapons plutonium came from the graphite-moderated reactors at the Hanford complex. The last of the Hanford reactors was the N-reactor constructed in 1963. The rest of the US weapons plutonium came from the heavy-water moderated reactors at the Savannah river site.
None of the 85MT of weapons grade plutonium in the US inventory came from light water reactors. The DOE did purchase a small amount (1.7MT) of reactor-grade plutonium from commercial reactors.
The companies producing reactors for power production did not have any mandate to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Their goal was to maximize profits and they settled on the light water design because it was cheap, and because a lot of development of light water designs had already been done as part of the US nuclear submarine program. Adapting existing designs was cheaper than designing an entirely new reactor type from scratch.
You're being disingenuous.
Most nuclear weapons are made with uranium.... which has to be mined, processed, and enriched.
If you're using uranium to fuel hundreds of reactors, you need to process thousands of tonnes of yellowcake to make the fuel, and the fact that you have large scale uranium mining and processing to fuel reactors brings down the cost of producing the weapons-grade stuff enormously.
Two words, GE and Westinghouse.
Great post, GW, and while this may be a bit off topic, it wasn't really ever covered adequately in the news quite recently:
Things that make you go hhhmmmmmmmmmm…..?
‘He said he wanted to expose something at work’
In his $5 million mansion, Robert McKeon, head of private equity firm, Veritas Capital, commits suicide by strangling himself.
Strangling himself???????
Awhile later, the news reports or claims that Albert Peterson, a wealthy defense contractor, formerly with Northrop Grumman, and presently employed as a Senior Subcontracts Administrator with BAE Systems Information Technology, murdered his wife and children, then turned his gun on himself, committing suicide.
A terrible tragedy, and the news reports further claimed Mr. Peterson was supposed to have committed those horrific acts because he was afraid President Obama would be reelected!
Because he was afraid President Obama would be reelected?????????????
One enterprising journalist actually did report that the now-deceased Mrs. Peterson had mentioned to a co-worker at defense contractor, Blackbird Technologies, where she worked, that her husband was troubled by something he had learned at BAE which he was seriously concerned about. Albert Peterson had been involved with a BAE unit which a few years previously had been owned by Veritas Capital, then later sold to BAE.
It should be noted that Robert McKeon’s Veritas Capital had made some extremely fortuitous investments in the defense industry shortly prior to 9/11/01. Some months prior to 9/11, Veritas Capital had also purchased Raytheon Aerospace, a subsidiary of Raytheon.
Aboard several of those four ill-fated airliners on 9/11/01 were developers of remote piloting hardware/software from Veritas Capital’s Raytheon Aerospace, and several similar subcontractors (from BAE, I believe).
Sounds more like a brutal cleanup crew was active --- cleansing a possible leak of a probably innocent man and his family, and the private equity principal of a highly profitable operation eleven years earlier.
(While it may be the only actual coincidence here, it should also be noted that several years ago --- or the last time we checked --- the majority shareholders in Northrop Grumman were James Baker and the Bush family.)
Things that make you go hhhmmmmmmmmmm…..?
[With a criminal congress populated with the likes of Darryl Issa, with his arrest record, insurance fraud and arson background, and John Boehner, who washed out of Navy boot camp, then falsely claimed military service during Vietnam when he first ran for the House, we are assured of no real investigation ever taking place.]
Financial Fraud Roll Call:
$2.3 trillion unaccounted for from DoD (announced on 9/10/01 by Pentagon’s comptroller)
$8.7 billion (plus ?) missing during Iraqi war operations
$16.7 billion (plus ?) missing during Afghanistani war operations
Over $1 billion unaccounted for from “Fusion Center” budget: domestic intelligence collection operation instituted by DHS in conjunction with private sector
http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf
You rock, Sarge.
Maybe this is a bone to Jeff Immelt, as some suggest. More likely this is to stave off increased Japanese demand for Alaskan Oil (I believe they are the number one customer for that) and for LNG to fire their non-nuke electric generation.
Allowing for the increased demand without supply would drive up energy costs in the US, which would be fatal for the election chances of Big O ... allowing for and increase of supply might cripple relations with the base to severely enough to also prove fatal.
Rather than let the Ones we were waiting for to lose power, it's better to let the Japs continue to poison the world a little longer and the Ones will fix it in post.
How about instead of "No Nukes" we substitute "No shitty 70 year designs that no safety margin and get used well beyond their designed lifetime"?
I love the idea that the offending article disappeared from the web site... "the Nikkei article has disappeared" !
Maybe the US Dept of State Minitrue (Ministry of Truth) web patrol was able to "rectify" this embarassing info before it caused a disturbance of the prols...??
Another pass it now, and find out what's in it later. Or was that kidney and cocaine tester on that west coast fish?
Well, the last thing the Obama constituency needs is another oil hungrier mouth to be fed.
1. Obomba doesn't want Japan depending too much on China for energy like they have since Fuku. Japanese sliding into trade deficits has largely been on imported energy to replace nuke power.
2. Obomba wants GE to sell lots of reactors around the world.
3. Obomba's "greenies" are telling him nuke is still better for the planet than fossil, global warming etc etc
ThisIsBob:
After you account for building the reactors, processing the spent fuel, security, decomissioning and mining the uranium, nuclear uses more oil than it offsets and creates more carbon than it offsets. if Fukushima really were to be cleaned up, oil would be $1000 a barrel.
But keep deluding yourself, you pathetic example of a human being.
After you account for building the reactors...
But the Japanese reactors are already built, aren't they?
For someone who makes fundamental mistakes like this in virtually every post, you're a bit free with your insults.
Impossible George.
America was too busy ordering Canada to club baby seals.
Japan needs to find it's spine against the scum running the US government.
Tell them STOP YOUR CRAP OR WE KICK YOU OUT OF OUR COUNTRY AND WE START SELLING US TREASURIES.
Sell Us Treasuries? "Stop pushing me around or I'll slit my own throat!"? Japan is in no position to make economic threats, and dumping a $1T in Treasuries would make a bigger hole in their accounts than in the US's.
"The Americans made us do it" has long been an excuse used by Japanese politicians as cover for unpopular decisions made by Japanese politicians.
Moron: opinion polls show Japanese against nuclear. Demonstrations in Japan have been the largest since WWII. Their political decisions would only be unpopular to warmongering Americans and the folls at GE who built those reactors.
'...Their political decisions would only be unpopular to warmongering Americans and the folls at GE who built those reactors'
...and rich corrupt jap politicians
At least the Chinese know which targets to hit. And every other F'er with a pee shooter.
The public are LIED to when it comes to nuclear power.
The costs do not include the decommissioning or disposal of the plant itself, which is astronomical and that is if there isn't an "incident" that mitigates the process.
That said, why put off the repairs or decommissioning?
France just got news all of its' plants need work.
80% of its' electricity from nuclear and a 25% unemployment rate (at least).
Japan and France could keep the populace employed for over 10 years just repairing or replacing aged plants.
Infrastructure building isn't "glamorous", but I bet if they took a poll it beats sitting in the dark.
Because the Japs are semi sovergin they can buy heavy fuel oil , LNG etc on the open market to replace the lost capacity.
The euro region cannot do this as it is a non nation state currency.
It appears you get a trans continental transfer of energy intensity and use from Europe to Japan under such weird monetary circumstances.
Nuclear power will seem very expensive until or if we get a monetary system which involves a mechanism for final settlement.
Europe is doing these Sovergin countries a favour under these conditions.
You can clearly see this in the US , UK and Japan with much higher vehicle sales , Natural gas usage etc relative to the Eurozone.
Europe is the new Saudi Arabia.
Psst, Papasan... You wanna buy some coal?
This seems to have more to do with keeping nukes seen as a safe power source, because we can't have aspersions cast upon such a vital leg of industry. Plus that bit above, upgrades and such. The importance of the status quo is paramount, and that shows here as well as in the financial arena. Any crack in the wall could threaten the entire structure.
I would wonder about what leverage we have to force this issue, but there is that whole issue with China and the little islands in the middle of the big hydrocarbon deposits. Japan needs our backing on that, plus I'd bet we have some secret deal to buy their bonds to keep the rates low.
Surprising that GW doesn't mention that the radiation is still spewing, polluting the Pacific, and will likely cause millions in the Northern Hemisphere to eventually contract cancer and die before age 50.
A small nuclear "incident" between Japan and China would be very convenient in not only covering this up, (good for business), but also provide great cover for every other catastrophic event that has to happen all too soon. Fukashima has been ignored just long enough for something bigger to happen.
Sucks to be us.
Seriously? GW has written article after article regarding Fukushima. Where ya been?
"Do not walk quietly in this Open Air Auschwitz."
http://askaboutfukushimanow.com/2012/08/25/hello-world-fukushima-update-how-to-hide-nuke-weapon-use/
"TOO MUCH TIME HAS ALREADY PASSED ……
AS YOU KNOW, THE AMOUNTS OF RADIATION ALREADY RELEASED are already sufficient to maim and kill all of us, many times over.
Nevertheless, the right thing to do is to put the reactor cores under water now and cause an interruption in this extinction level event.
think locally; ACT GLOBALLY; OCCUPY VIRTUALLY! "
Many links at website.
It's as if it never happened.
You're not wrong Walter...
the American made me do it
"President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton who have pressured the Japanese to re-start that country’s nuclear program"
That makes perfectly good sense. The US has trillions invested in nuclear technology. If Japan shuts down all power plants, countries like India, Brazil and China will not be buying any nuclear technology from USA.
Moreover, cost for other sources of energy (coal, natural gas, oil) will rise and that will be a negative for US growth since US is such a big and inefficient consumer of energy (about 25% of oil is consumed in USA).
So, in rational self-interest, Obama would ask Japan not to shut down its nuclear reactors. With US military bases on its soil, Japan is no position to refuse.
"If Japan shuts down all power plants, countries like India, Brazil and China will not be buying any nuclear technology from USA."
That's probably incorrect. I suspect that the reason to to avoid increasing demand for oil and gas, driving up energy prices. Japan must import all its energy. Another possible reason, is causing political pressure in the US to deal with its own nuclear program. Already much of Europe is turning away from Nuclear power. If Japan abandons, that perhaps americans will start to consider the real dangers and start pressing Washington also to abandon it too. That would cause big problems, since the US gov't is already under pressure to dump coal fired plants, and many in Gov't know that the Power companies can't afford to decommission and replace nuclear plants with something else.
Japan's gov't also has its own reasons not to abandoned Nuclear power. Goto to http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/ and read through the last 2 years of articles.
Correction: GE and Westinghouse (instead of US) have trillions investing in nuclear technology. (I do recognize the government programs that helped developed the programs, but GE and W have more to lose if the Boiling Water type nuclear plants are replaced by alternate technology, like Thorium nuclear plants)
Obama and Clinton are protecting "American interests" (read, American corporate interests), much like Condi Rice was spending her time trying to get India to buy an overpriced power generation facility (owned and built by Enron) instead of paying attention to threats that Islamic terrorists were going to hijack planes and fly them into buildings.
Trillions? GE total revenue only 100 billion/year and nuclear only a small part of that.
No way could they have ever made a dime if they spent a trillion research for one product.
Japan. America's Bitch since 1945. & don't you forget it.
But at least the white smoke stopped coming out of the Daiichi radioactive waste storage area yesterday.
http://enenews.com/white-smoke-coming-from-fukushima-daiichi-radioactive-waste-storage-facility
So there's a new Pope then.
Shinto Pope?
Pope Nucleotide I
And a new "Pope joke": Does the Pope shit gamma rays?
It has been revealed that the United States government was strongly urging [the Japanese government] to reconsider its policy of “zero nukes in 2030s” which was part of the energy and environmental strategy of the Noda administration,...
Yeah and maybe if Japan didn't have that policy they would have upgraded their archaic reactors to more modern, safer equipment and the Fukushima disaster wouldn't have been nearly as bad.
How does the environment look now greenies?
I'm sure "AMERICAN government forces" would have been happy to sell Japan some shiny new American tech.
Thorium, bitchez ...
An interesting rebuttal on thorium reactors:
http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=3101
The above thorium link is scientifically incorrect in several fundamental ways with misquotes of things like atmospheric pressure, & poisonious quotes to name a few. It almost sounds like disinformation.
U-233 is as nasty as Pu and easily chemically separated from the base Th. That messes with NPT concerns.
So, let's see, Kyoto Accord says "Carbon Bad" and the Japanese can't get enough Carbon onto the island, so they go nuclear. And the proposal here is to shut down all of the nuclear plants, which would kill any modernization of the current fleet.
Kill off ~40-60% of the electrical supplies on the islands, and the population eats, how?
- Ned
Japanese people eat electricity?!
turn off your electricity and see hwo things go