DOCSLIB.ORG

FY2007 Annual Performance Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FY2007 Annual Performance Report UU.S.. S . D EEPARTMENTP A R T M E N T OOFF E NNERGYE R G Y ANNNUALNUAL PEERFORMANCERFORMANCE REEPORTPORT FIISCALSCAL YEEARAR 22007007 DOE/CF-0025 Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Performance Summary Scorecard....................................................................................... 4 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)......................................................................... 6 President’s Management Agenda ..................................................................................... 13 Performance Background.................................................................................................. 17 Performance Measures Details ......................................................................................... 19 THEME 1 – ENERGY SECURITY............................................................................. 20 THEME 2 – NUCLEAR SECURITY ........................................................................ 102 THEME 3 – SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY AND INNOVATION .............................. 185 THEME 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ............................................ 214 Acronyms........................................................................................................................ 230 ii Introduction The Department of Energy is pleased to present its Annual Performance Report (APR) which outlines the Department’s performance in FY 2007 against the goals that were set out in the President’s proposed 2007 budget. The metrics discussed in this report were outlined in the Department’s Congressional Budget Justifications and carried through the actual execution of the budget during the fiscal year. Since these metrics were created before final Congressional allocations, in some cases, the actual appropriation levels did not meet the Department’s request and may have affected the program’s ability to meet the proposed performance level. This report meets the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) requirements to report its performance annually under OMB Circular A-11. The presentation of this report differs from previous APRs because the Department is participating in the FY 2007 Pilot Program for Alternative Approaches to Performance Accountability Reporting (PAR Pilot). The goal of the pilot is to improve the quality and transparency of performance and financial reporting. The PAR Pilot gives the Department an alternative platform for presenting our performance information. In addition to making the reports easier to read, the report includes more detailed data and web links to assist the reader in finding additional information. The PAR Pilot will be published in three reporting components. • The Agency Financial Report (AFR) was published, distributed, and placed on the DOE website (www.cfo.doe.gov/cf1-2/2007parpilot.htm) on November 15, 2007. The AFR contains all of the required financial statements, accompanying notes, independent auditor’s report, Inspector General management challenges, and the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), which includes an analysis of the financial statements, management controls and compliance information, as well as a high-level discussion of Departmental performance as it relates to DOE’s major priorities. • The Annual Performance Report (APR) focuses on detailed performance information including performance targets associated with the Department’s budget activities. The report discusses performance results including narrative descriptions of results by performance measure and references to supporting documentation, a clear, concise statement on high-level program challenges and benefits, and the status of all FY 2006 Unmet Measures. This report will be available on the Department of Energy’s website, www.Energy.gov, on February 4, 2008. • The Highlights Report summarizes the Department’s financial results and performance information. This report is a concise and readable document summarizing key results from the AFR and APR. It addresses both the successes and challenges for the Department. This report is available on DOE’s website as of February 1, 2008 and is web-linked to more comprehensive, publicly available information at www.ExpectMore.gov. In FY 2007, the Department had two sets of performance measures. One set was used in the Congressional budget justification and was tracked quarterly through the Department’s Joule system. A second set was tracked, in conjunction with OMB, through the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process. The APR contains both sets of measures: • The “FY 2007 Performance Measures” section in the report contains the details associated with those measures used as part of the budget justification • The “PART Program FY 2007 Summary Table” provides links to the detailed assessment and specific performance measures tracked in PART. The Department improved the quality of its performance measures in FY 2007. Thirty percent of the Department’s FY 2008 performance measures were evaluated against a standard set of criteria. This analysis identified the Department’s need to develop performance measures that were more outcome focused and trendable. The Department used the results of this analysis to improve the quality of 34 of its FY 2008 performance measures. In addition, DOE and OMB worked together to align performance measures in the budget and PART. The two sets of measures assessed similar areas of program performance, but were not identical. DOE has resolved this by making the measures in PART and the 2009 budget documents match. In general, the Department was able to meet 80 percent of the FY 2007 targets it established for the Program Assessment and Rating Tool measures and 93 percent for the budget justification measures. 2 DOE Strategic Themes, Strategic Goals, and Supporting Offices The Department of Energy Strategic Plan has five (5) Strategic Themes, sixteen (16) Strategic Goals, and twenty-two (22) Supporting Offices. 3 Performance Summary Scorecard STRATEGIC PROGRAM FY 2007 GPRA UNIT PERFORMANCE GOALS 1 Budgetary THEMES COSTS GREEN YELLOW RED Expenditures (90% & ABOVE) FY 2007 FY 2006 (90% & ABOVE TO GET TO GREEN) Incurred2 1.1.1 Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Technologies G $36 7 0 0 1.1.2 Vehicles Technologies G $173 5 0 0 1.1.3 Solar Energy G $315 4 0 0 1.1.4 Wind Energy G $27 3 1 0 1.1.5 Geothermal Technology G $9 2 0 0 1.1.6 Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D G $87 5 0 0 1.1.7 DEMP/FEMP G $15 2 0 0 1.1.9 Natural Gas Technology G $28 1 0 0 1.1.11 Petroleum Reserves G $218 2 0 0 1.1.12 Energy Information Administration G $90 2 0 0 1. Energy 1.2.8 Near-Zero Atmospheric Emissions Coal-Based Electricity & G $334 8 0 0 $6,552 $6,825 Hydrogen Production Security 1.2.14 Develop New Nuclear Generation Technologies G $276 5 0 0 1.2.15 Maintain and Enhance National Nuclear Infrastructure G $201 3 0 0 1.3.16 Electric Transmission and Distribution G $138 5 0 0 1.3.17 Western Area Power Administration G $702 3 0 0 1.3.18 Bonneville Power Administration G $2,768 3 0 0 1.3.19 Industrial Technologies G $47 3 0 0 1.3.23 Southeastern Power Administration G $70 2 0 0 1.3.24 Southwestern Power Administration G $41 5 0 0 1.4.20 Building Technologies G $78 5 1 0 1.4.21 Weatherization G $280 2 0 0 1.4.22 State Energy Programs G $62 2 0 0 Total $5,995 79 2 0 2.0.25 Office of the Administrator G 0 0 1 0 2.1.26 Directed Stockpile Work G $1,374 3 0 2 2.1.27 Science Campaign G $277 6 0 0 2.1.28 Engineering Campaign G $207 5 0 0 2.1.29 Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign G $539 4 0 1 2.1.30 Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign G $557 5 0 0 2.1.31 Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign G $234 4 0 0 2.1.32 Readiness Campaign G $257 4 0 0 2.1.33 Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities G $1,623 4 0 0 2. Nuclear 2.1.34 Secure Transportation Asset G $202 3 2 0 3 $9,200 $8,831 Security 2.1.35 Nuclear Weapons Incident Response G $62 1 0 0 2.1.36 Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program G $139 3 0 0 2.1.37 Safeguards and Security G $736 3 0 0 2.2.39 Non Proliferation and Verification R&D G $288 6 0 0 2.2.40 Elimination of Weapons-Grade Plutonium Production G $225 3 0 0 2.2.41 Nonproliferation and International Security G $205 5 0 0 2.2.42 International Nuclear Materials Protection, & Cooperation G $416 3 1 0 2.2.43 Fissile Materials Disposition G $389 3 0 0 2.2.44 Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) G $8 4 0 1 2.3.45 Naval Reactors G $790 6 0 0 Total $8,528 75 4 4 3.1/2.46 High Energy Physics Y $724 4 0 1 3.1/2.47 Nuclear Physics G $406 4 0 0 3. Scientific 3.1/2.48 Biological and Environmental Research Y $519 6 0 1 Discovery and $4,004 $3,734 3.1/2.49 Fusion Energy R $292 3 0 1 Innovation 3.1/2.50 Basic Energy Sciences R $1,234 3 0 1 3.1/2.51 Advance Scientific Computing Research G $251 2 0 0 3.3.52 Research Integration G $0 1 0 0 Total $3,426 23 0 4 4. Environmental 4.1.53 Environmental Management G $6,607 5 1 0 $5,918 $6,069 4.2.54 Nuclear Waste Disposal G $566 3 0 1 Responsibility 4.2.55 Legacy Management G $58 2 0 0 Total $7,231 10 1 1 5.0.1 Chief Information Officer 5.0.2 Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs 5.0.3 Office of Management 5.0.4 Office of Hearing and Appeals 5.0.5 Economic Diversity 5. Management 5.0.6 Health, Safety and Security $690 $653 Excellence 5.0.7 Policy and International Affairs 5.0.8 Inspector General 5.0.9 Human Capital Management 5.0.10 Public Affairs 5.0.11 General Counsel 5.0.12 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 1 Program Costs are taken from the Department Consolidated Statements of net cost.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Title Liberation of Neutrons in the Nuclear Explosion of Uranium
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Kyoto University Research Information Repository Liberation of neutrons in the nuclear explosion of uranium Title irradiated by thermal neutrons Author(s) 萩原, 篤太郎 Citation 物理化學の進歩 (1939), 13(6): 145-150 Issue Date 1939-12-31 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/46203 Right Type Departmental Bulletin Paper Textversion publisher Kyoto University 1 9fii~lt~mi~~ Vol. 13n No. 6 (1939) i LIBERATION OF NEUTRONS.. IN THE NUCLEAR EXPLOSION OF URANIUM IRRADIATED BY THERMAL NEUTRONS By Tolai•r:vFo IIrtlsiNaaa 1'he discovery ivas first announced by Kahn and Strassmanlir'. that uranium under neutron irradiation is split by absorbing the neuttntis into two lighter elements of roughly equal weight and charge, being accompanied h}' a:very large amount of ~energy release. This leads to~ the consic(eration that these fission fragments would contain considerable ea-cess of neutrons as compared with the corresponding heaviest stable isotopes with the same nuclear charges, assuming a division into two parts only. Apart of these exceh neutrons teas found, in fact, to be disposed of by the subsequent (~-ray transformations of the fission products;" but another possibility of reducing the neutron excess seems to be a direct i nnissioie of the neutrons, .vhich would either be emitted as apart of explosiat products. almost i;istantaneously at the moment ofthe nuclear splitting or escape from hi~hh' excited nuclei of the residual fragments. It may, Clterefore,he ex- rd pected that the explosion process mould produce even larger number of secondary neutrons than one.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program
    Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program Uranium Mining and the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program By Robert Alvarez Formed over 6 billion years ago, uranium, a dense, silvery-white metal, was created “during the fiery lifetimes and explosive deaths in stars in the heavens around us,” stated Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias.1 With a radioactive half-life of about 4.5 billion years, uranium-238 is the most dominant of several unstable uranium isotopes in nature and has enabled scientists to understand how our planet was created and formed. For at least the last 2 billion years, uranium shifted from deep in the earth to the rocky shell-like mantle, and then was driven by volcanic processes further up to oceans and to the continental crusts. The Colorado Plateau at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, where some of the nation’s largest uranium deposits exist, began to be formed some 300 million years ago, followed later by melting glaciers, and erosion which left behind exposed layers of sand, silt and mud. One of these was a canary-yellow sediment that would figure prominently in the nuclear age. From 1942 to 1971, the United States nuclear weapons program purchased about 250,000 metric tons of uranium concentrated from more than 100 million tons of ore.2 Although more than half came from other nations, the uranium industry heavily depended on Indian miners in the Colorado Plateau. Until recently,3 their importance remained overlooked by historians of the atomic age. There is little doubt their efforts were essential for the United States to amass one of the most destructive nuclear arsenals in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • ETSN05 -- Lecture 5 the Last Lecture Today
    10/9/2013 ETSN05 -- Lecture 5 The last lecture Today • About final report and individual assignment • Short introduction to “problems” • Discussion about “typical problems in the course” 1 10/9/2013 Plan-Do-Study-Act Plan Act Do E.g. Bergman, Klefsjö, Quality, Study Studentliteratur, 1994. Quality Improvement Paradigm 1. Characterize 2. Set goals 3. Choose model 4. Execute Proj org EF 5. Analyze 6. Package V. Basili, G. Caldiera, D. Rombach, Experience Factory, in J.J. Marciniak (ed) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 469-576, Wiley, 1994. (Also summarized in C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M. C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, A. Wesslén, "Experimentation in Software Engineering", Springer, 2012.) 2 10/9/2013 Learning organization • “A learning organisation is an organisation skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights” D. A. Garvin, “Building a Learning Organization”, in Harward Business Review on Knowledge Management, pp. 47–80, Harward Business School Press, Boston, USA, 1998. • Requires: systematic problem solving, experimentation, learning from past experiences, learning from others, and transferring knowledge Postmortem analysis • IEEE Software, May/June 2002 3 10/9/2013 Postmortem analysis cont. • “Ensures that the team members recognize and remember what they learned during the project” •“Identifies improvement opportunities and provides a means to initiate sustained change” Three sections of the PFR • Historical overview of the project – Figures,
    [Show full text]
  • DOE-OC Green Book
    SUBJECT AREA INDICATORS AND KEY WORD LIST FOR RESTRICTED DATA AND FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUGUST 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Where It All Began .................................................................................................................................... 2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RD/FRD and NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION (NSI) ......................................... 3 ACCESS TO RD AND FRD ................................................................................................................................ 4 Non-DoD Organizations: ........................................................................................................................... 4 DoD Organizations: ................................................................................................................................... 4 RECOGNIZING RD and FRD ............................................................................................................................ 5 Current Documents ................................................................................................................................... 5 Historical Documents ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 108–650 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations
    S. HRG. 108–650 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations Energy and Water Development Appropriations Fiscal Year 2005 108th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION H.R. 4614 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES Energy and Water Development Appropriations, 2005 (H.R. 4614) S. HRG. 108–650 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 4614 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOP- MENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2005, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Defense—Civil Department of Energy Department of the Interior Nondepartmental witnesses Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92–143 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons Summary of a United Nations Study
    INIS-mf —13106 DISARMAMENT Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons Summary of a United Nations Study -^^~ XpJ United Nations Preface The cover reproduces the emblem of the United Nations and the emblem of the World Disarmament Campaign, a global information programme on disarmament and international security launched by the General Assembly in 1982 at its second special session devoted to disarmament. The programme has three primary purposes: to inform, to educate and to generate public understanding of and support for the objectives of the United Nations in the field of arms limitation and disarmament. In order to achieve those goals, the programme is carried out in all regions of the world in a balanced, factual and objective manner. As part of the programme's activities, the Department for Disarmament Affairs provides information materials on arms limitation and disarmament issues to the non-specialized reader. Such materials cover, in an easily accessible style, issues which may be of particular interest to a broad public. This is one such publication. It is published in the official languages of the United Nations and intended for worldwide dissemination free of charge. The reproduction of the information materials in other languages is encouraged, provided that no changes are made in their content and that the Department for Disarmament Affairs in New York is advised by the reproducing organization and given credit as being the source of the material. Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons Summary of a United Nations Study Background In December 1988, by resolution 43/75 N, the United Nations General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to carry out a comprehensive update of a 1980 study on nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 10 Instrumentation and Control Prepared by Dr
    1 CHAPTER 10 Instrumentation and Control prepared by Dr. G. Alan Hepburn Independent contractor (AECL Retired) Summary: This chapter describes the role of instrumentation and control (I&C) in nuclear power plants, using the CANDU 6 design as an example. It is not a text on the general design of instrumenta- tion and control algorithms, a subject which is well covered by many textbooks on the subject. Rather, it describes the architectural design of these systems in nuclear power plants, where the requirements for both safety and production reliability are quite demanding. The manner in which the instrumentation and control components of the various major subsystems co-operate to achieve control of the overall nuclear plant is described. The sensors and actuators which are unique to the nuclear application are also described, and some of the challenges facing design- ers of a future new build CANDU I&C system are indicated. Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Learning Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 5 2 Nuclear Safety and Production Requirements for I&C Systems ............................................. 5 2.1 Requirements for the Special Safety Systems................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Can Nuclear Weapons Fallout Mark the Beginning of the Anthropocene
    Feature Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2015, Vol. 71(3) 46–57 ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: Can nuclear weapons fallout sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0096340215581357 mark the beginning of the http://thebulletin.sagepub.com Anthropocene Epoch? Colin N. Waters, James P. M. Syvitski, Agnieszka Gałuszka, Gary J. Hancock, Jan Zalasiewicz, Alejandro Cearreta, Jacques Grinevald, Catherine Jeandel, J. R. McNeill, Colin Summerhayes, and Anthony Barnosky Abstract Many scientists are making the case that humanity is living in a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, but there is no agreement yet as to when this epoch began. The start might be defined by a historical event, such as the beginning of the fossil-fueled Industrial Revolution or the first nuclear explosion in 1945. Standard strati- graphic practice, however, requires a more significant, globally widespread, and abrupt signature, and the fallout from nuclear weapons testing appears most suitable. The appearance of plutonium 239 (used in post- 1945 above-ground nuclear weapons tests) makes a good marker: This isotope is rare in nature but a significant component of fallout. It has other features to recommend it as a stable marker in layers of sedimentary rock and soil, including: long half-life, low solubility, and high particle reactivity. It may be used in conjunction with other radioactive isotopes, such as americium 241 and carbon 14, to categorize distinct fallout signatures in sediments and ice caps. On a global scale, the first appearance of plutonium 239 in sedimentary sequences corresponds to the early 1950s. While plutonium is easily detectable over the entire Earth using modern meas- urement techniques, a site to define the Anthropocene (known as a Ògolden spikeÓ) would ideally be located between 30 and 60 degrees north of the equator, where fallout is maximal, within undisturbed marine or lake environments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Nuclear Weapons on Human Health
    ESTIMATED CASUALTIES AND DESTRUCTION CAUSED BY THE ATOMIC BOMBS DROPPED ON THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI IN 1945 WEAPONS ON HUMAN On 6 August 1945 a 13 kiloton atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima, Japan. This was followed on 9 August by the explosion of a 21 kiloton bomb over Nagasaki. To date, these have been the only times a nuclear weapon has been used in armed conflict. The following figures reflect the scale of the casualties and damage that resulted from the explosions. HEALTH INFORMATION NOTE NO. 1 Deaths: Hiroshima: 100,000 – 140,000 killed* Nagasaki: 60,000 – 70,000 killed* THE IMMEDIATE AND THE EFFECTS AND Total area destroyed by heat, blast and fire: Hiroshima: 13 sq km (including 4 sq km completely destroyed by a firestorm) LONG-TERM HEALTH CASUALTIES OF THE HEAT Nagasaki: 6.7 sq km CONSEQUENCES OF AND BLAST WAVES NUCLEAR WEAPONS Impact on medical services in Hiroshima: Heat casualties: The earth below the 270 out of 300 doctors killed or injured The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and epicentre of the blast would be heated to 1,654 out of 1,780 nurses killed or injured Nagasaki in 1945 and medical studies a temperature of approximately 7000°C, 112 out of 140 pharmacists killed or injured conducted since that time have shown the which would vaporize all living things National Nuclear Security Administration / Nuclear SecurityNational Administration Office Site Nevada type of immediate and long-term health in that area. Tens of thousands of those * Number of deaths attributable to the atomic bombs by the end of 1945.
    [Show full text]
  • Radioactive Carbon from Nuclear Explosions and Nonthreshold Biological Effectso
    Science & Global Security, 1990, Volume I, pp.175-187 Photocopying pennitted by license only Reprints available directly from the publisher C>1990 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S.A. Printed in the United States of America Radioactive Carbon from Nuclear Explosions and Nonthreshold Biological EffectsO I Andrei D. Sakharov I In this article, which appearedin the June 1958 issue of the Soviet journal, Atomic Energy, Sakharov estimatedthat about 10,000people would ultimately suffer cancers,genetic disorders, and other ill effectsfrom the radioactivity produced by a I-megaton nuclear explosionin the atmosphere.According to this estimate,the 1961 Soviettest of a 58-megatonnuclear explosive-,an explosionthat by itselfaccounts for about 10 percentto the total yield of all atmosphericnuclear explosionsin history--will, in the long term, injure or kill about half a million people. Sakharovtook his argumentsagainst testing all the wayto Khrushchev,but, accordingto his account,Khrushchev brusquelyinformed him that the responsibilityof scientistswas limited to designingthe weapons.It was the responsibilityof the governmentalleaders to decidewhat to do with them: Thus endedSakharov's faith in going through channels. Even though the Soviet journal in which this article appeared was being translated and published in English and independentUS scientists-notablyLinus Pauling-were making similar estimates,the Sakharovpaper receivedalmost no public noticein the West. How has Sakharov's estimate stood the test of time? In a brief appendix, I comparethe
    [Show full text]
  • History's Worst Software Bugs Page 1 of 3
    History's Worst Software Bugs Page 1 of 3 << Back to Article History's Worst Software Bugs Simson Garfinkel 11.08.05 Last month automaker Toyota announced a recall of 160,000 of its Prius hybrid vehicles following reports of vehicle warning lights illuminating for no reason, and cars' gasoline engines stalling unexpectedly. But unlike the large-scale auto recalls of years past, the root of the Prius issue wasn't a hardware problem -- it was a programming error in the smart car's embedded code. The Prius had a software bug. With that recall, the Prius joined the ranks of the buggy computer -- a club that began in 1945 when engineers found a moth in Panel F, Relay #70 of the Harvard Mark II system.The computer was running a test of its multiplier and adder when the engineers noticed something was wrong. The moth was trapped, removed and taped into the computer's logbook with the words: "first actual case of a bug being found." Sixty years later, computer bugs are still with us, and show no sign of going extinct. As the line between software and hardware blurs, coding errors are increasingly playing tricks on our daily lives. Bugs don't just inhabit our operating systems and applications -- today they lurk within our cell phones and our pacemakers, our power plants and medical equipment. And now, in our cars. But which are the worst? It's all too easy to come up with a list of bugs that have wreaked havoc. It's harder to rate their severity.
    [Show full text]
  • Point Kinetic Model of the Early Phase of a Spherically Symmetric Nuclear Explosion
    Point kinetic model of the early phase of a spherically symmetric nuclear explosion Andreas Walter Aste Department of Physics, University of Basel, 4056 Basel, Switzerland June 6, 2016 Abstract A concise point kinetic model of the explosion of a prompt supercritical sphere driven by a nu- clear fission chain reaction is presented. The findings are in good agreement with the data available for Trinity, the first detonation of a nuclear weapon conducted by the United States Army as part of the Manhattan project. Results are presented for an implosion device containing pure plutonium- 239, although the model can be easily applied to, e.g., uranium-235. The fizzle probability and cor- responding yield of a fission bomb containing plutonium recovered from reactor fuel and therefore containing significant amounts of spontaneously fissioning plutonium-240 which can induce a pre- detonation of the device is illustrated by adding a corresponding source term in the presented model. Related questions whether a bomb could be made by developing countries or terrorist organizations can be tackled this way. Although the information needed to answer such questions is in the public domain, it is difficult to extract a consistent picture of the subject for members of organizations who are concerned about the proliferation of nuclear explosives. Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (2010). 28.20.-v Neutron physics; 25.85.Ec Neutron-induced fission; 28.70.+y Nuclear explosions. 1 Introduction Despite the terrifying fact that numerous operational fission or even thermonuclear bombs exist on our planet, there is a great interest in the basic principles and physics underlying the concept of nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]