The Truth About Nuclear Power – Part 30

Subtitle: Conclusion on Nuclear Power Not Economic Nor Safe

This is the 30^th and final chapter in the Truth About Nuclear Power series, (see links at end of article) at least for now.  The TANP series was motivated by many conversations and digital exchanges via emails and online blogs over several years, in which most nuclear advocates advanced various statements about the advantages of nuclear power.  Knowing that those statements were false, I answered many of the false statements.  

For those who have read some of or the entire TANP series, this concluding article will serve as a review and provide (hopefully) further insight into the actual world of nuclear power.  The article is in three parts: 1) the rosy claims of nuclear advocates, 2) questions raised by those rosy claims, and responses to the questions raised, and 3) an answer for why nations continue to build nuclear plants despite the serious and numerous disadvantages.  

Part I of this article discusses nuclear advocates’ six primary claims, those being that nuclear power is 1) cheap,  only 2 or 3 cents per kWh,  2) reliable, and 3) extremely safe; they insist that 4) the plants run for 60 years before needing replacement, and 5) cost only $2.5 to $4 billion per 1,000 MW plant.  They also insist 6) the plants are built in only 4 years from groundbreaking to startup.   None of that squares with what I know about nuclear plants.

Part II of this article addresses a series of questions about nuclear power, the answers to which led to many of the previous articles on TANP.  The general form of the questions is, If what nuclear advocates say is really true, then Why (insert the question) is this also true?  These questions are shown below:

1 Why has nuclear power achieved only 11 percent of world power production, after more than 5 decades of competition?

2  Why do small islands have zero nuclear power plants, but burn expensive oil or diesel resulting in power prices of 25 to 35 cents per kWh?

3 Why do nuclear utilities never, ever, ask for a rate decrease when they build a nuclear plant?

4  Why did France install nuclear plants to provide 85 percent of the country’s power, and no other country in the world followed their lead?

5  Why does France have higher electricity prices than does the US, even with France heavily subsidizing their electricity industry?

6  Why does nuclear power in the US require heavy subsidies from government – and almost total indemnity from costs of a massive radiation disaster?

7  Why are nuclear plants shutting down in the US, with owners saying they are losing money?

8  Why are there so many near-misses on meltdowns in US plants, every 3 weeks? 

9  Why were there three serious meltdowns worldwide in just a bit more than 30 years? (Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island)

10  Why are new reactor technologies being researched and developed?

Part III of this article poses, then answers, the additional question of Why do countries around the world continue to build nuclear power plants, in spite of all the obvious, documented, irrefutable disadvantages of nuclear power?

I    Rosy Claims of Nuclear Advocates

Nuclear advocates assert six primary claims, those being that nuclear power is 1) cheap,  only 2 or 3 cents per kWh,  2) reliable, 3) extremely safe; they insist that 4) the plants run for 60 years before needing replacement, and 5) cost only $2.5 to $4 billion per 1,000 MW plant.  They also insist 6) the plants are built in only 4 years from groundbreaking to startup.   None of that squares with what I know about nuclear plants.

The reality is quite different.  Taking their assertions in turn, nuclear power is cheap only if one counts the fuel costs but ignores all the capital costs, operations and maintenance, insurance, taxes, and other costs of owning and running a plant.   There is a fundamental fact that energy from nuclear fission is quite large, given the amount of uranium that is split into smaller atoms.   However, no one prices a product simply on the fuel costs – for example, renting a moving van typically has a fixed cost per day plus a cost for miles driven, plus costs of insurance, plus the renter must pay for fuel used.   As another example, renting a home or apartment typically includes a fixed cost per month for use of the home, plus costs for utilities including electricity, natural gas, water, trash removal, communications (phone service and internet service), and insurance.  It is misleading and deceptive for nuclear advocates to claim that nuclear power is cheap, based solely on fuel costs.

Next, nuclear plants are claimed to be reliable.  At times, they are reliable – but only when they are running.  TANP Part 16 shows that in the US, nuclear plants were shut down on an emergency basis approximately once every 3 weeks over a four-year period.   Those incidents were serious, so much so that the NRC sent an investigative team to those plants.   There were actually far more unplanned shutdowns, each of which shows the plants are not as reliable as advocates claim.   The NRC, for safety reasons, requires nuclear plants to shut down for many reasons until the safety issue is resolved.   The plants also experience routine equipment failures, both on the nuclear and non-nuclear sides of the plant.    When the nuclear plant trips off-line, the other power plants on the local grid must make up the loss of power, or the electrical demand must be reduced.   A very recent example of loss of nuclear power is the total and permanent shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in Southern California in 2012.   The plant was shut down without warning due to a serious radioactive steam leak into the atmosphere.  This was discussed in TANP Part 23.   The twin reactors were producing approximately 2100 MW into the grid.  All that power had to be replaced quite suddenly.

Next, nuclear plants are claimed to be extremely safe.  Several articles on TANP address the safety issues, including Part 16 mentioned just above, showing the plants shut down approximately every 3 weeks in the US to prevent a serious malfunction.   The three major meltdowns, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima Dai-Ichi were discussed in one article each on TANP.  Evacuation plans required at each plant are discussed in Part 26.   The fundamentally unsafe nature of nuclear plants, and the incredibly high risk and consequent damages from a major incident are discussed in several articles, including Part 5, and 6.   Medical risks to populations are discussed in Part 19.  Reprocessing spent fuel and the safety issues associated are discussed in Part 18.   An example is described in Part 16, where  the short-lived Rancho Seco nuclear plant near Sacramento, California, was shut down permanently after only 18 years of operation (1971 - 1989) due to an incredible number of leaks, radiation emissions, fires, mechanical breakdowns, and other safety issues.

Next, nuclear plants are claimed to run for 60 years before replacement.  This assertion is simply not true; the Rancho Seco plant mentioned just above lasted only 18 years, while the two reactors at SONGS plant lasted just under 30 years.   The Three Mile Island Reactor 2 melted down after only one year of operation.  Per the NRC, at this time the oldest US operating reactors are 44 years old.   Of the 28 shutdown nuclear reactors in the US, none made it to 60 years before shutdown. 

Next, nuclear plants are claimed to cost only $2.5 to $4 billion per 1,000 MWe output.  This is again a similar misstatement, in that it incorporates only the theoretical cost, the “overnight” cost and does not include the realities of a multi-year construction period, cost escalations due to inflation on materials and labor, and the interest on construction loan.  As shown in Part 3, 6, and 9, the actual cost to construct a modern nuclear power plant is approximately $10 billion for a 1,000 MWe output. 

Finally, advocates claim that nuclear plants are built in only 4 years from groundbreaking to startup.  The reality is that almost every nuclear power plant requires far more than 4 years, with many requiring 10 years or longer to build.  Even today, a new reactor in Finland and a similar one in France are years behind schedule, the Vogtle plant in  Georgia (US) is also years behind schedule.  The South Texas plant was several years behind schedule when it started operating.   Watts Bar unit 1 required 23 years from start to completion. 

II A Series of Questions

Ten questions came to mind in response to the nuclear advocates’ position on nuclear power, which are discussed in turn below.  From above, the general form of each question is, If what nuclear advocates say is really true, then Why (insert the question) is this also true?  These questions are shown and discussed below.

1 Why has nuclear power achieved only 11 percent of world power production, after more than 5 decades of competition?

The reality is that, even after 50 years or more of design, development, actual experience, fine-tuning, and making best efforts around the world, nuclear power (as of 2011 per EIA statistics, see TANP part 11) provides only 11.7 percent of all power world-wide.   The only technologies smaller than nuclear’s share are oil (4.8 percent) and a catch-all category (4.5 percent) that includes wind, solar, geothermal, and various other renewable power.   One would expect that nuclear, if it were truly a superior technology economically and safe, would have easily surpassed coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric power (41, 22, and 16 percent approximately, respectively).  Nuclear power, in the US and in the early 70’s, was seen as a cheap way to replace oil-fired power plants that were suddenly losing money after world oil prices increased in the Oil Embargo.  Until that time, oil provided about 20 percent of US power.  Nuclear plants replaced that oil-based power almost on a one-for-one basis.  However, when nuclear plants had to compete with lower-cost technologies, coal and natural gas, they could not. 

2  Why do small islands have zero nuclear power plants, but burn expensive oil or diesel resulting in power prices of 25 to 35 cents per kWh?

This is discussed at length in TANP part 12.   It is quite instructive that islands around the world, particularly those 15 islands with populations that support a power demand of approximately 1000 MW, have zero nuclear power plants.  If nuclear power was truly as cheap as the advocates claim, then why are islanders burning fuel oil and diesel in generators to produce power that costs them 25 to 35 cents per kWh (or more)?  Surely, the islanders are not stupid.  The simple fact is that islanders are quite smart, and are using the best technology available to provide power at the lowest cost consistent with reliability and safety.   Nuclear advocates seethe over this point, and sneeringly reply that England must not be an island, then, nor Taiwan, nor Japan (several islands actually), since they all have nuclear power plants.  However, the point is that small islands, those with populations of approximately 1 million, have expensive power but zero nuclear plants. 

3 Why do nuclear utilities never, ever, ask for a rate decrease when they build a nuclear plant?

If nuclear power truly was as low-cost as the advocates claim, why then do utilities always request a rate increase when building a nuclear plant?   In all my research over many decades, I have yet to find a single utility that asked for a rate decrease after building a nuclear plant.  Indeed, today in Georgia (US), the utility had to request the legislature and Governor to change the law so that the utility could charge existing customers more money in order to build the Vogtle nuclear plant.   The utilities have gone from asking for money after the plant is built, to asking for money during construction.    At times, utilities have asked for so much money in the rate increase that lawsuits were required to settle how much of the cost to build nuclear could be obtained from the customers, and how much the utility had to absorb.   

The natural consequences of building nuclear plants is higher and higher power prices.  Grim consequences of this are discussed at length in TANP part 2. 

4  Why did France install nuclear plants to provide 85 percent of the country’s power, but no other country in the world followed their lead?

This fact, France having 85 percent nuclear power on their grid, is frequently thrown out by nuclear advocates to show that nuclear power is the best power choice, and that other countries would do well to follow France’s lead.  The reality is quite different.  This is discussed at length in TANP part 11.   France has few fossil fuel resources (at least up until now when natural gas is widely available but un-tapped via hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling).  Power before 1974 was provided by oil-burning power plants, using imported oil.  The OPEC oil embargo raised oil prices so much that France chose to build nuclear plants rather than import oil.  This is a theme that will be considered in greater detail in Part III of this concluding article.   

5  Why does France have higher electricity prices than does the US, even with France heavily subsidizing their electricity industry?

As shown in part 11, France had to subsidize its power industry, and must to this day sell excess power at night to other countries (primarily Italy) to avoid reducing the nuclear plants’ output each night and increasing again each day.   Only with the Italians’ cooperation is this possible.   France has also been found in violation of illegally subsidizing its power prices.   Finally, even with vast subsidies, France charges its customers between 50 percent and 100 percent more (essentially double) for electric power compared to prices in the US.  This is hardly a roadmap for anyone else to follow.  Indeed, no other country follows France in building so great a share of nuclear power on its grid.   After 40 years from the Oil Embargo, if it were a good idea, surely some other country would have done so. 

6  Why does nuclear power in the US require heavy subsidies from government – and almost total indemnity from costs of a massive radiation disaster?

As shown in great detail in part 13 and 25, US nuclear power plants enjoy massive subsidies.  In fact, no nuclear plant would be built without the subsidies.  Forms of subsidy include construction loan guarantees, liability relief from property and human injuries due to radiation disasters, relief from some construction lawsuits, a form of a carbon tax that shuts down their coal-based competition, and as mentioned earlier, legislation to force rate-payers to pay for nuclear power plant construction before the plants are completed.    In fact, the Price-Anderson Act provides that nuclear plant owners carry insurance for $300 million in damages, and each operating plant must contribute to anything above $300 million.  The federal government pays anything above a stated amount, presently about $10 billion.  In effect, the nuclear power plant owners have almost zero liability due to insurance and government indemnity.   This cannot be conducive to a safe operating regime – if there are zero consequences, why try to operate safely?

7  Why are nuclear plants shutting down in the US, with owners saying they are losing money?

As shown in TANP part 1, almost a dozen US nuclear power plants have either announced their intention to shut down, or are losing money while operating.  Nuclear utilities are pleading with lawmakers to pass laws to provide government subsidies to the nuclear plants.   This is due to the fact that nuclear power is not the most economic choice for power generation.  In fact, it is a losing proposition.  Nuclear power plants almost always run at 100 percent output or close to that, meaning they do not reduce output at night when demand for power is lowest.  Their cash operating costs, for items such as labor, fuel, and consumables like water and chemicals, are higher than the price the grid operator will pay them.   The fact that they do not reduce output at night forces them to compete with themselves, putting an unwanted and un-needed product into the market, driving down the prices.  Exelon, the owner of more US reactors (23) than any other company, has publicly sought government intervention to prop up its sales prices – in an effort to “save jobs.” 

8  Why are there so many near-misses on meltdowns in US plants, every 3 weeks? 

The nuclear industry, and nuclear advocates, try to avoid discussing the serious and frequent near-misses in the US nuclear reactor fleet.  However, the information is publicly available and is compiled and published annually.  The results for the four years 2010-2013, inclusive, are discussed in part 16.  There were 70 serious incidents in the four years, for an average of approximately one every 3 weeks.  There were many more incidents but these 70 resulted in an investigative team sent to the plant by the NRC.    Nuclear power plants are a tragedy waiting to happen.   From design issues that are only now discovered (many 40 years after startup), to replacement parts that do not work smoothly with the other plant systems, to untrained operators, to normal equipment failures responded to badly, to unanticipated combination of system failures, the list of causal events goes on and on. 

The most serious incident, in my view, occurred at the Byron Station, Unit 2, in January, 2012, in Illinois.  A complete loss of cooling water at Unit 2 was temporarily replaced with water from Unit 1. Had this been a single-reactor plant, with no operating reactor close at hand, the loss of cooling could have resulted in a partial or full core meltdown, exactly what happened at Fukushima, Japan, and at Three Mile Island.  This is completely unacceptable.

Nuclear advocates, though, argue that the safety systems are adequate since no meltdowns occurred recently.  However, the sheer number of serious incidents shows that eventually, another catastrophe will occur.  The US has been lucky, but that luck is likely running out as the plants grow older and more mishaps occur.

9  Why were there three serious meltdowns worldwide in just a bit more than 30 years? (Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island)

This question is about the most serious disasters thus far.  Each is well-known, and has been in the world news.  Each meltdown has its own article in TANP, Three Mile Island is article 21, Chernobyl is article 20, and Fukushima is article 22.   In spite of the claims to safety, Three Mile Island resulted in a core meltdown that almost broke through the reactor walls.  That would most assuredly resulted in a hydrogen explosion and containment building destruction – with radiation spread over a wide area near the northern US East Coast.  Only pure dumb luck prompted an operator to re-start a water pump that had been deliberately shut down earlier.   That additional water began cooling the melting core.   Chernobyl’s explosion was the result of a badly planned and executed test with the reactor far from acceptable conditions.   The Fukushima multiple reactor meltdowns and containment building explosions were due to total loss of all grid power for days and days, following an earthquake that slightly exceeded design conditions plus a tsunami that far exceeded design conditions.   Each time a major incident occurs such as those three, the industry shrugs it off with sayings such as
“that was a coincidence,” or “that can never happen again” or something similar.   Yet, the stark fact is that in just over 30 years, there have been 3 major meltdowns, (five if Fukushima’s 3 reactors are counted separately), with 4 exploded containment buildings. 

10  Why are new reactor technologies being researched and developed?

This ties in with the earlier questions on nuclear economics, and to an extent, reactor safety.  If present nuclear technology was truly cheap, and truly safe, there would be no need to explore alternatives.  Yet, several countries are developing technologies including small modular reactors (SMR), fusion, thorium molten salt reactors, and high temperature gas reactors.  Each of these has an article on TANP, (8, 27, 28, and 29 respectively).   The conclusion for each technology is that the economics are even worse than present large-scale PWR (pressurized water reactor) designs, and each has serious safety issues.   The SMR companies in the US have recently curtailed their activities due to lack of investment and lack of customers.  The market-place has voted with its pocketbook, and the vote was “no sale.”   Fusion is proceeding in research but has so many drawbacks it is almost a tragedy.  They plan to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, isolate deuterium from normal hydrogen, freeze the deuterium, make spherical pellets of the deuterium, then load the sphere into a special chamber where high-powered lasers blast simultaneously on the sphere’s surface to induce a fusion reaction at the sphere’s core.    If it were not published by a US national lab, this would be the stuff of comic books and a mad scientist.   Thorium in a molten salt has so many technical and safety issues it will likely never be approved by a regulatory agency.  The same is true with HTGR, where uranium is enclosed in 2.5-inch spheres that are to be injected via a lock-hopper into a hot nuclear reactor at 1000 psi and more than 1000 degrees F. 

III Why Countries Continue to Build Nuclear Power Plants

Many more nuclear plants are under construction, or planned, in spite of all the obvious, documented, irrefutable disadvantages of nuclear power.   Most are not in the US, instead they are in many other countries including China, India, Finland, France, and others.   It is helpful to examine the alternatives for generating power in various countries.

First, the US has perhaps the lowest cost of natural gas of any major economy due to extensive directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing of gas-bearing strata deep underground.  Most other countries pay a price for natural gas that is on parity with the fuel-equivalent value of oil.  In today’s dollars, oil is approximately $100 per barrel, the equivalent of $17 per million Btu.   Natural gas in the US is presently $3 to $4 per million Btu, while in other countries it is $15 to $17 per million Btu.   A recent and major supply contract from Russia to China has the price of gas tied to the price of oil; as oil price increases, so does natural gas.  

Even with a high-efficiency natural gas power plant that uses combined cycle technology, the fuel component of power is approximately one-half the price of the natural gas.  Therefore, with gas at $17 per million Btu, power must be sold for at least $90 per MWh (9 cents US per kWh).   Capital costs and other operating, maintenance and miscellaneous costs add another $20 to $30, with the resulting price to the grid of $110 to $120 per MWh.  This price is what a nuclear plant must compete with, in non-US countries. 

Indeed, it is instructive that recent projects for nuclear power plants have a sales price for power of almost exactly as shown above.  India, for example, obtained a price of $100 per MWh in negotiations with France-based Areva where Areva wanted $160 per MWh.    That same project has a sweetheart interest rate of 4.8 percent from France to India for the construction loan.   Russia also sweetens nuclear plant deals with below-bank financing.  

Countries also are not pleased with natural gas imports, especially when the gas supplier has a tendency to shut off the gas supplies.  Russia has done this to its gas customers.   Perhaps it is better, the thinking goes, to have nuclear plants provide the power and not risk having the gas shut off in a cold winter.

It is also a consideration that balance of trade, the high cost of importing vast quantities of oil or natural gas, can have an effect on a national economy.  That is the reason France has advanced for switching to nuclear in the 1970s. 

Finally, it may be that different countries evaluate the safety risk and conclude that nuclear plants are sufficiently safe, given proper design and when located away from earthquake zones and tsunami areas. 

Conclusion

Finally, it has been shown throughout the TANP series that nuclear power is not economic – many citations are documented.  Nuclear power is not safe either – again many citations are documented.  Despite this, many countries are building nuclear plants and plan to build even more.   Their reasons to build nuclear may satisfy them, but it is very interesting to note why nuclear cannot compete in the US: the price of natural gas is too low.   Many other countries, France included, also have vast resources of natural gas locked away in shale deposits that can be developed (as is the US) using directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing.  Producing such gas reserves domestically would reduce the price of natural gas, perhaps far below the oil-based pricing currently prevailing. 

As Germany reacted to the Fukushima disaster, declaring nuclear power a menace that will be shut down as soon as possible, other countries will very likely take the same decision.  While not wishing any ill effects on anyone anywhere, only one more major disaster such as Fukushima meltdowns and radiation release, would tip the scales in balance of no more nuclear power. 

 Previous Articles

The Truth About Nuclear Power emphasizes the economic and safety aspects by showing that (one) modern nuclear power plants are uneconomic to operate compared to natural gas and wind energy, (two) they produce preposterous pricing if they are the sole power source for a grid, (three) they cost far too much to construct, (four) use far more water for cooling, 4 times as much, than better alternatives, (five) nuclear fuel makes them difficult to shut down and requires very costly safeguards, (six) they are built to huge scale of 1,000 to 1,600 MWe or greater to attempt to reduce costs via economy of scale, (seven) an all-nuclear grid will lose customers to self-generation, (eight) smaller and modular nuclear plants have no benefits due to reverse economy of scale, (nine) large-scale plants have very long construction schedules even without lawsuits that delay construction, (ten) nuclear plants do not reach 50 or 60 years life because they require costly upgrades after 20 to 30 years that do not always perform as designed, (eleven) France has 85 percent of its electricity produced via nuclear power but it is subsidized, is still almost twice as expensive as prices in the US, and is only viable due to exporting power at night rather than throttling back the plants during low demand, (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands, (thirteen) US nuclear plants are heavily subsidized but still cannot compete, (fourteen), projects are cancelled due to unfavorable economics, reactor vendors are desperate for sales, nuclear advocates tout low operating costs and ignore capital costs, nuclear utilities never ask for a rate decrease when building a new nuclear plant, and high nuclear costs are buried in a large customer base, (fifteen) safety regulations are routinely relaxed to allow the plants to continue operating without spending the funds to bring them into compliance, (sixteen) many, many near-misses occur each year in nuclear power, approximately one every 3 weeks, (seventeen) safety issues with short term, and long-term, storage of spent fuel, (eighteen)  safety hazards of spent fuel reprocessing, (nineteen) health effects on people and other living things, (twenty) nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, (twenty-one) nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island, (twenty-two)  nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima, (twenty-three) near-disaster at San Onofre, (twenty-four) the looming disaster at St. Lucie, (twenty-five)  the inherently unsafe characteristics of nuclear power plants required government shielding from liability, or subsidy, for the costs of a nuclear accident via the Price-Anderson Act, and (twenty-six) the serious public impacts of large-scale population evacuation and relocation after a major incident, or "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" in the language used by the Price-Anderson Act.  Additional articles will include (twenty-seven) the future of nuclear fusion, (twenty-eight) future of thorium reactors, (twenty-nine) future of high-temperature gas nuclear reactors, and (thirty), a concluding chapter with a world-wide economic analysis of nuclear reactors and why countries build them.  Links to each article in TANP series are included at the end of this article.

Part One – Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete

Part Two – Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail

Part Three – Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct

Part Four – Nuclear Power Plants Use Far More Fresh Water

Part Five – Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

Part Six –  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten -- Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands

Part Thirteen - US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized

Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete

Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules

Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks

Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term

Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things

Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown And Explosion

Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979

Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen 

Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga

Part Twenty Four - St Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion

Part Twenty-Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process

Part Twenty-Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream

Part Thirty - this article 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California