Oil Company Favors Carbon Tax - No Surprise

Subtitle:  Never Interrupt Your Opponent When He's Making A Mistake

In an earlier article posted on SLB, (see link) I stated that oil companies are indeed in favor of a carbon tax, that is, a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, not because they believe the man-made global warming hype, but because they stand to profit by selling more natural gas.  Natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide when burned in comparison to coal,

BP Energy Outlook 2019,
Fair Use exception to US copyright law

especially in electric power generating plants.   It is pure self-interest that drives oil companies to favor a carbon tax, and if the world has gone crazy in the belief that man-made global warming is real, and dangerous, and ceasing emissions of carbon dioxide is needed, then oil companies seize this as an opportunity.  One wonders just how many coal companies also favor a carbon tax. 

Very recently, yesterday in fact, BP, a major oil company went on record and on camera with a review of energy demand for the near future, out to about year 2040.  A major part of their vision, if you will, was having governments collect a carbon tax.  BP stands to benefit, by selling more natural gas.  BP Energy Outlook 2019 is at this link. 

Some of the major points that BP made in the video are:

1. Favors a carbon tax to replace coal with natural gas
2. Favors subsidies for carbon capture-sequestration, CCS
3. Favors massive energy efficiency investments
4. Favors biofuels for aviation
5. Favors battery-powered transportation, for all but aviation.  This increases electric power generation and sales of natural gas.  

6. Oil will be reduced to non-transportation uses such as petrochemical feed, etc.  (note that these are the more profitable business segments)

The video may be viewed on Twitter at this link.  The interview begins at around 6 minutes 10 seconds into the recording.  

Carbon tax:  BP stated that burning natural gas yields about one-half the carbon dioxide when compared to burning coal in a power plant.  That is rather generous, since the actual comparison is approximately one-third.   My number is based on the gas-powered plant using combined cycle technology, CCGT, with 60 percent efficiency while a coal-fired plant has only 30 percent efficiency.  If the fuels had an equal number of carbon and hydrogen atoms, that would give the one-half figure by BP.  But, coal has more carbon and less hydrogen than natural gas, so the actual comparison is less than one-half, and approximately one-third.   However, natural gas consumption is increasing while coal is decreasing in some areas, without a carbon tax.  UK, for example, has almost zero coal-fired power at this time.  The US has increased natural gas and decreased coal consumption for power generation as pollution laws changed so that coal plants now must invest in pollution abatement equipment.  The plants shut down rather than invest.  Meanwhile, natural gas power plants are booming.  

It is also instructive that Peabody, the major coal company, does not favor a carbon tax.  Instead, Peabody advocates for subsidies for carbon capture technologies, see below.   Also, Peabody's statement on climate change and ways to address it are at this link.

Subsidies for CCS:  BP stated the long-term subsidies for wind and solar power were very effective in making those technologies economic, and wants a similar treatment for CCS technologies.  They refer to it as CCUS, for carbon capture, use, and sequestration.  Presumably, the "use" includes CO2 mineralization such as conversion to sodium bicarbonate for food sales.   At present, there is already a great deal of research into the capture technology, as that is the capital and energy-intensive part.   BP wants more. 

Energy Efficiency Investments:  It is unclear exactly what BP means by this; however we have already seen energy reduction by mandated efficiency for automobiles, the CAFE standards.  Many years ago, the US chemical and refining industries had a mandated energy efficiency improvement that was quite successful.   The problem with energy efficiency in many areas is a diminishing return on the investment.   There are some areas, though, where efficiencies can save more energy; the mandated sale of high-efficiency home appliances is one such area.   It may be a good idea to promote off-peak power consumption for chilled water or ice-and-water storage, then use the stored chilled water the next day for building or home cooling.  This could save fuel when more efficient power plants are running at night, and the least-efficient are running during the peak of the day.  

Biofuels for Aviation:  Bio-jet is similar to bio-diesel in that it handles and burns like jet fuel but is made from renewable feedstocks.   Bio-jet exists and a few test flights have been made. 

Battery-powered Transportation (EVs for cars and trucks):  BP favors these because they increase the demand for electric power.  In BP's vision, the additional electric power will be provided by natural gas, a product which they sell. 

Non-fuel uses for petroleum:  BP discussed single-use plastics, as an environmental problem that should be resolved.  Correctly, BP stated that plastic containers serve a useful purpose and their replacement must be carefully considered else it may be worse. Before plastic (another BP?), containers were typically glass or metal.  Plastic weighs less and therefore less fuel is consumed in the transport of such products in plastic containers.  

Conclusion
BP sees oil demand continuing for many years, perhaps two or three decades as fuel uses diminish, and petrochemicals from oil increase.   Not mentioned were asphalt and lubricating oils.   A reduced demand for oil will extend the life of oil fields, while reducing fuels produced from oil actually increases the profit margins for an integrated oil company. 

All of this has the goal of combating man-made climate change, or so BP says, but one really must wonder how much is simply taking advantage of an opportunity by putting self-interest first and nodding one's head.    Selling more natural gas as power plant fuel, and prolonging the life of oil reserves while making much more profit per barrel, are not bad things to a big oil company.   

If governments are making a mistake in stating that man-made global warming is real and a real danger, (and they are) then BP and other oil companies have figured out ways to make a profit.   That's not a bad thing, actually, since the entire business of mining, transporting, burning, and disposing of the ash from coal has serious and real environmental issues. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Rebuttal to AIChE Presentation on Global Warming 3-2019

Subtitle: "A Man Seems Right Until Another Examines Him"

I had an interesting evening on 7- March -2019 in Houston, Texas at the AIChE – South Texas Section monthly dinner meeting.  The program speaker is a professor in chemical engineering at Texas A&M University, Dr. Mark Holtzapple.  His topic was “Global Warming – An Engineering Perspective."  I knew in advance that the slant would be pro-warming, pro-alarmism, based on the statements the current President of our section had made, and the biographical material on Professor Holtzapple.  His research is, in part, on biofuels.  So, it was not much of a surprise to attend the presentation and see slide after slide, statement after statement, parroting the pro-alarmist points.    I sat in silence, but mentally taking notes in case I was allowed to ask a question at the end.   (see this link to a previous SLB article written just before the meeting; with a list of questions I would have liked to ask)

UPDATE 23 March 2019:  added an item on Venus' surface temperature -- end update

It appeared to me that the presenter’s purpose was to show that the problem of global warming is real, it is cause for alarm, it is agreed to by almost everyone that counts, and it will create great harm if not stopped.     I don't know, but I strongly suspect that the presentation was one that is given to potential grant donors, who believe in global warming and fund research to halt it. 
   
Below is a list of points the presenter made (in bold font) with which I would take issue, and a brief statement of why what was said was either wrong, or misleading (in parentheses).    I may update this list as more return to my memory, and with literature references. 


• Claimed the Climate models match the Temperature record, with a graph that appeared to start in perhaps 1900 and ran up to perhaps 2010   
              ( Perhaps the models do a fairly good job after detailed tuning, but there was no mention of the complete absence of ability to forecast 
     There was also no mention that it is easy to tune a model to a dataset, but what is difficult (and these models have never done, to my knowledge) is to tune the models on the first half of the data, then run them and show agreement with the second half. ) 

• Said a rise in CO2 leads (occurs before) a rise in Temperature in modern times, but the lead-lag was reversed until the last 100 years.  That is, until year 1900, temperature rose first, followed centuries later by CO2 increases. 
      (no discussion that that may be unprecedented in the long history of Earth
      However, there are some scientists that claim volcanic emissions of CO2 caused a greenhouse effect sufficiently strong to melt glacial ice at some points in Earth’s long history.   What is far more likely is that volcanic ash and soot was deposited on the ice, which absorbed sunlight and accelerated the melting. )

• CO2 absorbs heat; but showed a graph of the same IR wavelengths as H2O vapor.  
                 (big gloss-over here, nobody called him on this one.
                 The key point is that if, as he claims, H2O vapor absorbs the same wavelengths of IR heat as does CO2, then adding more CO2 will have zero effect.)  

• Claimed Earth’s energy budget is Energy In = Energy Out 
             ( nobody called him on the incorrect statement.  The correct equation is Energy In = Energy Out + Accumulation, where accumulation is heat absorbed by or given up by the oceans)

• Said that atmospheric CO2 is man made, 
               (Made no comment about natural sources of CO2.
       Man-made CO2 is trivial compared to natural increase.   How do we know?  For one thing, historic records of CO2 show values above 1000 PPM when human activity was zero. 
       For another, some publications show the oceans have warmed over the past 150 years, and warmer water out-gasses dissolved CO2.   How much the water warmed is highly debatable, given the measurements of the time.)

• Claimed that warmer oceans will create species extinction now; gave an example of sea turtles
            (He saw me shake my head at this; he stopped and asked me why I disagree?   I asked him how the sea turtles would die off now, but did not die off in prior warm periods?                  Compared to today, warmer periods existed during the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period, 2000 and 3500 years ago.  There were others before them. 
               He had no reply other than, as best I recall, saying I was being sarcastic.  
               see link for a discussion on how corals, sea turtles, and polar bears survived a period much, much warmer than today)

• Claimed oceans are becoming more acidic as CO2 is absorbed; this and hotter oceans will kill off coral reefs
                   (same issue as before, how did corals survive the earlier warm periods
                    Alarmists have a problem with warmer oceans and increased acidity, because warmer water holds less dissolved gas such as CO2.  Increased acidity requires the warmer water to hold MORE dissolved CO2.)

• Said Sealevel rise already floods Miami; 
         (why didn’t Florida flood in the recent warm periods? 
                 Subsidence, perhaps?)

• Said the sunlight that reaches Earth's surface is 342 W/m2 (as I recall, the number was perhaps slightly bigger or smaller) after albedo effects; and greenhouse gases warm the Earth to the present average 15 degrees C. 
         (What Gray body emissivity factor is used as a fudge factor to get 15 C Global Average Temperature?   
         No mention that actual measured solar radiation at Earth’s surface exceeds 1000 W/m2 on sunny days.  Reference Southwestern desert temperature stations via NOAA and NWS.  Mountain Springs near Las Vegas, e.g. 
          No mention that the measured solar radiation decreases to 200-600 W/m2 when clouds cover the sky.   
                   Clear and convincing evidence that cloud cover is far, far more significant than any change in CO2. )  

• Showed a graph of total fossil fuel use over time, claimed this as the source of atmospheric warming due to CO2 emissions
        (No mention of urban warming nor the urban heat island effect
         Simple heat balance requires that all that heat released from burning the fuels must be removed, else local areas will increase steadily in temperature.  The large cities do show an increased, steady temperature rise since 1900 e.g. Boston, San Francisco, New York City, others).  

• Showed the classic Temperature vs Time chart where Global Temperature declined during 1940-1980 while CO2 rose (actually that was probably the graph of GATA vs time, global average temperature anomaly)
        (no mention of the disconnect.  He said earlier that increased CO2 causes temperature to increase.   How, then, did temperatures decline for almost 40 years in mid-century?  CO2 was increasing during that time.)

• Said Arctic bare water absorbs more sunlight and heat than does sea ice; shrinking ice therefore causes warming.  
         (No mention that Arctic ocean water loses more heat via radiation per Stefan-Boltzmann,
                  No mention that ice acts as a very good insulator, holding heat in the water that would otherwise be lost as cold, fierce winds howl across the surface and black-body radiation allows heat to radiate into space.) 

• Showed a graph of Arctic ice extent (I think) vs time, showed a distinct downward trend that ended at a low point.
        (No mention that Arctic ice extent stabilized and actually has increased since 2007,
       No mention that the downward trend is highly correlated to dark ash and soot from coal-fired power plants, and from over-the-pole jet aircraft engine emissions,
        No mention of undersea volcanic warming of Arctic water.)

• Showed a Graph of a world map with present temperatures compared to average or baseline Temperature from 1951-1981, shouted (twice) at the audience that the Arctic is 11 deg C warmer.  
       (No mention that few, or no measurements exist in the Arctic before 1980, so how do they know?  How accurate is the before-and-after comparison)

• Says wind power must have storage, showed compressed air storage underground, aka CAES for compressed air energy storage
       (but we don’t require grid storage, instead we use flexible gas power plants, 
        meanwhile wind produces 6.5 pct of electricity in US annual average,
        wind produces more than 25 pct annually in several states. 
        Texas’ grid managing entity ERCOT states that wind power reached a record of 54 percent of Texas' momentary grid load in October, 2017.  Texas has no grid storage to speak of.
               SLB article on wind power and natural gas is at this link )

• Showed an Ice core CO2 graph spliced onto Mauna Loa CO2 graph, 
        (This is wrong because one data set is actual measurements (Mauna Loa) while the other is a completely different method (bubbles from ice cores)
          no mention of gas migration in snow to ice as compaction occurred, 
          no mention of gas diffusivity in ice at pressure.   
          CO2 values in ice cores' bubbles are therefore much lower than in the atmosphere.) 
  
• Mentioned 100,000 year climate cycle, 
         (no mention of 1500 year global warming cycle.
                   e.g. Medieval Warming, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming, etc.)

• Mentioned Methane hydrates as source of methane emissions creating greenhouse effect, showed a video clip of James Hansen re tipping point, 
         (but no mention of how Earth survived the recent past warm periods eg Roman Warming, Minoan Warm Period, and previous for the past 15,000 years since glaciers melted.)

• Slide of a glacier retreat over several decades, 
       (no context of similar rate of retreat since 1850, warming due to Little Ice Age. 
        No mention of other glaciers that are growing)

• Showed recent Houston flooding events and frequency; 
       (no mention of NOAA's chart showing decreased flooding frequency over recent 30 years.   
        No mention of massive Texas floods in 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.  
        Colorado and Brazos rivers joined in a great flood.)  

• Said even the major oil companies favor a carbon tax, 
         (no mention of why?  They want to sell natural gas as power plant fuel, and put coal out of business.  Self interest. 
          Oil companies' Climate statement was only due to shareholder pressure.
           For a recent SLB article on BP's favorable stance on a carbon tax, see link)

• Mentioned Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," perhaps as an attempt to persuade the audience that global warming is real and catastrophic.
                (No mention that the movie contains multiple defects
                 No mention that a judge requires the defects to be presented along with the movie in UK schools
                 The primary defect is the huge graph of CO2 and temperature over time, giving the false impression that increases in CO2 cause an increase in global temperature)

•  Mentioned the surface temperature of planet Venus is hotter than is Mercury, even though Mercury is much closer to the Sun.  Blamed the CO2 in Venus' atmosphere. 
                (No mention that Venus' atmosphere is very thick, many miles deep, and surface pressure is approximately 94 times that of Earth at sea level.   Venus' atmospheric composition is almost entirely carbon dioxide, approximately 96 percent by volume.   In contrast, Earth has only 400 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere.    One would expect a professor of chemical engineering to know about the adiabatic lapse rate for gases at altitude.   (Adiabatic lapse rate is why a mountain top is colder than the valley floor below, at the same date and time.)  
                One would also expect a professor of chemical engineering to know about the parameters for radiant heat transfer in luminous gases, as described in the Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook.  
               The important point is that Earth has far too little CO2, at temperatures far too low, and overall pressures much too low for CO2 to be a significant heating source.   As stated by Professor Richard Lindzen (MIT), greenhouse gas warming by CO2 on Earth is trivially true but numerically insignificant.)

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 13

Subtitle: US Nuclear Plants are Heavily Subsidized

In an attempt to revive a dead industry, nuclear power plants have received, and continue to receive strong subsidies. This, the thirteenth article in the series, discusses nuclear subsidies.  Updated 5/28/2014 -- see below for state of Illinois' attempt to bail out money-losing nuclear plants. 

source: Wiki Commons

Previously, the articles on The Truth About Nuclear Power showed 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, (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, and (twelve) nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power on small islands.  Links to previous articles are found at the conclusion of this article. 

Carbon Tax   

Nuclear advocates argue, firstly, for a carbon tax so their plants will be economically attractive. The idea is that, since nuclear plants are powered by radiation-spewing uranium fuel that produces no carbon dioxide, these type of plants should be credited for not producing CO2.  Their argument is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming.  Other forms of power generation that burn fossil fuels, coal, natural gas, do emit CO2.  Congress did not pass a carbon tax, but the present administration accomplished the same goal via the US EPA.  The US EPA effectively got the same result by regulating CO2 emissions from power plants so that coal-fired plants must shut down.  Nuclear advocates see this as a huge victory.  In a sense, the EPA regulations are a form of federal subsidy for the nuclear industry.  

UPDATE 5/28/14:  see link  From the Chicago Tribune, Nuclear plants cannot compete economically, so the Illinois Speaker of the House introduces a resolution urging federal policies to subsidize nuclear plants based on their zero-emissions of CO2.    "Three nuclear plants owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corp. failed to secure contracts to provide power to the electrical grid at an annual auction held last week.

Exelon’s Byron and Quad Cities plants in Illinois were priced out of the auction by competing power providers, the company said Tuesday, placing the future of those assets in question. Its Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey, which is slated to close in 2019, also didn’t clear the auction."     also, 

". . . [Illinois] House Speaker Michael Madigan [D - IL] wants to help keep those plants open. They are among the top employers in the towns and counties in which they operate. A resolution sponsored by Madigan was introduced to the House last Friday urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the electric grid operators, to adopt policies that are "friendly" to nuclear power. Translation: enact a new rule to curb carbon emissions, which would be a boon to Exelon because its nuclear plants do not release greenhouse gases."  -- end update

Double Standard on Subsidies

Secondly, nuclear advocates also have a double standard in decrying any subsidies for their competition - primarily wind but also other renewable forms of power generation.  Then, the industry happily accepts subsidies of their own, not just the EPA boost from regulating coal-fired plants out of operation.  The nuclear industry also receives subsidies in the form of: 

1) huge loan guarantees from government, approximately $8.3 billion for the Vogtle plant alone.  (Update 5/4/2014: For more on new nuclear projects with loan guarantees, see link -- end update)
2) government legal relief from radiation liability, under the Price-Anderson Act, (see update just below)
3) regulation that no lawsuits during construction will be allowed (with a minor exception),
4) regulation to raise electricity prices during construction to avoid interest costs on construction loans; [UPDATE - 5/31/2014: South Carolina has already increased rates to pay for nuclear construction, now seeks another increase.  "The latest request, if approved, will mean customers will be paying about $20 more per month for their power than they were at the beginning of 2009. "  see link   end update]

 and 
5) operating regulations that are routinely relaxed to allow plants to not spend money to comply. (see Article 15 in the series, link here)  

Each of the five subsidies just listed will may be the subject of a more detailed article.  

Update: 5/11/2014 - Price-Anderson Act, summary.  The Act limits the liability of nuclear plant owners to $10.2 billion, with the US government taking the excess liability above that stated limit.  This is, probably, the greatest subsidy of all.  No nuclear plant would be constructed absent this shielding from lawsuits and damage claims from a major nuclear meltdown and release of radioactive materials.   (see link for more details and analysis on Price-Anderson Act on SLB - Part 25 in TANP series)

The language of the Act states: "The Price-Anderson Act requires owners of commercial reactors to assume all liability for damages to the public resulting from an
‘extraordinary nuclear occurrence’ and to waive most legal defenses
they would otherwise have. However, in exchange, their liability
will be limited to capped amounts established in the Act.
First, each licensed reactor must carry the maximum amount of
insurance commercially available to pay any damages from a severe
nuclear accident. That amount is currently $300 million.
Any damages exceeding that amount are to be assessed equally
against all covered commercial reactors, up to $95.8 million per reactor
(most recently adjusted for inflation by NRC in August 2004).
Those assessments would be paid at an annual rate of no more

than $10 million per reactor. According to the NRC, all of the nation’s 103 commercial reactors are currently covered by the Price-
Anderson retrospective premium requirement.
Funding for public compensation following a major nuclear incident
would therefore include the $300 million in insurance coverage
carried by the reactor that suffered the incident, plus the
$95.8 million in retrospective premiums from each of the 103 currently
covered reactors, totaling $10.2 billion. On top of those payments,
a 5 percent surcharge may also be imposed, raising the total
per-reactor retrospective premium to $100.6 million and the total
potential compensation for each incident to about $10.7 billion.
Under Price-Anderson, the nuclear industry’s liability for an incident
is capped at that amount, which varies depending on the
number of covered reactors, amount of available insurance, and an
inflation adjustment that is made every 5 years.
The Act provides that in the event that actual damages from an
accident are in excess of this amount, Congress will ‘‘thoroughly review’’
the incident and take such action as is necessary to provide
‘‘full and prompt compensation to the public.’’ " -- source: Price-Anderson Act Amendments of 2005. [end update]

Cannot Compete Even With Subsidies

Even with the subsidies in the US, nuclear power has stagnated and is barely limping along on life support.  More plants are shutting down than are being built.

Conclusion

Nuclear power plants in the US are, and have been, heavily subsidized via loan guarantees, liability relief, relief from some lawsuits, a form of a carbon tax that shuts down their coal-based competition, and others.   The only conclusion that can be drawn is US nuclear power plants are heavily subsidized. 

Previous articles in the Truth About Nuclear Power series are found at the following links.  Additional articles will be linked as they are published. 

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 - this article  

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 - Conclusion

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