A Subsidy Synopsis

Subtitle: Wind Energy Succeeds while Nuclear Recedes

Much is made over the subsidies that renewable energy have, almost always by their detractors.   One would think, from listening only to the detractors, that no other energy source (electricity generation in this instance) has ever had, or ever will have, subsidies.  

(UPDATE:  8/18/2017 -  Added material on the mis-direction in the subsidy study below, commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute.  As usual with anything from the nuclear industry, the deception is strong.   In this case, the results shown compare apples and oranges, in an attempt to hide the huge subsidies that nuclear power has received. -- end update)

The facts are quite the opposite.   But, before getting into the actual numbers for each generating technology, a digression into subsidy policies.   Also, what to include when the word subsidy is used. 

Governments are the usual source of subsidies, sometimes in the form of direct grants of money from tax revenues, or in favorable tax treatment (e.g. tax credits) to companies that engage in an activity, or regulations that favor that activity, or government services to that activity, or market activity i.e. the government purchases the product to ensure a market exists, also government guaranteed loans to build a project to produce the product.   In the case of commercial nuclear power, an additional (perhaps unique) subsidy was granted: no liability to the nuclear plant owner in a catastrophic radiation release, beyond a small, nominal amount that is covered by insurance.  The government assumes all liability above a stated amount.  SLB has at least two articles on the Price-Anderson Act for liability subsidies for commercial nuclear power plants. 

Many, many activities are within the world of subsidies.   Indeed, the US Federal Tax Code lists 21 items as tax credits for individuals, plus 31 additional items as tax deductions for individuals.  The list for businesses is much, much longer.   In addition to Federal tax credits and tax deductions, many states also have additional tax credits and tax deductions.  

Having looked at what subsidies are, next is discussed why they exist.   Government has as a rightful concern the well-being of the people.   There may be government policies that are to be adopted, but the government prefers that private enterprise conduct that activity.   One example of this is commercial nuclear power.   Before power plants were built, there were plenty of atomic bomb blasts, later nuclear blasts and hydrogen bomb tests.   In short, those tests created great fear not only in the US population, but in many millions of people around the world.   US President Eisenhower recognized this, and made his famous Atoms For Peace speech at the UN.   In that speech, he advocated peaceful uses for the atom, including producing electricity in atomic power plants.   The thinking was that maybe, people would be less frightened if they know of the benefits of atomic power.   He also listed medical uses and agricultural uses.   As a result, Eisenhower insisted the US utility industry build nuclear power plants.  The executives were reluctant, knowing already that the cost to build such things was far greater than building a same-size coal-powered plant.   They also refused to build any at all due to the huge liability and insurance costs from a radiation release.   Eisenhower listened.  And had Congress pass the Price-Anderson Act, to take on almost all the radiation release liability.    So, that is one subsidy and its reason. 

Others, such as the tax deduction for home mortgages but not for home rental payments, are to encourage an activity that promotes domestic stability.   The thinking is that a home owner takes greater pride in his home and is ultimately more stable than those who rent.  There are arguments about that. 

Yet another is the direct use of government funds to build large dams across major rivers, store up the water in lakes and generate hydroelectric power as the water is released.  Almost all of the large hydroelectric dams in the US were built with government money.  Indeed, three of the biggest systems are the TVA, BPA, and of course the world-famous Hoover Dam.   TVA is Tennessee Valley Authority, BPA is the Bonneville Power Administration.   The power produced from all was sold at very low prices for many decades.  

Next, the question is, what is not a subsidy?  Are there benefits that accrue to a technology that are not actually subsidies?  That question generates considerable debate.   One that is frequently thrown out is that fossil fuels do not pay for their external costs to society, which is claimed as a hidden subsidy.   Another is that mining of oil, coal, and natural gas enjoys a mineral depletion allowance in the tax treatment of a company's revenues.   Still others are the pollution to air, water, and soil from fossil fuels that create harm or monetary losses but are not paid for by the fossil fuel companies.   Lately, the molecule Carbon Dioxide has been vilified as a convict (no longer a suspect!) in that category of pollution.   The buzz-word today is "social cost of carbon."  

Examples include the mine tailings for coal, toxic metals in ash piles from coal, drilling mud from oil and natural gas, sulfur and nitrogen oxides from burning coal and oil and gas, particulate matter (PM) from fossil fuel combustion, and dirty water disposal from hydraulic fracturing operations.   In addition, there are toxic salts from geothermal wells that produce power.   Even more toxic are the radioactive solids left behind in the mining of uranium ores and its enrichment.    Then, there are the impacts on wildlife.  There were acid rain stories and scares a few decades ago that affected fish and the creatures that ate them.   There are the millions of birds that are killed each year by conventional power plants.  

Yet, with all that as known pollution, the anti-wind groups focus solely on the bird and bat deaths by old-style derrick-design wind turbine support towers. 

The Past 60 Years Of Energy Subsidies

A few years ago, in 2011, the federal government did a study on subsidies for energy.  The result was "60 Years of Energy Incentives; Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy 
Development," October 2011, By Management Information Services, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Prepared for The Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, D.C.   see link to report.   For those who prefer to cut and paste, the URL is 

http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

The report results are summarized in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 - Comparison of Energy Subsidies since 1950 by Type and Energy Source
(2) Renewables are mostly Wind and Solar 

UPDATE:  8/18/2017 - added the various elements for each category of subsidies in the Report.  Added a number of Federal subsidy programs. 

A. Tax Policy
Tax policy includes special exemptions, allowances, deductions, credits, etc., related to the federal tax code. Tax policy has been, by far, the most widely used form of incentive mechanism, accounting for $394 billion (47 percent) of all federal expenditures since 1950. The oil and gas industries,for example, receive percentage depletion and intangible drilling provisions as an incentive for exploration and development. Federal tax credits and deductions also have been utilized to encourage the use of renewable energy.

B. Regulation
This category encompasses federal mandates and government‐funded oversight of, or controls on,businesses employing a specified energy type. Federal regulations are an incentive in the sense that they can contribute to public confidence in, and acceptance of, facilities and devices employing a new or potentially hazardous technology. Federal regulations or mandates also can directly influence the price paid for a particular type of energy. Thus, it is not surprising that federal mandates and regulations have been an important part of energy policy, accounting for $158 billion(19 percent) of energy incentives.
For this analysis, two types of federal expenditures associated with regulation were identified: 1) gains realized by energy businesses when they are exempt from federal requirements that raise costs or limit prices, and 2) costs of federal regulation that are borne by the general budget and charged to the regulated industries.

An example of the first type of regulatory incentive comes from the oil industry, which has benefited
from:

 exemption from price controls (during their existence) of oil produced from “stripper wells”
 the two‐tier price control system, which was enacted as an incentive for the production of “new”oil, and
 the higher‐than‐average rate of return allowed on oil pipelines.\
An example of the second type of regulatory incentive comes from the nuclear energy industry.Through the NRC (and its predecessor, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission), the federal government regulates the design and operation of nuclear plants to ensure protection of public health and safety. In this case, an independent, credible federal regulatory regime promotes public and investor confidence in commercial nuclear enterprises around the country. The cost of regulating nuclear safety through the NRC/AEC through 2010 was more than $16 billion. This amount includes the cost of administering both agencies (AEC to 1975 and the NRC from 1975 forward) as well as credit for regulatory user fees paid by electric utilities. Since 1991, these user fees have offset most of the NRC’s operating budget.

C. Research and Development
This type of incentive includes federal funding for research, development and demonstration programs.Of the $837 billion in total federal spending on energy since 1950, research and development funding comprised about 18 percent ($153 billion).

D. Market Activity
This incentive includes direct federal government involvement in the marketplace. Through 2010,federal market activity totaled $80 billion (10 percent of all energy incentives). Most of this market activity was to the benefit of hydroelectric power and, to a much smaller extent, the oil industry.Market intervention incentives for hydroelectric energy include the prorated costs of federal construction and operation of dams and transmission facilities. These costs are prorated because beginning in the 1930s, federal dams and water resource projects have been multi‐purpose. The results of these investments include flood control, navigation, recreation, regional development and other benefits in addition to hydroelectric power. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the portion of the net investment in construction and operation of dams allocated to power developmentand the relevant transmission facilities.
Market activity incentives for the oil industry include the relevant planning, leasing, resource management and related activities of the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

E. Government Services
This category refers to all services traditionally and historically provided by the federal government without direct charge and totaled $57 billion through 2010, representing 7 percent of total incentives. Relevant examples include the oil industry and the coal industry.
U.S. government policy is to provide ports and inland waterways as free public highways. In ports that handle relatively large ships, the needs of oil tankers represent the primary reason for deepening channels. They are usually the deepest draft vessels that use the port and a larger than‐proportional amount of total dredging costs are allocable to them. The authors estimated the expenditures for federal navigation programs and allocated these costs as a petroleum subsidy according to the ratio of petroleum and petroleum‐based products carried to all water borne trade. Similarly, to estimate the incentives for coal production from federal expenditures for ports and waterways, the costs for all improvements were multiplied by coal's share of the tons of total waterborne commerce.

F. Disbursements
This category involves direct financial subsidies such as grants. Since 1950, direct federal grants and subsidies have played a very small role in energy policy, accounting for –$6 billion, a negligible fraction of total incentives.

An example of federal disbursements is subsidies for the construction and operating costs of oil tankers. For nuclear energy, federal disbursements are negative, meaning the industry pays more than it receives in disbursements as a result of the contributions the industry makes to the Nuclear Waste Fund. As of 2010, the Nuclear Waste Fund had accumulated an $18 billion surplus. The entry shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 for disbursements to nuclear energy is shown as a negative value to reflect the industry’s over payment compared to what has been disbursed on its behalf.   End Update.

Some discussion follows.

It can be seen from Figure 1 that subsidies exist for all in healthy amounts, except for geothermal.  The number for nuclear incentives is mostly for research programs such as the fast breeder program.  Notably absent for nuclear are the subsidies as described earlier, radiation release liability, loan guarantees, and others.

(update added 8/18/2017) 

The study is very interesting for a few reasons.   It is very typical of nuclear-sponsored studies, as the industry strives mightily to deflect attention from its numerous drawbacks.   In this report, nuclear power is compared to oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric, renewable energy (solar and wind), and geothermal.  see Figure 2.   However, it must be noted that oil is almost 99 percent used for purposes other than producing electricity.  Some of those uses are transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstock, lubricants, and asphalt.  Natural gas also has many non-electricity uses, including things such as petrochemical feedstocks, fertilizer feedstock, heating uses, and transportation fuel.   A small part of coal is used in making steel and cement, also non-electricity uses.   But, this study includes all of the oil, all of the natural gas,  and all of the coal for subsidy comparison.  No wonder nuclear is not the largest number in their study.    In fairness, however, the study does include non-electricity uses for nuclear power, such as for Navy, Army, spacecraft propulsion, and merchant ship power.  Those are a very small amount. 

The second deception is the failure to include nuclear research funds into fusion.  For whatever reason they saw as appropriate, nuclear fusion research is excluded.   That, then, is a marvelous way to make the totals for nuclear subsidies appear smaller.   -- end update 8/18/2017.

Figure 2.  Comparison of Federal Subsidies for Energy 

One of the main arguments for incentives, or subsidies, is the research or assistance actually produces results that are useful.   It is clear that most of the nuclear R&D has not produced useful results.   In direct contrast, the funds spent on wind turbine energy have been extremely effective.  Wind turbine generators have one-third the capital cost today compared to only 7 years ago, plus much better productivity or capacity factor.   Also, wind energy now comprises almost 8 percent of of total US electricity production.   That percentage will increase as more wind turbine generators are installed.  

Wind energy incentives, or subsidies, have been a rousing success.   Nuclear research dollars, not so much.   In fact, fusion is still 100 years away, breeder reactors are also, and molten salt reactors are a disaster waiting to be built. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 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  

  

Cities and UHI Urban Heat Islands

Subtitle: Cities and UHI Warming Corrupt Temperature Databases

Much is made over the average global climate,with some insisting the Earth is warming at unprecedented rates, others not so sure, and many convinced that there is zero cause for alarm because the climate scientists who are in charge of the temperature data made various errors.   This article explores an aspect of the third category, a serious error in the temperature data that makes any claims of catastrophic warming moot.  

Lone skyscraper in Oxnard, California

The essential concept is that cities, many of them very large, are included in the temperature database that the scientists use.   Most of the cities show a rapid warming, which is well-known and named the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI).   The UHI is due to the energy consumed in a city that must be dissipated, plus the absorption of solar energy by the land area that must also be dissipated.   Each of these is described below. 

Cities have energy consumption for a multitude of purposes, including but not limited to building heating, building cooling via air-conditioning, lighting, home and restaurant use such as cooking and heating water, electronics operation, vehicles used in transportation, commercial and industrial use, airports, train operations, and seaports.   Energy is also consumed in construction and demolition activities.   Much of this energy is in the form of electricity, some is from burning fuels such as coal, home heating oil, propane, and natural gas, and some is from transportation fuels including gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, and fuel oil for ships.  From first principles of thermodynamics, all of the energy consumed, or input into the system, must be either stored or rejected to a heat sink.   Engineers will recognize the First Law, which states Energy In = Energy Out plus Accumulation, where Accumulation may be positive or negative.  Where Accumulation is zero, then Energy In = Energy Out.   The ways that this energy is dissipated, or the Energy Out component of the First Law, are explored next. 

A city, being comprised of static elements (buildings, roads, and such) plus dynamic elements (people moving, vehicles moving, machinery moving and such) can dissipate heat energy in all of the three ways of energy transfer.  Those three ways are by conduction, by convection, and by radiation.   Here, radiation refers not to nuclear ionizing radiation but to heat transfer by electromagnetic radiation in the infra-red spectrum, what is commonly known as radiant heat.    Conduction is the transfer of heat from one body to another by direct contact between the two.  A city has direct contact with the land below the city, to some extent with water if that is a part of the city, and the air above the city.  On a long-term basis, the amount of heat removed via conduction can be considered a very small fraction of the total Energy Out.    Convection is defined as heat transfer by mass motion of a fluid such as air or water when the heated fluid is caused to move away from the source of heat, carrying energy with it.  In a city, this would be primarily air blowing past buildings, either by natural wind, thermal air currents, or forced air in some cases.   Convection is a significant fraction of total Energy Out in a city.  Finally, radiation is the third and significant form of heat transfer in the total Energy Out in a city.   

A city can be considered as a collection of vertical heated objects, buildings, that have energy input that must ultimately be rejected as described above.   If the energy input is not dissipated or rejected, First Law requires that the buildings will have ever-increasing temperature.  We know that this does not happen, therefore the energy is dissipated.   One can consider the simple case of a single building on a flat prairie, where the building has 20 floors and stands approximately 200 feet above the prairie.   Such a building is shown nearby, a blue-exterior, 22-story building in Oxnard, California, the Financial Plaza Tower.   The important aspect of a lone, single building is that radiant energy is free to flow from the building in all directions.   The Financial Plaza Tower does have another, smaller building a few blocks away, so that radiant energy in that direction is somewhat impeded.   

However, if one considers multiple tall buildings in close proximity to each other, such as occurs in many large cities, the radiant heat cannot escape each building very quickly.  Instead, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for radiative heat transfer (see below) requires that each building shields its neighbors, or bounces the heat back and forth.  Only the buildings at the perimeter can radiate heat freely, and then only in the direction away from the other buildings.   Thus, a collection of tall buildings in cities must reject their heat primarily via convection.   One can experience this first-hand by visiting a city on a warm day with very little wind.   The heat accumulates rapidly.  Even at night, again with no wind, a city will have warmer temperatures than average.   (Aside and personal note, even though anecdotal, I worked for some time in downtown areas of Dallas, Texas, and in Los Angeles, California and experienced the zero-wind high temperatures both in the day and after dark.   The same occurs in other cities I have visited.  The phenomenon is real and easily observed.) 

(Note on Stefan-Boltzmann equation:  

Net Radiated Energy per second, E = k A (Th^4-Tc^4)  

where k is a constant, A is surface area of the radiating surface, Th is temperature of the hotter surface, and Tc is temperature of the cooler surface, all temperatures in degrees absolute.  In this formula, ^n indicates raising the preceding variable to a power, where Th^4 is the Th raised to the fourth power.   It is crucial to note that the energy E is the NET radiated energy between the two surfaces.   Each surface radiates at a rate governed by its own surface temperature.   Therefore, where two surfaces are at the same temperature, ZERO energy is radiated away on a net basis. )

It can be seen, then, that cities have a built-in heating system, if only from the buildings that cannot easily radiate away their heat.   Yet there are many other aspects of city heat, as described above.  The concentration of vehicles that burn fuel and emit heat via the exhaust, the cooling system, and hot engine also raises the air temperature in a city.   

Every electric motor in a city also produces heat that must be dissipated.  Every air conditioning system also sends heat into the air.  

Now to the key point: cities will have energy consumption and heat rejection issues no matter what type of system produces that energy.  Considering for the moment electricity use, even if a city were all-electric for heating, cooking, and transportation, and even if that electricity were produced by zero-carbon-dioxide power plants (see below), the UHI would exist.  In essence, a building has no idea what produced the electricity that heats the building, runs the lights and elevators, and heats the hot water.  An electric car, or bus, or delivery truck, or train, also has no idea what produced the electricity that each of those consumes.   Therefore, even if all the electricity is from a zero-carbon-dioxide source, the cities would still have UHI and would corrupt the climate scientists' data.   Such zero-carbon-dioxide sources include, but are not limited to, hydroelectric, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, wave, tidal, ocean current, ocean temperature-difference, water pressure recapture, river mouth osmosis, and river current.   There are also carbon-neutral sources: landfill methane, cattle operation methane, Municipal solid waste (MSW), human waste sludge, plant-based ethanol, other bio-fuels,   

It is entirely wrong for climate scientists to include any data that is corrupted by UHI.  

For completeness, the impact of solar energy on the city is described.  Up to this point, only the addition of non-solar energy to a city has been discussed.  Sunshine, or solar energy, is absorbed by the city buildings, streets, and other areas.  This heat must also be dissipated, and has the same dissipation options as described above: conduction, convection, and radiation.  Once the solar energy is absorbed, a building has no idea what caused the increased heat.  Therefore, any energy also has the same issues as non-solar energy.  

Conclusion

Most of the world's nations will soon convene in Paris, France, to discuss climate change and try to agree on a mechanism and by how much each nation will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, in the belief that doing so will stop the Earth from warming.   It is clear, however, that the climate or land temperature database is corrupted by including UHI.   It is essential that the delegates, and policy-makers, understand that there is no man-made global warming due to CO2 emissions.    It is scientific error to include in their database the hot cities and other locations where warming is indeed occurring, but would occur no matter what is the source of the energy.  

The Goodridge paper shows that zero warming occurred in more than 80 years in counties with small populations, while substantial warming occurred in counties with more than 1 million population.   Furthermore, recent data from the USCRN, for pristine sites throughout the USA, shows not only zero warming, but a pronounced cooling.  (see link)

For additional reading on UHI, the IPCC report AR5 has quite a bit to say:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/drafts/fd/WGIIAR5-Chap8_FGDall.pdf
(click here for link)  (Note, this link is to a 113 page pdf that does not automatically download)

More charts and references will be added to support the arguments above. 

Below are shown the temperature records of three large US cities: Boston, New York City, and San Francisco.  The warming rates, in degrees C per century, are 1.99, 1.49, and 1.49 respectively.   These warming rates are in line with what Goodridge reported for the largest counties in California for the 85-year period 1904 to 1996, approximately 1.7 degrees C per century. 

For reference, Boston urban area had 4.1 million people in 2010, with a density of 13,000 people per square mile.

New York City urban area had 8.5 million people in 2010 and a density of 27,000 people per square mile. 

San Francisco had 4.6 million people in 2010 and a density of 18,000 people per square mile. 

In contrast, the small cities shown below, Sacramento, California, and Abilene, Texas had populations and densities as follows.  

Sacramento had 460,000 people in 2010 with a density of 4,700 people per square mile. 

Abilene had 115,000 people in 2010 with a density of 1,100 people per square mile. 

Here are two smaller cities, Sacramento, California, and Abilene, Texas. These show zero warming, instead, a slight cooling of minus 0.29 and minus 0.19 degrees C per century, respectively.  

Additional temperature trend graphs similar to those shown above may be examined at this link, where results of 87 cities from 42 states in the USA are posted.   The data are from Hadley Climatic Research Center's hadCRUT3 files that were voluntarily released onto the internet, in late 2009, following the Climategate scandal. 

Links to previous SLB articles on Global Warming:
Warmists are Wrong, Cooling is Coming   (2012)

From Man-made Global Warmist to Skeptic - My Journey   (2011)


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell all rights reserved

Knowing versus Not Knowing

Subtitle: Ignorance is no substitute for knowledge

The search for Truth - with a capital T - has a long history.  How do we define something as True?  In part, the answer lies in what that something is.  Easily verifiable statements are true, if the verification is positive.  For example, it is true to state that the Pacific Ocean lies to the west of North America.  At the other extreme, truth is elusive for highly subjective statements such as "my dog is cute."  The dog may be cute to some observers, but very ugly to other observers.   Another consideration is the iceberg principle: what may appear to be true (no danger to a ship from the small top of the iceberg) is not true when all the facts are known (the underwater, hidden, and huge part of the iceberg is a danger to a ship).  In a court of law, judicial notice is taken when neither party wishes to dispute the truth of a fact that has some bearing on the case.  The fact is taken as absolutely true, with no doubt associated with that fact.  An example of a true fact, one that would have judicial notice in a court proceeding, is that June 27, 2015, is a Saturday. 

Note, there are some who quibble and object that islands are part of North America and are surrounded by the Pacific Ocean.  An example is Santa Catalina Island, offshore southern California.  

Background - about me and why I write this article
For those who may be new to Sowell's Law Blog, SLB, I am both an attorney-at-law and have long experience in chemical engineering in a great number of process plants around the world.  In addition to my law practice, I write on a number of topics, and make speeches to various groups from college students to professional engineering societies.    SLB topics typically include climate change, nuclear power, renewable energy, fossil fuel energy, government regulatory issues, fresh water, NASA's missions, engineering and scientific professional liability, Free Speech and the First Amendment, especially defamation, and others.   My stance generates some responses, of which quite a few are positive and some downright nasty and negative.   A few commenters, who sometimes send email, resort to vicious personal attacks, character assassination, and libel.   

For some perspective, SLB has existed since March, 2008, and has received almost 120,000 pageviews from more than 40,000 unique visitors in 140 countries.  At this time, there are 280 posts, and the blog receives approximately 3,000 views per month.  (Those statistics are not especially notable in the internet world, yet they are what this blog has produced over its 7 year life.  This represents far more views, and far more visitors, and certainly far more countries than I ever envisioned.  Alexa's global rank for SLB is 21.4 million, out of more than 1 billion websites globally).  

What sometimes puzzles me is how so many people, typically those with nasty and negative comments, can hold the positions they hold.  This article explores some of the reasons people hold an opinion. 

Knowledge Matrix

A knowledge matrix is a binary matrix with two parameters, with each parameter taking one of two values.  The two parameters are 1) knowledge a person can have, and 2) the realization the person has of having the knowledge.   The two values for each parameter are yes, and no, as shown below.  

  A) Don't know but don't realize it
  B) Don't know but do realize it
  C) Do know but don't realize it
  D) Do know and do realize it

For A) a person doesn't know the knowledge but also does not realize he doesn't know.  This person is (probably) blissfully ignorant of that particular bit of knowledge.  Experience has shown that many people, perhaps most people, have this A) condition for a great many subjects.  As examples, an unpublished bit of scientific knowledge may have only a few people who know about it, while the rest of the world population don't know and don't realize the knowledge exists.  Also, social groups that are isolated have no knowledge of events outside their local area and may not realize the outside areas exist.  

For B) a person doesn't know the knowledge but realizes he doesn't know. This person is one who recognizes that such knowledge exists, but realizes that he himself does not know the knowledge.  For example, most of us (excluding medical doctors) are in this category with respect to deep medical knowledge.  We know that a vast medical knowledge exists, and we may actually know some of it, but we realize we don't know all that a trained medical doctor knows.   This also describes a person with a shallow knowledge of any subject, who realizes that a complex and deep body of knowledge on that subject also exists.  

For C) a person does know the knowledge but doesn't realize he knows it.  This may seem a bit unrealistic, since most of us are aware of what we know.  Yet, examples exist all around.  A shy person may have never made a speech in public, but once he tries public speaking and has success, he enjoys public speaking.  He had the knowledge of how to speak in public but did not realize it. 

Finally, for D) a person does know the knowledge and realizes he knows it.  This describes people who have studied a subject, or practiced activities until they are proficient.  

This becomes important, the A B C D categories, when matters of some public concern are discussed.  Especially with the internet and its literally millions of websites, it can be seen that writers (and speakers) from all categories are publishing their views.  But, pre-internet, similar situations existed with traditional print and broadcast media.  People who wildly speculate might be in A), they don't know and don't realize they don't know, but they write very wrong things.  People in B) may write, but acknowledge they don't know and therefore seek opinions from authorities and quote those authorities.  That in itself has problems, discussed later.  People in C) may write, although in my experience those are rare.  They know, but don't realize they know, so they don't write.   People in D) may write, those who know and realize they know, and have valid points.  

However, the A B C and D categories are not sufficient; what about those Ds who know, and realize it, but deliberately omit key facts or distort the facts, or outright lie, to further their agenda?  This has great application in several key areas discussed below. 

Furthermore, what about those who don't know and don't realize it, (A), but actually believe they do know and realize it?  They may trust authorities, and repeat the talking points.   These may be good, honest people, but they simply have never heard the opposing viewpoint.  (e.g. people who don't know that the climate scientists adjusted historical data, omitted variables in their models, ignore important correlations, include data that should be excluded as invalid) (e.g. in nuclear power, those who never have heard the safety, costs, or subsidy facts such as shown by TANP series) (e.g. renewable energy costs are rapidly declining, with increased production and grid penetration with no ill effects, storage is solved with MIT underwater storage) (e.g. fresh water is abundant but in the wrong places and the wrong times in floods, need transfer systems such as NEWTAP, or dams and reservoirs).

Tests for Veracity and Acceptance - Daubert Standard 

How, then, can one determine the truth of what people write?  The example of a court trial is given.  In US Federal Courts, and some state courts, an expert witness' testimony is tested to determine if the expert's reasoning and methodology is scientifically valid and can be properly applied to the facts at issue in the case.  The Daubert Standard has five parts:

(1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; 
(2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; 
(3) its known or potential error rate; 
(4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and 
(5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.


Of course, almost none of what is written on the internet ends up in a Daubert analysis for validity.   Courts require the attorneys to prepare and submit arguments based on existing cases and a few other legal authorities.   Internet websites and blogs can function to influence public opinion, and individual opinions.  It is likely not necessary to run through the entire Daubert five steps, but an opinion that can pass all five steps certainly should carry some weight.    

What is interesting is how some people refuse to modify their opinions, even when faced with overwhelming proof that their opinion does not match the facts.   In some of my speeches, especially those to college engineering students, the audience members have not heard or been exposed to certain aspects of science and engineering.  It is an indictment of the primary and secondary school system that tries to indoctrinate the students with half-truths or outright false statements.   

For example, a student asked me years ago to read the environmental science textbook for a class he was taking, and comment on it.  I found it to be full of false statements, and very misleading where it had an element of truth.  The writer clearly had an agenda, and that agenda did not include the most good for the least cost.  One of the greatest false statements in environmental propaganda is that the Earth cannot heal itself.  One huge example is oil spills in the oceans.  The fact is that oil is a natural substance and has leaked into the oceans in very many locations around the world, and has done so for thousands if not millions of years.  Oil becomes part of the food chain in the oceans.  (one need only look up underwater volcanoes)  

Other tests for validity exist for an argument, with the several well-known false arguments from logic.  These include the appeals to authority, to heaven, to pity, and to tradition, arguments from consequences, ignorance, inertia, and from motives, the argument by force, by silence, the bandwagon argument, circular reasoning, the Big Lie, blind loyalty, the Ad Hominem (attacking the person), favoritism, bribery, complex question, the half-truth, lying with statistics, the non-sequitur or Red Herring, straw man, slippery slope, with more than 50 such fallacies listed here.   Many of these false arguments occur routinely in legal proceedings, in testimony, in depositions, in expert witness opinions, in attorney's summations, and at times, in judicial opinions.  It is important to identify the false arguments and refute them where possible. 

In matters concerning science and engineering, the data itself is subject to review, criticism, and many times, rejection.   A brief excursion follows, to describe what many people (apparently) do not know, or if they know, refuse to admit when discussing important topics. 

How Valid Is The Data

It is sometimes stated that all data has measurement errors, the only question is how big are the errors.  That is almost always true, but not quite.  Where one can have absolute accuracy is in certain data involving integers, or discrete objects.  One can, for example, count the number of chairs in a room, provided there is sufficient time to do the counting, the room is not overly large, and the number of chairs does not change during the counting.   For an ordinary room such as a banquet room in a hotel, one can quickly and accurately count the chairs.   One can also count the number of coins in a cash register.  (counting coins can be made much faster and more accurate by placing the coins in piles of ten, then counting the number of piles and multiplying by ten).   However, where a discrete number of things is not the object, measurements actually do have some error.   

Errors exist in most data, but where the errors are sufficiently small, the end-user does not care.  Sometimes, measurement errors are random and tend to cancel out over enough time.   At times, statistical methods are used to determine if the measurement is within the usual (historical) range of error, perhaps one or two standard deviations.   If the measurement is outside that range, notice is taken and the measuring device may be examined for recalibration or repair. 

Topical Examples

Having now examined some aspects of what people know, if they realize what they know, writers with agendas, validity of arguments, fallacious arguments, and accuracy of data, specific topics are examined.   These include, in no particular order, nuclear power plants, climate change and its prevention, mitigation, or adaptation, renewable energy systems, and abundant fresh water.   Each of these has appeared in articles on SLB, and each has attracted comments both positive and negative.  

Nuclear Power Plants

The subject of nuclear power plants, that provide electricity, is immense with almost limitless individual topics.  The fuel itself has many aspects, whether uranium, thorium, or fusion.  The reactor design has many systems from which to choose, from boiling water, pressurized water, advanced boiling water, molten fluoride salts, radioactive spheres, small, medium, or very large capacity.  The power generation scheme has different aspects, from steam, to circulating helium, and supercritical carbon dioxide.   However, even within the arena of existing licensed technologies, the boiling water reactor using steam to drive a turbine-generator, great controversy exists.   

Many industry proponents write articles and offer comments on blogs that show they are blind to the many and serious negative aspects of nuclear power.  As my articles on Truth About Nuclear Power, TANP, show, economics, safety, and subsidies all are very negative.  Yet, when confronted with the truth, many proponents resort to name-calling.   Others resort to what I refer to as the "Yeah, but..." argument.   Some proponents actually insist that the current nuclear regulatory regime is too restrictive, and must be relaxed to allow the plants to compete economically.   One argument they make is to greatly increase the allowable nuclear radiation that can be routinely or episodically absorbed by humans.  In essence, they don't mind frying the populace from time to time in order to build more nuclear plants.  

What is very interesting is that TANP has very little original data, from me.  Instead, the articles are a compilation of known facts and valid statistics from a wide variety of sources.  As an example, the fact is that nuclear power produces only about 11 or 12 percent of the entire world's electricity, as published in several reputable sources.  The logical conclusion drawn and published in TANP is that nuclear power is not the safest and most economic power source, for after more than 50 years of mightily striving in the electrical generation marketplace, it remains only a minor player.   (Coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric all produce more kWh per year than does nuclear power).   This fact causes howls of indignation from the proponents, with their protests including over-regulation, lawsuits from attorneys, public scare-mongering about safe radiation levels, and more.  

Another plain and simple fact of nuclear power is that no nuclear plant would ever be built, anywhere, if not for massive government subsidies and almost total indemnification from harm due to nuclear radiation releases.  TANP discusses this at length, based on irrefutable facts such as the Price-Anderson Act.   Nuclear proponents twist the facts around, by stating that the cost of insurance for a nuclear power plant is a tiny fraction of the power sales price.  That is actually true, but only because the Price-Anderson Act covers the liability and forces each nuclear plant to have a tiny amount of insurance.  

What, then, can be the motivation of the nuclear proponents to howl in such indignation, to resort to vicious name-calling when the facts are published?   As I have stated or questioned before, do they really want to permanently poison the planet with plutonium?   Or, do they have a naive faith in the ingenuity of future engineers to magically solve the huge technical problems that exist in nuclear power plants?   My answer to that one is, some of the best minds in history have applied their best efforts to making nuclear plants safe, reliable, and affordable, for more than 50 years.  The results speak for themselves - five massive reactor meltdowns in less than 40 years, near-misses every 3 weeks (in the US) even after decades of operating experience, huge construction costs that require government subsidies, very long construction times that typically last a decade or more, massive amounts of reserve power to take over when (not if) the nuclear plants trip off-line, and very expensive decommissioning.  With all that effort, nuclear plants produce only 11 to 12 percent of the world's electricity.   

It certainly appears that nuclear proponents, whether writing or making speeches, are a combination of the knowledge matrix types: some write even though they don't know themselves and parrot authorities, some write with an agenda to build the plants no matter what.   One of the best ways to argue and prevail is to omit the negative points and hope the opposition fails to mention them.  Nuclear proponents are masters of that line of argument.  Some proponents, apparently, have great faith in nuclear plant advances, but zero faith in other energy technologies.  (renewable energy is discussed below). 

Climate Change and Prevention, mitigation, adaptation

Renewable Energy systems

Fresh water in abundance

(NB, more to be published on the remaining topics.)


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell

China Nuclear Power Ambitions

Subtitle: Sixteen Hundred Nuclear Plants is a Bad Idea

Let's do some simple math on this one.   The basis is that China has approximately four times the population of the US, but wants to achieve electrical parity (kWh per year per capita) with the US.  Further, as some (idiots, in my view) have stated, China will achieve this by constructing and operating 1,600 new nuclear power plants (using uranium fission, it is expected).   The Chinese ambitions related to nuclear fission power plants are a source of praise (by the idiots), and are held out as "proof" that the plants are safe, plus they must be economic or the Chinese would not build them.

Further, the US provides approximately 20 percent of all electricity via 100 nuclear power plants of average size 900 to 1000 MWe.   

With that as the basis, what would 1,600 nuclear power plants achieve in China?  Since their population (using round numbers) is four times that of the US (1.2 billion vs 300 million), we divide the 1600 by 4 to get 400 plants - US equivalent.   400 plants is again 4 times what we presently have in the US (400 vs 100 actual).  Therefore, the electricity provided would be 4 times our US rate of 20 percent, or 80 percent of all power.    Are the Chinese actually attempting to produce 80 percent of their electricity by nuclear fission plants?    

If that is the case, I highly suggest the Chinese planners read my article Two of The Truth About Nuclear Power (see link).  In that article, the results that can be expected are explored.  It is not a pretty picture.  Prices for electricity skyrocket, with resulting damage to the economy.  Nuclear plants must also increase then decrease their output to follow the load, not only frequently but also dramatically.    When hydroelectric power is included in that scenario, or any of the intermittent renewables (wind, solar), the situation becomes much worse.  

Finally, as Professor Abbot wrote in his paper (see link), nuclear plants are becoming more and more difficult to build due to a shrinking number of suitable sites.   He also concludes that there are not enough raw materials to build enough nuclear plants to run the entire world.  I also add that nuclear plants use inordinate amounts of water for cooling, typically four times the water of a same-size gas-fired cogeneration plant. (see link) Does China have sufficient water to waste on nuclear power plants?  They could, of course, place them all near the ocean.  Is that their plan?  How will 1,600 nuclear reactors fit along the coast of China?  That works out to approximately one per mile.   They would, of course, be built in clusters of 2 or 4 reactors per plant, so the coastline would be cluttered with a nuclear complex every 2 to 4 miles.  

If the plants are built farther inland, there are issues of water availability.  

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

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 27

Subtitle:  Power From Nuclear Fusion

Thus far in The Truth About Nuclear Power series (TANP), the economics and safety aspects of commercial power plants that use nuclear fission reactors were discussed.  It was shown that this form of nuclear power is not economic – reactors are shutting down due to losing money – and even though valiant efforts are made in huge plants to obtain economy of scale, they cost more than $10,000 per kW to construct.   The plants also enjoy enormous subsidies yet still cannot compete.  Indeed, the first fourteen articles discussed many reasons why these plants are not economic.   The next twelve articles discussed the facts about nuclear safety, how meltdown near-misses occur with alarming regularity – every three weeks on average in the US, safety regulations are routinely relaxed so plants can continue operating, the three greatest disasters in world history were discussed: Three Miles Island meltdown, Chernobyl explosion and meltdown, and Fukushima meltdown and explosions, plus many other safety-related issues. 

This article, part 27, begins a 3-part mini-series on different reactor designs under research and development.  The argument made by many nuclear advocates is that nuclear fission may have a few minor problems, but the new designs will be trouble-free, safe, and extremely cheap to build and operate.  One wonders exactly where those

Laser Inertial Fusion Energy - concept drawing
source: Lawrence Livermore National Lab

sentiments were expressed before?  That is exactly what the nuclear industry (falsely) stated all along: nuclear power (in their view) is low-cost and very safe.    The three most often-mentioned technologies are fusion, thorium molten-salt reactors, and high-temperature gas nuclear reactors.  This article addresses the first of those, nuclear fusion.   The conclusion is that nuclear fusion by magnetic pinch is far, far, from commercialization and has insurmountable obstacles.  In short, it is a pipe dream.  However, fusion via laser-initiated inertial confinement may have a future.   There are numerous obstacles for this, too.  [UPDATE 7/5/2014: a bit more on hydrogen as fuel; see below under Conclusion - end update ] 

There are two different forms of nuclear fusion energy discussed here: magnetic pinch and inertial confinement.  A third form is too speculative to mention: low-temperature fusion.    

Magnetic Pinch

Magnetic pinch fusion is a system in which hydrogen plasma, or ions, at very high temperature (100 million degrees) are compressed via the magnetic fields of a torus until fusion occurs with its attendant energy release.   One form of this is a tokomak reactor.  Research on tokomaks dates back at least 42 years, to 1972, as that was the year I saw my first tokomak reactor on the campus of The University of Texas in Austin, Texas.  

Even then, scientists were aware of two fundamental problems, the first being how to sustain the fusion reaction, the second how to keep the thing from melting.  Sustaining the fusion reaction required a magnetic bottle with an inlet for fresh fuel, and an outlet for the reaction products. The nature of a magnetic bottle does not allow for inlets or outlets, at least at that time.   Otherwise, once the tiny amount of hydrogen reacts via fusion, the system must be somehow purged of the reaction products and recharged for the next run.   The researchers did not worry about that, as they were still concerned with actually achieving fusion temperature.   We all noted that enormous amounts of electricity were required to run the electromagnets that created the magnetic torus.  It was quite clear that a substantial fraction of any power that would be produced from such a system would be consumed internally just to run the electromagnets.   Costs to construct and operate were not even a consideration, as that was one of the last things researchers worried about back then.  Their goal, as stated earlier, was trying to get it to “work.” 

Then, finding a way to do something useful with the heat without melting the reactor is a bit of a problem. The materials science professors and researchers were having quite a bit of difficulty with that one. It had something to do with the energy of inter-atomic bonding, under which everything they tried disintegrated at those temperatures.   Indeed, one of the finest forms of plasma-arc technology is for cutting difficult metals.   One supposes that a suitable metal or other material could be found, if the hot bits of the fusion were located at a sufficient distance.  The tokomak at UT had torus of roughly one foot cross-section, and that torus was surrounded by the magnets.  Building electromagnets of suitable size so that they do not melt was a considerable challenge.    It appears that tokomaks, the magnetic bottle approach, are in dire need of a genius solution: none of the ideas tried thus far have advanced the concept therefore a novel, genius, solution must be found.  Perhaps in another 50 years. 

Inertial Confinement

The second form of nuclear fusion actually helps to show that magnetic bottles are a dead-end.   As with many ideas in science and engineering, if the first idea had merit, there would be no need for the second.  Yet, inertial confinement fusion is being researched at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  There, it is known as LIFE, for Laser Inertial Fusion Energy.  See link  

LIFE employs “a tiny pellet of frozen hydrogen that is compressed and heated by an intense energy beam, such as a laser, so quickly that fusion occurs before the atoms can fly apart.” – LLNL website for LIFE.   Under the familiar Newton’s Law of inertia, an object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force.   Here, there is an external force but the time frame is too short for the object to move very far.   In other words, fusion happens mighty damn fast. 

The LIFE system is described in glowing terms for imminent success on the LLNL website, where solid-state lasers are of sufficient size, power, and low cost.  Also, the technology would use successive bursts of power, perhaps many times per second, in a manner much like loading bullets into a machine gun.   One wonders, though, exactly how the problems described above on materials of construction will be solved.  

The LLNL site shows a comparison of various forms of power and their delivered costs, with LIFE at 8 cents per kWh.   Again, where have we seen such glowing expectations before?  The entire atomic age (1950s and 60s) was full of the promise of electricity from atoms that would be abundant and very, very cheap.  Perhaps this new generation of scientists will deliver on their new promises.  Their goal is a base-load power plant of approximately 900 MWe online by 2030.  

With fuel at essentially zero cost, one can easily compute the capital cost to construct the LIFE plant as $3,000 to $4,000 per kW.  Therefore, a 900 MWe plant must be built for something less than $4 billion.

Conclusion

The advantages of LIFE over fission reactors, at least as LLNL describes the system, is no dangerous products, cheap delivered power, inexhaustible fuel, and zero-carbon production.  What is unknown is the availability of materials for construction, the durability and lifetime of a plant, what decommissioning and equipment disposal issues exist, what cooling requirements there may be, any seismic issues, ease of operating and controlling the plant, and a host of other practical issues.  However, the technology is still roughly 20 years in the future, the "2030s" as reported on the website.  Perhaps these issues will be resolved favorably by then. 

[UPDATE 7/5/2014: as sometimes happens, a bit more is relevant on the hydrogen that is used as fuel in the future fusion plants.  LLNL states that a single glass of water contains enough hydrogen fuel to produce enormous amounts of power via fusion.  That, combined with their statement from above of "a tiny pellet of frozen hydrogen" gives one pause.  

First, it is not ordinary hydrogen at issue here.  This is about deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of ordinary hydrogen.  Deuterium can be made by processing water, e.g. distillation.  However, that is certainly not cheap.  Next, the deuterium must be purified, again not cheap.  Next, the deuterium must be chilled until it is frozen, still more cost.  Finally, the frozen deuterium must be pelletized, made into what is likely a tiny sphere.  The lasers must impact the outer surface of the pellet, vaporizing a tiny layer, and that creates the energy ripple that zooms through the pellet to converge at the center and produce the fusion.  So, we need not only frozen deuterium, we need it to be in tiny spheres.  Presumably, the spheres are the same size and must be smooth.  Egg-shaped likely just won't do, neither will a few rough spots here and there.   

After all that, there must be some way of transporting the smooth, tiny, identical spheres of pure frozen deuterium into the combustion chamber - without thawing, without blemishing the surface, and done reliably over and over and over again.   Sounds like more research needs to be done.  -- end update 1.  

Did I mention the water-to-hydrogen electrolysis step?  Once the heavy water is distilled, it must be split into heavy hydrogen (deuterium) and oxygen, in an energy-intensive electrolysis system.  Add that to the costs of the hydrogen fuel -- end update 2, 7/6/2014]]

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.

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 - 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 - this article

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
Marina del Rey, California