The Fundamental Reason I am a (Commercial) Nuclear Power Advocate

I am holding in my two fingers a plastic replica of an uranium fuel pellet of the type used in light water reactors.  I got this one at the visitors' center at Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant.

 The following graphic shows how much energy such a pellet (yes, just ONE pellet) can produce compared with coal, natural gas, wood, and oil.

This is the fundamental reason I am an advocate of nuclear power - it is dense and clean and there is enough for everyone on earth - all 6 billion or 10 billion or whatever for millenia.

PS. The last statement is what scares the beejeebers out of the green movement.

PPS.  Molten Salt Reactors are even better than what this graphic shows.

Congress' Addiction

Every so often a great chart comes along to really illustrate a point:

(Reference: Wikipedia article)

As you can see, Congress consistently spends more than it takes in.  Average expenditures for the last 41 years have been 3% of GDP greater than revenues.

Don't get me wrong, I am by no means suggesting that Congress increase its revenues to cover the gap.  Instead, I offer this as evidence that Congress is fundamentally incapable of balancing its spending. Increasing its revenue will only widen the gap because of their insatiable spending appetite.

OIE

OIE is the acronym for "Oil Is Everywhere", the new phrase I have coined to describe what Thomas Gold wrote about in "The Deep Hot Biosphere".

BTW, the subtitle of the book is "The Myth of Fossil Fuels".  The carbon in "fossil fuels", oil, coal, gas, and tar did not come from ancient dinosaurs and swamps, but has been present in the earth from its creation.

The fracking revolution in natural gas production, I think, is proof of Gold's theories and OIE.  How else do you explain drilling wells into rock, fracturing them under pressure and putting grit (proppants) into the resulting cracks to allow the gas to come to the surface.

Gold drilled some test wells into bedrock granite in Sweden years ago and extracted some oil, but his critics weren't convinced.  Too bad fracking technology wasn't developed then.  He could have extracted some serious gas and oil.  Who knows, maybe they can reopen the wells and frack them?

 

Why Nuclear Doesn't Have Political Clout

Here is a great article that explains why nuclear has so little political clout.

Bottom line:  Nuclear produces lots of electricity, not lots of jobs for politicians to pander to.

Fart Equivalent Dose

The linear no threshold (LNT) hypothesis of dose/response for ionizing radiation is ridiculous.  LNT has led the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to implement ALARA, As Low As Reasonably Achievable for the control of nuclear material and nuclear power plants.

Problem is the NRC is not reasonable and LNT is ridiculously wrong and ridiculous things should be ridiculed. ALARA and LNT have been used by the enemies of clean, abundant, safe, limitless nuclear power to paralyze the industry through the federal courts.
(Aside: When I say clean, I mean cleaner than any alternative.  Please see my previous blog about Petr Beckman's book, The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear.)

So, here is my proposal - the Fart Equivalent Dose (FED).  Farts are made mostly of methane, which contains the element carbon, some of which is radioactive.  Methane is also toxic, breathing it in high enough concentrations is fatal.  Thus, next time the NRC or some media outlet tells us that some radioactive tritium was discovered in some well on some nuclear plant site (that no one drinks from), we can calculate the FED and share that number through all social media - how many farts are equivalent to the miniscule amount of tritium discovered somewhere.  Tweet the number of farts, put it on FB, blog about it, spread the ridicule far and wide.  Give the radiophobes something to fear!

Oh, BTW, I need some help to figure out just how to calculate the Fart Equivalent Dose.  Can anyone out there give me a hand?

Why Don’t We Have Thorium Molten Salt Reactors Today?

A couple of weeks ago, I gave a speech on the wonders of thorium molten salt reactors to my Toastmasters club.  They were so impressed by the benefits  of the reactor, that they asked why we don't have them today.

That is a great question that deserves a great answer.  I did some research and discovered 8 reasons:

1.     Thorium did not support a bomb cycle.  Fission was discovered in 1939, just at WWII was starting.  "America's Greatest Generation" as some like to call them, chose to use the new discovery to create weapons of mass destruction.  The thorium fuel cycle was ignored because it did not lend itself to the building of bombs; uranium and plutonium did.  Therefore, those fuels were developed and later turned to peaceful uses. 

2.      Right after WWII US Navy Admiral Rickover wanted an atomic powered submarine.  For expeditious reasons he chose solid, uranium fueled reactors.  This was partly because of the precious decisions made by the Manhattan project, which developed the uranium and plutonium bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  This also led to the design (uranium and solid fuel) of the first commercial nuclear power plant at Shippingport, PA. 

3.      This further established vendors in the nuclear industry as providers of solid fuel for uranium light water reactors. 

4.      Since the Manhattan project, scientists had underestimated the world's supply of uranium.  There turned out to be a lot more than they thought. 

5.      However, this supposed shortage of uranium led the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to develop liquid metal fast breeder reactors using uranium instead of thermal spectrum reactors using thorium.  Again thorium got snubbed. 

6.      Of course, the need for ever more plutonium for bombs during the cold War also figured greatly into the decision to develop liquid metal fast breeders. 

7.      This was one major reason the thorium molten salt project at Oak Ridge National Lab was canceled, even though the benefits of the reactor were touted by the developers.  The molten salt reactor was canceled to free up more funds for the liquid metal fast breeder reactor. 

8.      Abundant, clean, limitless fuel for mass prosperity across the world.  Does ExxonMobil really want this?  What about the rest of the oil companies?  Do you think they want to see their revenue decline by a factor of about a *million? The world consumes about 85 million barrels per day at about ~$100 per barrel that equals about $3.1 trillion per year, for oil alone.  What about coal and gas companies?  Here are the top 10 oil companies in the world.  Notice that Exxon is number 5 at nearly $500 billion per year in revenue.

1.      Saudi Aramco

2.      National Iranian Oil Company

3.      Petroleos Mexicanos

4.      Iraq National Oil Company

5.      Exxon Mobil ($490 billion revenue in 2011)

6.      BP

7.      Petrochina

8.      Abu Dhabi National Oil Company

9.      Kuwait Oil

10.  Petroleos de Venezuela

*I figured that oil company revenue would decline by a factor equal to the density factor between chemical reactions and nuclear reactions; about a million.  Nuclear is a million times more concentrated than chemical fuel (coal, gas, and oil).  So, a million times less fuel is needed.

Now you see why the coal, gas, and oil companies are always sponsoring negative reporting about nuclear power - raw, self interest masquerading as "green" concern for the planet against evil radiation.

The Meaningless Catastrophe of WWI

I consider myself a passable author, but I probably wouldn't write if there were others who wrote about the things I think are important. 
Luckily, there is a great author who wrote a fantastic, short essay on WWI and how it changed the world for the worse.

Joseph R. Stromberg is the author and the essay is called "The Meaningless Catastrophe of WWI."  You can access the essay here.

Perhaps by reading and understanding this essay, we can avoid future, worldwide bloodbaths.  Call me an optimist.

Mass Prosperity or Mass Destruction

Yesterday was the 67th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki by the United States during WWII, August 9th, 1945.  The bomb was named "Fat Man" and used plutonium 239 produced in reactors at the Hanford site, in Washington State.

Though plutonium 239 is an element, with a half life of 24,000 years, none of it still exists from the creation of the universe.  Hence, it had to be made from uranium 238 in a nuclear reactor.  The uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and becomes plutonium 239.

Fat Man killed 80,000 people and destroyed virtually the entire city of Nagasaki.

Contrast that with the landing of the Curiosity Rover on the surface of Mars on Monday. 

Curiosity is the size of a Hummer and weighs 2,000 pounds and guess what is it powered by? Plutonium!, but not the fissionable kind, a different isotope, plutonium 238.

This isotope is also made in a nuclear reactor, but the beauty of this element is that it radioactively decays so quickly, that it releases enough heat to glow red hot.  This heat is harnessed in thermoelectric generators to provide electric power for Curiosity.  These generators provide 125 watts of electricity, day or night for years.  However, after about 14 years the electricity produced will decline to about 100 watts due to the decay of the plutonium.  I would like some batteries like that!

Thus, plutonium can be used for weapons of mass destruction, or it can be used for scientific exploration or for producing abundant, clean and limitless power for humankind.

The choice is ours, mass destruction or mass prosperity.  Though the decision was previously made by "America's Greatest Generation" in favor mass destruction, we can and should make our own decision, but it should be informed.  This is the reason that I blog, to show the world that abundant, clean, limitless power is available through the fissioning of thorium, plutonium, and uranium in molten salt reactors.

Royce Johnson and the Gold Standard

Mr. Royce Johnson was my high school civics teacher, or rather my US history teacher or whatever it was called back then.

I don't remember much about the class, but I do remember something he said about gold.  "There isn't enough of it in the world to be used as money any more," or something to that effect.

Isn't that interesting?  Years later, while trying to make some sense of the economics stupidities one hears constantly in the lay press and around campuses and by water coolers, I learned two things (from the writings of Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Lew Rockwell, and Gary North.)

1.  There is no social benefit to an increase in the money supply.

2.  The total amount of money in the money supply doesn't matter.

Let me explain both of these.  People and society as a whole are not benefited by an increase in the total amount of money in circulation, or the money supply.  An increase in the money supply causes (or is really) inflation.  This is not a benefit to society.

However, that is not to say that someone is not benefited by an increase in the money supply (at someone else's expense).  Counterfeiters are directly benefited by an increase in the money supply.  They just make a few, crisp bills and they get to spend it until they get caught by the official counterfeiters.  (More on them later).

The Federal Reserve System of the US and indeed, every central bank on the planet are the official counterfeiters of the world.  They create money out of thin air and generally lend it to their respective governments, which then spend it on their favorite people and projects.  This, of course, benefits the few at the expense of the many, which is why increases in the money supply do not benefit society.

Next, the point that my high school teacher did not understand is that the total relatively small amount of gold in the world is not an impediment in its functioning as money.

Consider this; what does it matter if your next car costs one, ten, one hundred, one thousand, one million, or one billion units of currency or coins of gold.  What matters is the ratio between the work you do that brings in the gold and how many of those coins you need to buy the car.  

In fact, the relatively small amount of gold in the world makes it ideal as money (as well as its other qualities), because it cannot be easily manipulated by the central banks of the world.  This is also the reason that the central bankers of the world universally hate gold; it cannot be easily counterfeited or manipulated.  That really puts the crimp on their monetary and fiscal policy and that's why anyone who really cares about freedom should love gold.

Gold has been chosen as money by nearly every civilization in history.  Take some time to learn about it here.

So, sorry Mr. Johnson, you'll have to repeat the 11th grade.

Save More, Live Better

Save More, Live Better
 
If you can't correctly identify this marketing slogan with its corporation, you have probably been living in a cave for the last 30 years.  This, of course, is the Walmart slogan.

Walmart is a highly successful retailing corporation with revenues of $447 billion in 2011.  Compare that to Greece with a GDP of just $303 billion for 2011.

(Aside:  If Walmart stopped serving its customers and ran into financial difficulty, would the FED and the European Central Bank bail it out because it is too big to fail?  I think the answer is no or should be no.  Yet, why does the ECB continue to prop up the ever failing Greek government which spends way more than it takes in and can no longer borrow money at favorable interest rates on the market because lenders have not confidence that they will ever get their money back?)

Walmart is ever the target of leftists and hollywood types for being a more efficient retailer than just about anyone else. That's not the language they use, but that's really what they don't like.  I suppose they want the Walmart slogan to be, "Spend More, Live with Less" or, "Spend More, Get by with Less."

This also seems to be the unspoken slogan of alternative energy types, like Amory Lovins, whose occupation for the last 3 decades has been to persuade and coerce us into using less energy so we can save the planet, prevent global warming, save baby seals and polar bears and save ice sheets from becoming icebergs.

So, next time you hear someone talking about sustainable this or that or some specious plea for saving the planet (from what???), translate their words into the correct slogan, "Spend More, Live with Less."
 

Batman and Ironman

My readers are probably familiar with the popular American movies, "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Ironman".  Both of these movies have novel energy sources woven into their plots.

In "Ironman", Tony Stark and his flying suit are powered by a glowing ring device that produces vast amounts of energy.  

In the latest Batman movie, Bruce Wayne has a fusion reactor underneath the Hudson river that is only awaiting the final touches of a genius Russian nuclear physicist to make it work and produce limitless, clean power.  Of course, the device falls into the hands of the arch villain, who immediately weaponizes it.

How does movie land compare to reality?  Check this out:  A piece of thorium (an element, present since the creation of the universe) the size of this rock can provide all your energy needs for your entire life time.

 That's right, energy for your entire lifetime; transportation, domestic heating and cooling, domestic hot water, lighting and electricity.  Compare that with the truckloads of coal, oil and gas you would need for a lifetime. 

Thorium is a fairly abundant element, as common as lead and can be burned a a molten salt reactor.  These types of reactors offer substantial advantages over conventional light water reactors and yes, Virginia, even light water reactors have advantages over fossil fuels.

You can learn more about thorium molten salt reactors here.
 

Nigeria Tanker Truck Explosion

On July 12, 2012, over 120 people were killed in a horrific tanker truck accident in Nigeria.  Many of the victims were trying to collect gasoline from the wrecked tanker when it caught fire and exploded.  What a terrible loss of life! 

The victims were apparently trying to scoop up spilling fuel for their motorcycle taxis when the wrecked tanker truck exploded.  That is how desperate they are for energy.  

Why do I mention this? Not because I am insensitive to their plight, but because the number of dead exceeds the number killed in all commercial nuclear accidents since the first commercial nuclear power plant at Shippingport, Pennsylvania first went online and started producing electricity.  This includes the horrible nuclear accident at Chernobyl.  Below is a summary of the fatalities due to commercial nuclear power:

Chernobyl fatalities =  30

Three Mile Island fatalities = 0

Fukushima Daiichi fatalities = 0 

How come we don't hear the hue and cry to abandon fossil fuel?  Yet that is what constantly assaults us regarding nuclear power. We must abandon nuclear power because of Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  No, we must learn from Fukushima and build the molten salt reactors that were invented in the 1960s and get them on-line sooner!

(Aside:  I'm sure that you have all heard incredible numbers of people that supposedly died from the Chernobyl accident.  Those are theoretical deaths - deaths that supposedly occurred because of the radiation release assuming that the linear no threshold theory is correct.  It isn't correct.  For a good technical discussion on the incorrectness of the linear no threshold theory, click here.)