Nuclear Power Is Inevitable

Nuclear Power is Inevitable

Recently, I woke up one morning with a profound confidence regarding nuclear power. I have no idea what triggered this, but I will accept the gift with appreciation and gratitude. Here are some things we have going for us:

  1. We have the truth about nuclear power. We don’t have to tell lies about fossil fuels.
  2. Nuclear power is millions of times denser than fossil fuels.
  3. Nuclear power is millions of times cleaner than fossil fuels.
  4. Nuclear power can provide for the needs (at Western living standards) for the entire world. (Yeah, I know that scares the beejeebers out of the green crowd.)
  5. There is enough uranium, plutonium, and thorium to power the entire world for millennia.
  6. The technology has been demonstrated again and again.
  7. Truth and charity are more powerful than lies and greed.
  8. The world needs what nuclear alone can provide.

What I am not saying about the new nuclear age:

  1. Incumbent energy providers are not going to resist the setting of their stars and the rise of everyone else’s.
  2. Incumbents won’t use their political allies to try and stop the new nuclear age.
  3. Incumbents won’t continue to fund greenies to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about nuclear power.
  4. There won’t be opposition in all things.
  5. It will happen overnight.
  6. It won’t take years.

The incumbents are going to resist, I expect them to. But nuclear power is a million times denser, a million times cleaner, more abundant, etc.

Can you imagine the whale oil folks resisting the coming of petroleum 150 years ago? I’m sure they did resist, but petroleum was so much better than whale oil. Think of fossil fuel as the whale oil of tomorrow.

The new nuclear age is still years away and I have my work cut out for me, but I am full of confidence, thanks to the gift!


The Nuclear Regulatory Comission – Defund!, Not Capture

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – Defund!, Not Capture

What I am working toward is more than a nuclear renaissance. I am working for a nuclear age, one that is particularly marked by an abundance of clean nuclear energy for the entire world. What it will ultimately take to achieve this is unknown at this point, but like the proverb says, “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

I believe that there are a number of things wrong with the way that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates commercial nuclear power in the US, which has hamstrung the innovation and deployment of nuclear power since it was created in 1974. Compare the work of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) under the real scientist, Glenn Seaborg and the work of the NRC under Gregory Jackzo, a political hack from the offices of Senator Harry Reid. During the AEC, many reactors were licensed.  Mr. Jackzo voted against licensing 2 reactors while he was at the NRC

I could lament about how long it takes the NRC to license reactors or even re-license research reactors. I could explain to you, the reader, about how the NRC really only knows light water reactors and is at a total loss to license new types of reactors, which we desperately need. And how the NRC enables the abuse of the federal judiciary to delay, delay, delay the licensing of new reactors until the investors cry uncle. Furthermore, I could relate the illogical way that power plants are charged for their license, which has distorted the size and siting of reactors. But, I am not going to do this.

What I am going to do is this – I call for the complete defunding of the NRC, lock, stock and barrel. May I quote from Dr. Gary North,

“You don’t need a revolution to escape the system. You need secession. You need a withdrawal of support for the existing systems. You need to revoke the legitimacy which you extended to these organizations. You need to do it, and everybody else needs to do it. Nobody organizes this. People just learn, scandal by scandal, bureaucratic snafu by bureaucratic snafu, that the system is irreparable. It cannot be reformed. It must not be captured. It must be defunded. The secret of liberty is not revolution; the secret of liberty is to defund the existing centralized order.”

Let the states regulate nuclear power and let there be many flavors and many levels. One size does not fit all. I suppose that California will always hate and reject nuclear power. So what! Let the entrepreneurs in Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, and Baja California Norte (that’s part of Mexico) build nuclear plants in their states/countries and sell electricity to California.

The nuclear age that I envision isn’t going to happen by doing things the same way they have been done for 4 decades. What we need is a new vision and this is my vision. Bye, Bye NRC!

Selling Refrigerators to Floridians

There is an old saw about the skills of a salesman who is so persuasive that he was able to sell refrigerators to Eskimos. The whole idea is that Eskimos do not need refrigerators because they live in the frozen Arctic, but they buy the refrigerators against their better judgement because of the salesman.

Well, this post is about the refrigerator that no one bought, not even Floridians, who along with the rest of us really need refrigerators.

Below are the specifications for a reactor that was designed to produce 50 Megawatts thermal power and 20 Megawatts electrical power and it just happens to be the size of a modest sized refrigerator (19.6 cubic feet). You can read the whole paper here.19 point 7 cubic foot refrigerator

Here are the specifications:

Refrigerator sized reactor specsThis reactor is powered by uranium not thorium, but so what.  The thing I found interesting is that it was designed in 1955 by H. A. Ohlgren of the Engineering Research Institute at the University of Michigan. 1955! More than half a century ago!

I keep coming back to the fact that these amazing machines could have powered our civilization for the benefit of all, but for reasons that were both banal and nefarious we are still burning fossil fuels. (See Rod Adam’s Smoking Gun Archives.)

I live in Brigham City, Utah, a community of 18,000, whose peak electrical usage is ~30 megawatts and we pay premium rates if we exceed 30 MW. I like to imagine this refrigerator-sized reactor providing 20 MW of base load day and night. We could put it almost anywhere.

Who says geeks can’t be dreamers?


M & M’s or Skittles?

M & M’s or Skittles?  Which do you prefer?  A single M & M or skittle weighs about a gram. And did you know that a gram of thorium would provide all the energy an average American uses in one year?skittles 081That one gram of thorium burned in a molten salt reactor would provide the energy equivalent of 16.5 tons of coal. Isn’t this superior to all other sources of energy on a mass basis alone? What about the ash from 16.5 tons of coal as compared to the nuclear ash from 1 M & M or skittle? There would be about one million times less nuclear ash than coal ash and flue gases.

I prefer M & M’s and skittles to coal.

Hey Hey Ho Ho, LNT Has Got To Go

Hey Hey Ho Ho, LNT has got to go

Hey Hey Ho Ho, LNT has got to go

LNT, the Linear No-Threshold theory of radiation exposure, is the hypothesis that there is no safe level of radiation that a person can be exposed to, with creating additional risk of health consequences, such as cancer. LNT is the basis for all the current radiation protection regulations in the US and elsewhere. These standards date from the late 1940’s and 1950’s and were developed based on data from atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and also from studies done by Herman Muller, the Noble Prize winner.

However, there is just one little problem, LNT is wrong. Not just a little wrong or just wrong here or there, it is completely wrong. There is a threshold to radiation exposure below which there are no effects on the human body. Thus, to base radiation protection regulations on a wrong theory is to waste scarce resources for no benefit.

Let me use car seat belts as an example of the cost to benefit ratio. It costs time and money to design and build seat belts into cars. Resources are used to incorporate the design into the car and to manufacture and maintain seat belts.

These costs are passed on to the buyer of the car. I pay these costs because seat belts have been shown to protect the occupants of the car in case of an accident. As a car owner, I know that the cost to benefit ratio for the seat belts is low, because the seat belts can be mass produced and I highly value my life and the lives of my family members

Contrast this with the cost to benefit ratio of radiation protection regulations. Some of the regulations impose costs that reach into the billions or tens of billions of dollars per estimated or theoretical live saved. These are the regulations that have increased the cost of nuclear power to the point where nuclear opponents have claimed that nuclear is not economic. I am saying that the regulations driving these costs are based on a theory that has been disproven. LNT is wrong. Let’s work together to make radiation protection regulations rational and science based.


Sunniva Rose

Sunniva RoseSunniva Rose, a Norwegian, gave a great TED talk in Oslo about nuclear power and thorium in particular.  Coincidentally, the element thorium was discovered by a Norwegian and named after the Norse God of thunder, Thor.

Click here for full video

If you don’t have time to view the entire video, I have extracted an important graphic:

Sunniva Rose deaths per watt by type of energy generationAs you can see, coal causes the most deaths per terrawatt-hour of electricity generated, and nuclear the least.  The numbers aren’t even close, as you can see by the graphic.

Now, I am not saying that nuclear is perfectly safe. Nothing that mortals engage in is perfectly safe, but the statistics show that nuclear is much, much safer than other forms of electricity generation.

To steal a quote from a commenter at Atomic Insights:

“Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be vastly superior to everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.”

This website will show that nuclear power is indeed vastly superior to everything else.


Two Recent talks by PhDs from the US Department of Energy (DOE)

I recently had the opportunity to hear two separate presentations in two different venues regarding nuclear energy. One was a basic introduction to nuclear power and other was about the Fukushima reactors. Both presentations were given by two nuclear engineers from the Department of Energy.  One recently retired from INL (Idaho National Lab) and the other is currently employed by Sandia.

I will start with the first presentation.  Dr. Steve Piet has spent his career with the DOE at INL.  He has degrees in nuclear engineering from MIT.  He has also spent a considerable amount of time working on ITER (hot fusion).  He used the word “when” not “if” regarding hot fusion and was even asked by a member of the audience why he did so.  He replied that he thought that hot fusion would eventually power our society one day, even if it is in the distant future.

Dr. Piet explained the basics of nuclear energy and how it differs from chemical energy (millions of electron volts (Mev) for a nuclear reactions versus electron volts (ev) for a chemical reaction – burning gas, coal etc.) and how the energy is released through fission, fusion, or radioactive decay.

After the presentation, someone asked Dr. Piet about thorium. (It wasn’t me).  Dr. Piet replied that he thought there was some merit in thorium, but that it had been “oversold”.  I took the opportunity to give a UTE business card to the gentleman who asked the question.  Dr. Piet also went on to explain some difficulties with thorium mining.  I wasn’t much persuaded by the discussion, but my expertise is not in mining.

I concluded that it was ironic for Dr. Piet to claim that thorium was oversold, but hot fusion was “when” not “if”!

At least he presented a chart that technical people can understand that shows why nuclear energy beats all others. click here:

Energy Density

The second presentation was given by Dr. Randall O. Gauntt, Manager Severe Accident Analysis Department at Sandia National Laboratories, entitled “Demystifying the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident”.

Dr. Gauntt spent an entire month in Japan right after the tsunami and advised the Japanese government (at the request of the US DOE) regarding the nuclear accident.

He started off by telling the audience that he was “pro-nuclear”.  He then spend the next 40 minutes going over the forensics of the earthquake, tsunami, and damaged reactors, talking about how it is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up the damaged reactors at Fukushima and how the land is contaminated with radiation.

I was thinking to myself that if he is pro-nuclear, I would hate to imagine what an “anti” would say about Fukushima and the future of nuclear power that Dr. Gauntt did not already say.

I wanted to make a quip about him, being “pro-nuclear”, but I had been invited by a guest and didn’t want to be rude, so I didn’t say anything.  However, another member of the audience asked him why he is still pro- nuclear after Fukushima and he replied that because of CO2 and climate change, “the only way we can hope to power our civilization is with nuclear power”.  (I agree that we ought to power our civilization with nuclear energy. ed.)

I think his presentation did more to turn people from nuclear energy than to persuade them that it is something that our civilization should pursue.  If I didn’t know what I know about nuclear energy, I would be thinking, “Why should we choose nuclear if you haven’t demonstrated why we need it and if accidents can occur that cost hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up and leave the land contaminated for decades if not hundreds of years? This seems like a risk with no benefit.”

Fortunately, I know better and I hope that the readers of this site know why we need nuclear energy and that it is safer than existing sources of energy that are capable of powering industrial civilization.

During the Q & A, I asked about LNT and ALARA inflating concern and regulatory response about the degree of contamination around Fukushima. He agreed that LNT and collective dose are incorrect, but he also said that the “NRC is wedded to LNT”.

My conclusions from these two presentations:

  1. Nuclear PhDs are poor spokesmen for nuclear energy.
  2. The DOE is a poor custodian and spokesman for our nuclear future.
  3. The NRC and LNT need to get a divorce. (Both probably need to go)

I view the benefits of nuclear power like the difference between Mev and ev – the benefits of nuclear power are millions of times greater than those of chemical power!