|
Please e-mail me if you have comments or questions.
I will answer questions if possible. Lets have some dialogue.
"You must not be afraid to follow
the truth no matter where it is found."
Thomas Jefferson
Mythology distracts us
everywhere. For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie:
contrived and dishonest. But the myth: persistent, persuasive,
unrealistic.
John Kennedy.
Welcome to my energy web site. In this site I reveal the
truth about energy that concerns the future of our country and the world. Also I
discuss the religions, and environmentalists, who strongly espouse energy
policies that I think would return us to the third world living conditions.
The blue underlined links on the left column forms a table
of contents (TOC) of this Web site as well as an easy way to go to any Page by
simply clicking on the link. Be sure and read about the Fast Breeder Reactor and
Fuel Cycles.
Nuclear Power is the answer to our
energy problem.
Nuclear power offers an infinite supply of energy.
Energy produced from nuclear power plants is the
most economical of all sources.
Nuclear power has no pollutants
Nuclear power fission product wastes are minuscule and can
be safely stored.
Nuclear power is safe as demonstrated by the records of
104 commercial plants each operated over 30 years.
Nuclear power employing Fast
Breeder Reactors
offers the world an infinite supply of energy. But
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter stopped its progress as payback to
the environmentalists who voted for them. Carter also prevented recycle of fuel
coming out of commercial reactors.
President Clinton actually pledged to remove
all funding from nuclear power research during his nationally televised
inaugural address. And he kept his promise. Clinton ordered the Experimental
Breeder Reactor power plant (EBR II) shutdown.
As payoff to the environmentalists, President Bill Clinton shutdown Argonne
National Lab's Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR II) in Idaho and poisoned the reactor assembly with a carboniferous material so it can
never be started again. This is one of the most egregious acts ever
performed by a mentally sick president.
Obama is also beholden to he environmentalists and cannot
restore the Fast Breeder (FIR) project. If he said
he would he would he would not be elected dog catcher by the
environmentalists.
Nearly 100% of the uranium that is introduced into the
existing commercial nuclear power plant fuel cycles could be used in Fast
Breeder Reactors to produce an infinite amount of energy.
Moreover, if we could reprocess our present stockpiles of
depleted uranium currently stored at the sites of our 104 commercial nuclear
reactors and also the depleted Uranium
Hexafloride (DUF6) from the bomb program and
apply these in Fast Breeder Reactors it could produce all of our Nations
electricity for many years without the need for additional uranium mining or CO2
production.
It is amazing that we now have to bury and throw away the
nuclear fuel discharged from commercial reactors and spend billions of dollars
to purchase natural gas, oil, and coal to generate electrical energy. We
should conserve these fossil fuels for other uses.
Facts from Professor Cohen
(University of Pittsburgh) and others
How long will nuclear energy last? These facts come from a
1983 article by Bernard Cohen. Nuclear energy, assuming breeder reactors, will
last for several billion years, i.e. as long as the sun is in a state to support
life on earth
Breeder reactors use uranium more than 100 times as efficiently as the
current light water reactors. Hence much more expensive uranium can be used. At
$1,000 per pound, uranium would contribute only 0.03 cents per kWh, i.e. less
than one percent of the cost of electricity. At that price, the fuel cost would
correspond to gasoline priced at half a cent per gallon.
We thus conclude that all the world’s energy requirements for the remaining
5×109 yr of existence of life on Earth could be provided by breeder reactors
without the cost of electricity rising by as much as 1% due to fuel costs. This
is consistent with the definition of a “renewable” energy source in the sense in
which that term is generally used. Nuclear fusion has been advertised as a
method for “burningthe seas.” We see that nuclear fission with breeder reactors
is an alternative method for “burning the seas,” and it has the considerable
advantage that the technology for doing it is in hand.
See Professor Cohn's web site. Click on the below web site,
http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad8301cohen.html
See Professor
Cohen's Facts
Russia plans to close the nuclear fuel cycle and develop new commercial Fast
Breeder Nuclear Reactor power plants.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced.
"We need to go over to new
technological standards. I have in mind the
closed fuel cycle and the development of a commercial fast neutron
reactor. This should be the objective of a specialized program called
Nuclear Energy Technologies of a New Generation. Preparation of it should finish
by November of this year," Putin told a conference in Elektrostal on the future
of the country's nuclear industry.
The program would involve,
among other things, a set of projects to close the nuclear fuel cycle,
which includes processing irradiated nuclear fuel removed from nuclear power
plants that remain in operation and from nuclear submarines, and organizing
the manufacture of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel to be used in fast neutron
reactors.
MOX fuel is a blend of
oxides of plutonium and natural, reprocessed or depleted uranium. Fast neutron
reactors would enable the nuclear industry to produce practically no waste.
Russian has many years of experience with fast
Breeder Reactors. Construction has started on Beloyarsk-4 which is the first BN-800,
a new, more powerful (880 MWe) FBR, which is actually the same overall size as
BN-600. It has improved features including fuel flexibility - U+Pu nitride,
MOX, or metal, and with breeding ratio up to 1.3. It has much enhanced
safety and improved economy - operating cost is expected to be only 15% more
than VVER. It is capable of burning up to 2 tonnes of plutonium per year from
dismantled weapons and will test the recycling of minor actinides in the fuel.
Further BN-800 units are planned.
My comments: Russia is going to the Fast Breeder Reactor and the closed fuel cycle that
has practically no
waste. They are now 50 years ahead of the US, thanks to Bill Clinton,
Jimmy Carter, and the environmentalists in the US.
Russia
is forging their swords to plow shares.
Omaha
electric rates to increase average of 14.6 percent
Sep 9 -
McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Steve Jordon Omaha World-Herald, Neb.
Starting Jan. 1, Omahans likely will get their biggest electricity rate increase
in 35 years.
The increased costs of coal and of hauling it from Wyoming to
Nebraska are behind a plan to raise average electrical bills for homeowners by
11 percent and for businesses as much as 27 percent, with the overall average
14.6 percent.
OPPD's last rate
increase above 10 percent was in 1973, a time when the nation also was
struggling with energy costs.
My Comment: For a nuclear plant they do not
have to haul a train load of coal per day to fuel the plant. Nuclear plants use
only use a few kilograms of fuel per day.
It has been reported that
electricity prices are
increasing in the United States, largely because the cost of coal and natural
gas fuels are increasing. A major utility says that it is unlikely to expect
such prices to fall back to where they have traditionally been. The fix is to be
implemented over time and involves the wider use of nuclear energy.
India is Going
Nuclear
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh plans to build 40,000
megawatts of nuclear capacity by 2020, equivalent to a third of India's total
power generation, to meet soaring energy needs and cut reliance on coal-fired
plants. India won the right Sept. 6 to buy atomic technology and fuel from the
45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and expects the U.S. Congress to clear the
deal this month.
India needs to add to the 3 percent of electricity that
comes from Russian-designed reactors. The country has 17 reactors in six states
that produce 4,120 megawatts of power, according to Nuclear Power's Web site.
General Electric, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, Areva,
Toshiba Corp.'s Westinghouse and Rosatom may each win contracts valued at more
than $3.5 billion to supply two reactors that can generate more than 1,000
megawatts apiece, Jain said. The orders will be part of a $40 billion
reactor-building program.
The nation's monopoly atomic-power generator plans
to build ``nuclear parks'' housing reactors capable of generating as much as
8,000 megawatts at a single location.
India signed a civilian nuclear agreement with Russia in
January last year. Russia is helping India build two 1,000- megawatt light-water
reactors at the Kudankulam nuclear power station in the southern state of Tamil
Nadu.
India plans to buy the AP1000 series of reactors from
Monroeville, Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse, the `ABWR' series from General
Electric, the Russian VVR 1,000 units and Areva's serial designs for the 1,000
megawatt plants,
`The Bush administration wants to Congress to ratify the
agreement with India, which will allow U.S. companies such as General Electric
to compete for the business. Until then, the NSG waiver means Areva, Russia's
Rosatom and Toshiba can get a head start.
General Electric, the world's biggest maker of energy-
generation equipment, said Aug. 25 that it may lose contracts in India to
French, Russian and Japanese rivals if the U.S. Congress doesn't ratify the deal
soon after the agreement wins approval from the suppliers group.
The agreement will be presented to Congress for approval
in the next few days.
My
Comments: This business could add many jobs, and a significant amount of income
for companies in the United States. It is imperative that Congress approve
the agreement with India.
If
Congress does not approve this agreement, Russia, Japan, and France will be
recipients of this business and the United States will get none. I suspect that
if Obama, of the Democratic Party, gets into the office of the presidency
we will lose this opportunity.
Obama's Energy Plan
Obama's latest folly is to put the
US on a path of needing no oil in ten years. How do renewables become a
substitute for oil? Not by keeping auto tires inflated. Perhaps by
sugar cane ethanol? Sugar cane does not grow in the US. Moreover, we need
oil for the plastics industry.
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
- Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean
Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the
next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the
commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale
renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the
transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund
will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S.
are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
Where will Obama get 150 billion
dollars for this convoluted energy plan? And where will it go if he should get
it?
The US has already invested millions of dollar in the
renewables and very little result came forth. See the 800 person National Energy Renewable Lab's
(NREL) sixteen year lack of progress with renewables. They
have nothing to show for the sums of money they spent. The NewGen
for low coal carbon energy production was scrapped by congress this year
as being too expensive. Lester Brown, founder and president of the
Earth Policy
Institute, and Jonathan Lewis climate
specialist and lawyer with the Clean Air Task Force, stated recently that
Congress took a big chance on biofuels that, unfortunately, has not worked out.
They also said
"It is now abundantly clear that
food-to-fuel mandates are leading to
increased environmental damage. "
Here is a typical statement
from one of Obama's backers.
Brett H. From Madison, Wisconsin writes:
I support Barack Obama for president
because he is the only candidate with an inspiring and effective national energy
policy that will save us money at the pump, bring us more efficient vehicles and
appliances, more clean renewable energy, and clean up old coal plants. He is a
the real champion to reduce global warming and will work with local governments
on practical solutions, not just supporting drilling more sensitive coast lines
and wildlife refuges. I also appreciate his judgment to chose a running mate
show shares his values and mine.
My Comments: Brett
H. as been totally mislead.
Obama has not given us a clue of how he would go about these promises.
Consider how a person with no
technical education and only listens to environmentalists who vote for him will
carry out these tasks.
Now we see Russia, China,
Japan, South Korea, India, and France all pushing ahead with nuclear power.
Obama's energy plan is an abomination.
It's the Oil, Stupid
by
Hugh Hewitt
|
The economic mess the country confronts can be
laid at the feet of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The Don’t
Drill Democrats are forcing deindustrialization through depression brought
about by soaring energy costs. This is a man-made meltdown, and make no
mistake: The Democrats could halt and reverse the skyrocketing cost of oil,
but they are choosing not to. |
The environmental lobby owns Nancy Pelosi and
Harry Reid, and Barack Obama –the brave new leader—doesn’t dare take it or them
on. That lobby is applauding the deindustrialization underway, and their
attitude is that a depression wouldn’t be such a bad thing as a lesson in
learning how to live within our environmental means. Their jobs aren’t on the
line, after all, and their disdain for the impacted industries is complete.
What they and the Triple D Democrats hasn’t
counted on, though, was America making the connection between the deteriorating
economy and their anti-energy agenda.
Energy is freedom. Energy is prosperity. Every
Democrat on the fall ballot is part of the anti-energy party which is wrecking
havoc on the economy and every family’s budget. A vote for any Democrat is a
vote for shortages, rising gas prices, rising unemployment, and falling
production. A vote for any democrat is a vote for failing airlines and
collapsing financial institutions and for the shuttering of car plants and large
manufacturing.
A growing, vibrant economy needs energy. The
Democrats are anti-energy.
Remember this when you vote this fall.
U.S. Nuclear
Plants Have Record Year
The 104 U. S. nuclear power
plants posted all-time record highs for electrical production in 2007, according
to figures released by the Nuclear Institute. U S nuclear plants produced
approximately 800 billion kWh in 2007, exceeding more than 2% the previous high
of 788.5 billed in 2004. The average capacity factor of these plants was 91.8%
for the year 2007.
Also these nuclear plants post
an average energy cost 1.72 cents per kWh. This cost is is lower than that of
either coal or natural gas fired power plants.
The United Kingdom (UK) of England
has studied the world's energy problems and arrived at the following
conclusion:
Forward from Gordon Brown, the Prime Minster of England: Nuclear power is a
tried and tested technology. It has provided the UK with secure supplies of
safe, low-carbon electricity for half a century. New nuclear power stations will
be better designed and more efficient than those they will replace. More than
ever before, nuclear power has a key role to play as part of the UK’s energy
mix. I am confident that nuclear power can and will make a real contribution to
meeting our commitments to limit damaging climate.
Let's Have Some Love for Nuclear Power
By WILLIAM TUCKER
July 21, 2008; Page A13
All over the world, nuclear power is making a
comeback. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has just commissioned eight new
reactors, and says there's "no upper limit" to the number Britain will build in
the future. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has challenged her country's program
to phase out 17 nuclear reactors by 2020, saying it will be impossible to deal
with climate change without them. China and India are building nuclear power
plants; France and Russia, both of whom have embraced the technology, are
fiercely competing to sell them the hardware
An excerpt from an article that appeared in the wall Street journal by
William Tucker author or the book
"Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power
Can Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Long Energy Odyssey," will be
published in September by Bartleby
Here is a blurb taken from the Mid Atlantic Renewable Energy Initiative
Imports
of fuels such as uranium, natural gas and oil, are considered politically risky
since the global reserves are shrinking inexorably and faster than most people
know. This is leading to higher prices, political dependencies and limits on
supplies. By contrast, solar power is plentiful and inexhaustible and its
extended use will lower costs and improve the technologies. Increased demand by
Europe would lead to more business opportunities for the WA countries and this
in turn may help increase political stability and improve relations between
Europe and WA.
Uranium being risky is the theme of many who do not want to extol its virtues.
The Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor can safely make nuclear fuel forever. You will
see this in the Fast Breeder Reactor page. Also solar in California is about
0.3% of the total energy contribution after 30 years of building plants in the
desert. Solar may be plentiful and inexhaustible, but California has not found
it easy to convert the energy to a usable economical form.
By Dr. Patrick Moore, the founder of Green Peace.
Nuclear Power:
A significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions seems unlikely given our
continued heavy reliance on fossil fuel consumption. Even UK environmentalist
James Lovelock, who posited the Gaia theory that the Earth operates as a giant,
self-regulating super-organism, now sees nuclear energy as key to our planet’s
future health. Lovelock says the first world behaves like an addicted smoker,
distracted by short-term benefits and ignorant of long-term risk. “Civilization
is in imminent danger,” he warns, “and has to use nuclear—the one safe,
available energy source—or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged
planet.”
Yet environmental activists, notably Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth,
continue to lobby against clean nuclear energy, and in favor of the band-aid
Kyoto Treaty. We can agree renewable energies, such as wind, geothermal and
hydro are part of the solution. But nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse
gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy
global demand.
it seems that we will now replay
the scenario of the 1970s where we installed solar plants in the California
deserts and found that they only produce electric energy for about four hours
out of twenty four hours each day and hardly that much in the winter
months. Also the panels most be power washed weekly which is quite expensive
considering there is little water to be had in the desert.
Nuclear
Power: A Leading Strategy to Reduce Oil Imports
From the
The American Nuclear Society,
The move to the use of plug-in hybrid
technology offers the possibility of a smooth transition from today’s oil-based
system to one that increasingly uses electricity as a substitute. As an example,
if one-third of our vehicles were plug-in hybrids, a practical goal by 2020, we
could reduce our use of oil for motor transportation by about 25% from today’s
levels, sharply reducing our needs for oil imports. A significant reduction in
CO2 emissions also can result as electricity use increases. The increased use of
electricity makes sense only if it can be produced in a manner that is
economical, sustainable, and minimizes CO2 emissions and other environmental
effects.
There are several generating technologies that
could accomplish these important goals, including hydro, wind, solar, fossil
fuels with carbon capture, and nuclear. Of these, a clear practical approach
that is capable of economically providing the large quantities of additional
electrical energy required is nuclear power.
Based on the use of today’s technology, nuclear
power has demonstrated an enviable safety record while producing electricity at
a competitive cost. The availability of nuclear power has been shown to be
sustainable for thousands of years through the implementation of a closed fuel
cycle.
Below is a graph of the
Energy Information Administration's projection of the electric energy
growth in the US. The major energy increase is due to coal fired plants. What
does this do to global warming? It acerbates global warming significantly. Is
this acceptable in the US? I think not.
Electricity Generation by Fuel, 1980-2030
(billion kilowatt-hours)

We need to reverse the projective
additions of coal and natural gas plants staring right now and replace them with
nuclear plants. Also the graph shows that renewable energy systems do not add
significantly to the energy mix.
Energy costs in the US are rising. Why?
No new oil refineries have been built in 30 years.
Tax supported renewables (solar, wind, biomass, geothermal,
etc.), in 30 years of support produce a small percentage of US total energy
needs and real future prospects are low.
No new oil drilling has been allowed in the US or
offshore
No new nuclear plants have been built in the last 30
years.
No use has been made of our 700 years of total US
energy needs fuel (depleted Uranium Hexafloride, DUF6, the relatively
non-radioactive waste from our WW-II enrichment process). The US is the only
country in the world with this amount of available and processed potential
energy producing fuel. US developed technology for this fuel use has been
shown to be safe, proliferation resistant, and economical. The US appears to
be trying to dispose of this 700 years of total US future energy fuel supply.
(Can anything be more ridicules?)
Good news this week. August 13,
2007- News release
South Korea, US to Cooperate on Sodium-Cooled
Nuclear Reactor, and Fuel Reprocessing
Since I fought the Korean war it is a
delight to me to hear that the South Koreans will develop the Fast Breeder
Reactor and fuel cycle and sell them world wide. The US environmentalists will
not be able to destroy the South Korean Fast Breeder Reactor program as they did
ours in the United States. When I left South Korean at the end of the war in
September 1953, people in Pusan were living in card board boxes. It is
amazing what they have achieved since then.
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
Future energy development, providing for the world's
future energy needs, currently faces great challenges. These include an
increasing
world population, demands for higher
standards of living, a need for less
pollution, a need to avert
global warming, and a possible end to
fossil fuels. Without energy, the world's
entire industrialized infrastructure would collapse;
agriculture,
transportation,
waste collection,
information technology, communications and much
of the prerequisites that a developed nation takes for granted. A shortage of
the energy needed to sustain this infrastructure could lead to a
Malthusian catastrophe
Conservation and Renewable Energy
Systems are not the answer to our energy security.
Peter Huber
in his book, HARD GREEN
SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE
ENVIRONMENTALISTS, makes it very clear that; "The whole
back-to-nature, farmer's market theory of the Soft Greens, the entire
psychological infrastructure of the movement, is anti-environmental. Taking five
billion humans "back to nature" is the worst possible thing we could do, not
only for the humans but for nature, too.
Kenneth Deffeyes, author of the book "Beyond Oil," says
"Conservation' is mostly a euphemism for doing without.
Competition for energy is beginning
to grow immensely.
China today is a most prolific competitor for the worlds oil
supply. China's economy, which has doubled about every eight years since its
opening in 1979, is sending ripples around the world as it's energy demands
continue to outpace available supplies. And China should grow their
economy and improve living conditions as should all nations of the world.
Any attempt to understand or forecast global energy
requirements must take account of population growth. At the beginning of the
twentieth century, world population was about 1.5 billion. Today it is 6 billion
and growing at the rate of 90 million each year. By the year 2025 world
population is expected to reach 8 billion. Two billion of the world's population
today do not have access to electric power. These people need to be served also.
However, I believe that we will all pay an
exorbitant price for oil and natural gas if we do not take action to do
something like developing the hydrogen economy. We need nuclear power to
accomplish the hydrogen economy. It can both solve our energy supply as well as
atmospheric pollution problems.
We Cannot Continue to Let
Antinuclear Activists, Religious and Environmental Groups Dictate Our
National Energy Policy
There Have Been Warnings
In 1954, in The Challenge of Man's Future
Harrison Brown wrote:
If our energy resources dwindle, our industrial technology
will dwindle, and life expectancy and population will slowly dwindle with it.
Consumption of the earth's store of fossil fuels has barely started; yet,
already we can see the end. The age of fossil fuels will be over, not to be
repeated for perhaps another 100 million years. Will its passing mark the end of
civilization and perhaps the beginning of the downward path to man's extinction?
Later in the same book, Brown says "[The] collapse of machine
civilization would be accompanied by starvation, disease, and death on a scale
difficult to comprehend." Of Harrison Brown's effort, Albert Einstein said, "We
may well be grateful to Harrison Brown," and, "This objective book has high
value."
In 1977, England's honored scientist Sir Fred Hoyle,
writing in Energy or Extinction, added his voice to Brown's:
There can be no disagreement with the statement that world
reserves of coal, oil, and gas can provide an adequate energy source for only a
limited future...
Nor can it be contested that most of the world's population,
presently 4,000 million, will die in a disastrous catastrophe should an adequate
energy source not have been developed by the time that reserves of coal, oil,
and gas become exhausted.
Nor can there be any serious debate over the statement that
the only alternative energy source presently known to be technically viable is
energy from the nuclear fission of uranium or thorium.
Writing about Hoyle's book, Sir Alan Cottrell, who was
once the chief scientific adviser to the British government, says:
It (Hoyle's book) is about energy: about the alarming
prospect that oil will soon run out and not be replaced by anything else. It
shows that—contrary to an influential belief—we do not have time, and there is
no practical alternative to nuclear energy, and that western decision makers
have been frightened into immobility in their nuclear energy policies by a
well-orchestrated campaign which has marched under an 'environmentalist' banner,
but yet has a clearly identifiable political basis.
*The information directly under the heading: There Have Been
Warnings was taken from the book entitled "THE ENVIRONMENTAL CASE for
NUCLEAR POWER" by Robert C Morris, published by Paragon House. See page
123.
I suggest this book for reading. Dr. Morris builds an
excellent case for Nuclear power. And we need to start now, not when oil runs
out. We already are probably too late.
Nuclear Power in France
France has 59 nuclear reactors
operated by Electricite de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe,
supplying over 426 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total
generated there. In 2005 French electricity generation was 549 billion kWh
net and consumption 482 billion kWh - 7700 kWh per person. Over the last decade
France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year. See also
EdF web site.
The present situation is due to
the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to
expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in
the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few
indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a
relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimizing imports
and achieving greater energy security.
As a result of
the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence
and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. Over 90% of its electricity is
nuclear or hydro.
French AREVA has arrived
in the United States. Key figures for AREVA in the United States are:
•
Almost 1.7 billion dollars in sales revenue in 2006 (tripled in 3 years).
• More than 5,000 employees.
• 42 sites, both
industrial and commercial, in 20 states.
• Supplier of almost
half of all steam generators, pressurizes, and reactor vessel head
replacements.
• CANBERRA, the AREVA
subsidiary specialized the supply of nuclear measurement
solutions for safety and security and the world leader in its field,
• AREVA controls 25% of
the American market for PWR fuel.
• Almost 50% of all nuclear waste
transportation is handled by TN International, an AREVA subsidiary
Since our
Nuclear Power Plant additions have not been active in the US for 30 years,
the the French are about to take over the business in the US and the world. We
need to get with it right now.
China is underway big time. We
should also be.
China's nuclear program is
aggressive. Its economy is growing at 8 percent annually and it needs about $1.4
trillion to modernize its energy infrastructure. To get there, it's importing
nuclear technologies from Canada, France and Russia. China has twin goals: to
reduce its reliance on coal that now comprises about two-thirds of its
generating mix while increasing its nuclear portfolio from 2.3 percent of its
generation today to 6 percent -- 40,000 megawatts -- by 2020. By 2050, the aim
is to have 150,000 megawatts of installed nuclear capacity.
China now has
an Experimental Fast Breeder Reactor power plant now in operation that is almost
identical to our EBR II power plant that Clinton ordered destroyed during his
administration as payback to the environmentalists. You can bet the Chinese will
not destroy theirs.
China
and India are at the forefront of most new nuclear development.
China and the United States on
Saturday December 16, 2006 signed an agreement that paves the way for
Westinghouse Electric Co. to build four civilian nuclear reactors in China, a
multibillion dollar coup for U.S. business over French and Russian competitors.
China says it is planning to quadruple the volume of electricity generated at
its nuclear plants over the 2004 level by 2020. India envisages hiking its
volume of power generated at nuclear plants seven fold.
Here is my prediction
Unless we go nuclear, civilization
as we know it will come to an end sometime in this century when fossil fuels run
out. We have sufficient technology in hand towards energy sustainability,
but we are letting some churches, environmentalists, and left
leaning politicians keeping us from deploying it.
Epilogue
As you read this Web Site you will see
that nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, and often the cheapest way of
generating reliable electricity. And it is inevitable if we wish to survive.
If we do not get underway soon with
nuclear plants, we will have to import them from China in a decade or so.
Following is an excerpt from a China news article.
In July 2004, Ye Qizhen, chief designer
of the second phase of the Qinshan nuclear project, and a member of the
Chinese Academy of Engineering, said that Chinese engineers could "easily
develop" a 1,000-MW-class reactor. China Business Weekly reported in
February 2005 that China plans to design and build a 1,000-MW nuclear power
plant around the year 2012.
China's program to develop its own nuclear
power plant production infrastructure is aimed at export, as well as
domestic deployment.
Finally, Professor Per Peterson chairman
of the department of nuclear engineering at the University of California,
Berkeley, points out the following:
"We will face major environmental challenges during
the coming century, particularly in reducing carbon dioxide emissions from
our use of fossil fuels. Many people do not realize that by deploying
nuclear power at large scale, France was able to close its last coal mine in
April, 2004. The same potential exists in the United States."
A personal note:
One of my other endeavors is financial
math.. I wrote a book entitled "The Mathematics of Personal Finance."
The mathematics in this book is not more advanced than ninth grade
algebra. If you would like to get a book it is $20.95 and can
bet bought through Barnes & Noble.com, Boarders.com and any other
book sellers. It does not appear on book shelves. It is printed on demand
and mailed to the readers who ask for it.
College students who do get the book
think that is great and wished their instructors would get it also. It was a
hobby of mine since I had to learn this subject to pass the State engineering
license exam. Also my youngest son has an MBA.
However, if one reads this book they will
never fall prey to the cheating and obfuscation going on today in the
financial world that has many losing their homes, buying worthless
insurance policies, and making poor investments. etc. You will swim with the
sharks and survive. Your will be more astute about finance than most bankers.
|