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 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.

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.

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.

• Almost 1.7 billion dollars in sales revenue in 2006 (tripled in 3 years).

• More than 5,000 employees.

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.

Finally, Professor Per Peterson chairman of the department of nuclear engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, points out the following: