Month: April 2020

The Ten Deceptions, Part VI

Deception Seven: Nuclear Energy is far too expensive to pursue any further. We would do a lot better to put the money into wind and solar or even coal fired plants.

Those who have an elementary knowledge of nuclear energy realize that it would be our cheapest source of electricity if not for one thing.

That one thing is the successful war waged against this industry by nuclear activists – aimed primarily at the United States, but with power spreading rapidly throughout the world.

They have followed an interesting strategy in the destruction of the nuclear industry which is:

(A) Create the problem (B) Complain about the problem (C) Blame the problem on the enemy

The problem is, of course, the high cost of building and maintaining nuclear power plants.

Consider this: The time from ground breaking to operation testing of a nuclear power plant was increased from 42 months in 1967, to 54 months in 1972, to 70 months in 1980 to almost 20 years from the planning to the opening of the Seabrook plant, which I believe is the last plant to open in this country.

Consider this. It was planned to build the two Seabrook plants 13 miles south of Portsmouth, New Hampshire for a cost of $850 million for both units.

The final cost for one of these units was an astonishing $7 billion dollars and this resulted in the bankruptcy of several electric utilities including PSNH. Unit 2 was cancelled in 1988 after reaching about 23% completion at an investment loss of $900 million.

What in God’s name ran the price up to such an extraordinary degree? Was this some type of anomaly or what?

Consider the projected and real costs of other nuclear power plants:

• Diablo Canyon, California: original estimated cost $450 million; actual cost $4.4 billion (a tenfold increase).
• Shoreharn, New York: original estimated cost $242 million; actual cost $4 billion (a sixteenfold increase).
• Midland, Michigan: original estimated cost $267 million; actual cost $4.4 billion (a sixteenfold increase).
• Marble Hill, Indiana: original estimated cost $1.4 billion; actual cost $7 billion, before being abandoned.

The difference between the original projected cost and actual cost of just these five power plants and Seabrook is over $21.6 billion. An estimated 120 nuclear plants in various stages of planning or construction met a similar fate. No nuclear power plant ordered since 1974 in the U.S. has ever been completed. (Figures quoted from The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power by Robert C. Morris Pg 173)

Nuclear activists like to blame the high actual costs compared with the projected costs on the blundering idiocy of scientists, planners and inept nuclear authorities etc. Unfortunately, this is just another attempt at deception. This group of nuclear experts did not go from building plants in 42 months on budget and schedule to missing the mark up to sixteen times the projected amount for no reason.

There is a very obvious reason and perhaps no nuclear construction effort demonstrates this better than the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire.

The planning for building two large nuclear plants at Seabrook that would generate up to 70% of New Hampshire’s electricity began in 1971. There was no reason to think that all would not go as planned for several nuclear plants had already been built in the area and their construction costs had come in below the projected costs and had been finished on schedule.

Perhaps a direct quote from an activist’s web page would tell what happened next:

“Public education and opposition to the Seabrook site was first mobilized in 1972 through state proceedings over environmental issues and the associated dangers of nuclear power. A highly contentious legal intervention through the federal licensing proceedings began in 1975 and extended over 25 years. By 1976, a growing public awareness over nuclear power issues and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s promotional role in nuclear power development led to the formation of a New England-wide citizen coalition called the Clamshell Alliance. Inspired by citizen opposition to another proposed nuclear power plant site in Montague, Mass. and the successful citizen occupations that halted construction of a nuke in Wyhl, Germany, the Clamshell Alliance adopted nonviolent tactics as part of a Declaration of Nuclear Resistance. A series of nonviolent site occupations and demonstrations began in August 1976. By April 30, 1977, the alliance had mobilized 2000 activists, organized by “affinity groups” to march onto the construction site and encamp in defiance to continued construction. 1414 anti-nuclear activists were subsequently arrested and held in five National Guard armories and two county jails for up to two weeks. Their incarceration creatively turned into seminars and workshops on nuclear power issues and served to spawn additional citizen opposition around nuclear construction sites across the United States. Nonviolent direct actions continued at Seabrook throughout the reactor’s construction and licensing resulting in over 4,000 principled arrests.” Taken from: http://www.nukebusters.org/html/seabrooknuclearpowerstation.html

It’s amazing that these guys are proud as punch of what they have done.

(A) They obnoxiously trespass, break the laws and do everything possible to interfere with construction. (B) Create every obnoxious lawsuit possible that created delays that ran into the billions of dollars. (C) Scared the daylights out of local residents with misinformation which caused politicians to take the side of the activists. (D) Once the politicians were on their side Seabrook was inundated with such tight enforcement on new and dreamed up trivial regulations

As it turned out that which should have taken less than 5 years to build took 20 years.

And who had to pay for that seven extra billion in costs?

Thousands of average people who were investors and taxpayers and the whole state of New Hampshire who had to pay through the nose for power.

We are today seeing the results of the lack of nuclear power in the New England states. For the past couple winters they have had extreme shortages of energy and have had to depend upon imported oil (which is in short supply) for winter heat. Last year Clinton tried to bail them out by releasing strategic oil reserves.

The activists have been so successful at demonizing nuclear power that a new plant has not been ordered in the United States since 1974. Perhaps Robert Scherer of Georgia power says it best, speaking the thoughts of many utility administrators: “No utility executive in the country would consider ordering one [a nuclear power plant] today-unless he wanted to be certified or committed.”

Here is another quote: “The first lesson we’ve learned is, “Don’t build nuclear plants in America. You subject yourself to financial risk and public abuse.” Don Beeth, director of nuclear information at Houston Lighting and Power.

It is indeed a testament to the economic feasibility of Nuclear power that even though the activists have driven up the costs of construction by a factor of ten or more as well as driving up the operating costs with innumerable regulations (that actually make the plants less safe) that nuclear energy in the United States is still competitive with other sources of power.

It is fortunate that activists have not been so successful in France who builds nuclear plants in half the time that we could build one here. If we could presently build one here it would take at least ten years, but France completes hers in five years, even if it is done by an American company. This is because the activists have not had as much power in France.

The activists have been more successful in Germany and they have been phasing out nuclear energy with current plants to eliminate them all.

Guess who has to by energy from who?

Right. Germany has to come begging to France for their cheap, but abominable power which is generated by nuclear power.

That makes a lot of sense doesn’t it? Germany dismantles their nuclear program and then supplements the shortfall produced by buying nuclear generated power from France. Hypocritical wouldn’t you say?

Unfortunately, France is now a prime target for the activists. Their goal is to stop France from building any more plants.

If they are successful France can say goodbye to her clean air and cheap power. She will be forced to import tremendous amounts of coal and oil and return to the dark ages of power generation.

It is obvious that when construction costs rocket up to sixteen times projections because of frivolous lawsuits, regulations and the daily invasion of protesters that the cost of nuclear power is more than it should be. France is proof that nuclear power can be very reasonable, but even there costs are more tan they should be because of activists. They are just not as numerous or effective there.

If we had the opportunity to streamline production of a new generation of nuclear power plants here in the United States without the delays and extra costs imposed upon them by activists then they could supply the most economical power in the world. We have potential to deliver electricity by nuclear power at about half the cost of that received by coal burning plants today.

As it is, in the United States, even with all the problems, nuclear power is still competitive in price with other sources. But things could be so much better.

“Some people see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask, why not?” Bobby Kennedy

Copyright by J J Dewey

Nov 6, 2001

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

 

The Ten Deceptions Part V

(5) The Fifth Deception is that we are limited in the amount of uranium that we can mine. Since we have only about thirty years supply available, we might as well just give up now and cease the building of any new nuclear reactors.

This is another extremely deceptive statement. Activists are using the low side of estimated known reserves that can be easily mined. Most experts see the figure as closer to 50 years.

Does this mean that we have only 30-50 years worth of nuclear fuel available and then that will be it? Then no more nuclear energy will even be available?

For one thing, if the activists really believed this they would be jumping with glee that we will run out of fuel in 30 years and encourage us to burn it up as soon as possible. Then they would achieve their goal of a non nuclear world.

The fact is that they know the only way to stop nuclear power is through deceit, through litigation, through manipulating public opinion and unfounded fears in the hope of bring the industry to a stand still. They know that if they are not successful in doing this then there is plenty of nuclear fuel to last for thousands of years and they will look like fools in the eyes of future generations for their current protests.

So how then can we have thousands of years supply of fuel available when we are told there are only a few decades of reserves left to mine?

Answer: Several reasons. First projections are based upon known reserves. History has proved there are always many unknown reserves.

Consider this. Since the 1950’s the estimate of known uranium reserves have increased by a factor of ONE THOUSAND TIMES! If then the early projections were off by a factor of 1000 – the question is how much are we off now?

If we are merely off by a factor of ten this time we would have enough for another 500 years using present methods.

This does not even take into consideration the fact that technology will continue to advance and that we may develop methods of deep earth exploration that could reveal a thousand times what we project today in reserves.

In addition to this Uranium may be extracted from the waste of our coal fired plants. But, in addition to this, we have untold reserves available as an ingredient in sea water.

It is estimated that there are five billion tons of uranium in the oceans, enough for a very long time to come.

Currently the cost of uranium is only about 5% of the cost of electricity generated. We could pay ten times as much for more expensive extraction methods and the cost of electricity generated would still be competitive.

All this takes into account that we would continue nuclear processing using our current primitive methods.

If we switch to breeder reactors we would basically create an infinite supply of energy with the reserves we currently have available.

A breeder reactor is called so because it breeds – meaning it gives birth to more fuel than it consumes.

We have heard dreams of perpetual motion machines for thousands of years, but we seem to have that available now. If, in the process of generating electricity through nuclear fuels which create more fuel than they burn, then we have something very close to perpetual energy.

Technically it is not perpetual, but very close to it and it is obvious that these breeder reactors are a key to unlimited economical and clean fuel for as long as we need it.

Unfortunately, nuclear activists have so succeeding in spooking the public as well as many in congress to the extent that they made it against the law to build them.

(6) The Sixth Deception is that we should not recycle nuclear waste because it is too dangerous. Recycling nuclear waste breeds more plutonium and this is a bad thing since this can be used to make nuclear bombs.

Unfortunately, this deception and scare tactic has put the fear of God in so many people that public opinion as well as politicians with little scientific knowledge have bought into it and cost the world over 20 years of progress toward an infinite energy source.

This is another point of high hypocrisy. First the activists claim they want reduction of greenhouse gasses and clean air, yet fight tooth and nail against the only major source of power which emits no greenhouse gasses or pollution into the atmosphere.

Almost all the activists are religious promoters of recycling, yet when anyone even talks about researching into the recycling of nuclear fuel these guys experience an internal nuclear reaction of rebellion and fight against the principle as if they are in a life and death struggle.

As far as nuclear waste is concerned the activists, and a large part of the public who thoughtlessly endorse them, are demanding the impossible and there is nothing that can be done to satisfy them, excepting the complete destruction of the nuclear industry.

They say it is too dangerous to store the nuclear waste at the nuclear site so we have spent many billions in finding the safest possible site to bury it in 1000 feet of rock. This material was to be molded into ceramic glass which can resist an impact into a brick wall at 80 MPH and will not break down for millions of years. Then for additional protection it would be encased in stainless steel.

After all the research and development they still find hundreds of reasons to protest this reasonable approach.

The other alternative is to recycle the waste as fuel. The technology available to recycle most of the waste is available now and eventually we may be able to recycle all waste.

Doesn’t this seem desirable? That is to recycle the waste to the extent that eventually there may be no nuclear waste at all?

Not to these guys. They protest this idea with a voice so loud that their contagious fear has spread abroad across the planet.

The problem is that all this group does is protest, protest, protest… They offer no solutions. Ahh, how much easier it is to curse the darkness rather than light a candle, to find fault rather than offer a solution.

Here’s what we cannot do if the activists have their way.

We can’t store the waste on site. We can’t store it at Yucca Mountain or anywhere else in the earth. We can’t deposit it two miles under the ocean, even though scientists say that it probably would not take a human life in a million years. We can’t recycle it.

Well, just what are we supposed to do with it??? It seems that we are supposed to keep it where it is today in the worst possible circumstance and then protest for eternity that the waste is in existence.

Perhaps they want us to view it as the common cold. It exists among us and there is nothing we can do, but complain about it.

The sad thing is that there are many alternatives, but instead of pursuing them doing nothing is seen as more desirable than doing something.

The fact is, we must do something. Even though for a mere billion dollars I would store the problematic plutonium in my living room (which would hold it all), a solution which is deemed most desirable must be resolved and pursued.

Logic would tell us that recycling the waste with fast breeder reactors or the improved Integral Fast Reactors is the wisest course of action.

Perfecting this technology has numerous advantages.

(A) Breeder reactors get about 100 times as much energy from a kilogram of uranium than do present reactors. (B) The nuclear waste is used as fuel instead of being buried in the earth. (C) We currently have enough waste to supply the United States with current levels of electricity for 1000 years. (D) One of the big complaints of activists about nuclear energy is the problems created by the mining of uranium. By using Integral Fast Reactors the mining of uranium could be reduced to most any level that is desired, even to zero if necessary. (E) We could have a use for dismantled nuclear weapons and recycle their fissionable materials. (F) We would be unlimited in the amount of energy we could produce making us free from air pollution and paving the way for pollution free electric cars freeing us from dependence on oil, foreign or domestic.

Fortunately other nations such as France and Great Britain are pursuing this technology and currently are scratching the surface on nuclear recycling.

So what is the problem with the United States? Why have we trashed this wonderful prospect and continue with the reactor technology from the fifties?

In 1979 President Jimmy Carter listened to the voices of the nuclear activists and banned research and production of the recycling of nuclear waste. His executive order mandated that we proceed with the decades old method of maximum waste production by specifying that all fissionable material can only be used once and once only.

This order was rescinded by Reagan in 1981, but the backlash by the activists and the public fear was so great that the administration was afraid to proceed with development for fear of political repercussions. Therefore from Reagan to Clinton nothing was done with nuclear recycling even though it was legal.

But then Clinton closed the loophole and cancelled all possible research into the Integral Fast Reactor as soon as he came into office in 1992.

Now the Bush administration is considering more research and development into nuclear energy and again the activists and protesters are coming out of the woodwork to bring progress to a halt, yet offering no workable solution to the many energy problems which present themselves.

This development of safe nuclear energy should not be a Republican-Democratic adversarial thing, but must be viewed with the idea of wholeness. What is the best decision for the whole of the country and the world?

The question that now arises is why would some think that nuclear recycling is not as good thing?

The main reason is this. Breeder reactors recycle by taking the waste and transforming it into usable nuclear fuel that can be used again. This fuel, such as plutonium 239, has the potential to be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Yikes!!! Isn’t this reason enough to be against breeder reactors?

Answer: It is no reason at all unless one is devoid of facts on the matter and motivated entirely by gut emotional reaction.

Fact One: The major nuclear nations such as the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China already have all the fissionable material they need to make all the bombs they want, or can afford.

If ten times the fissionable material were made available though breeder reactors this would not mean there would be an increase in the number of nuclear bombs.

Despite a constant increase in the current supply of plutonium both Russia and the United States are reducing their nuclear arsenal.

The genie is out of the bottle. Our worry is not an increase in plutonium. We already have plenty of fissionable material to destroy the world several times over.

If a man wants to kill himself by hanging does it make sense to attempt to save him by forbidding the local hardware store from selling him rope when he already has several hundred feet in his garage and can buy from numerous other sources if desired?

A much better solution is to help him solve his internal problems so he will be at peace with himself.

Even so, the banning of breeder reactors for commercial purposes will not prevent the world from committing suicide if that is what they decide to do. We have the power to destroy ourselves and nothing but the solving of human problems can prevent this from happening. Banning the rope of nuclear power in some isolated area of development does nothing but hinder the economic good of the world which in turn makes nuclear confrontation more probable.

Fact Two. Our main worry concerning nuclear weapons is not from the developed free nations, but from China and rogue states such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and terrorists groups.

The United States, Britain and France can breed all the nuclear fuel they need and this will have no influence on the amount of nuclear weapons they will make.

It is not in the interests of the free world or the world itself to export nuclear technology to potential enemy states and this should be avoided at all costs with or without commercial breeder reactors.

What I find hypocritical to Biblical proportions is that Carter and Clinton, who have tied the hands of the United States of its own peaceful nuclear research and development, cooperated together in 1994 to export nuclear technology to North Korea.

Carter made the trip to North Korea to negotiate the deal and because North Koreans “promised” to not use the technology as well as our foreign aid to create bombs we gleefully give them.

How tragic! Clinton and Carter trust the North Koreans with nuclear technology, but have denied it to their own country which they do not trust.

Actually trust of country has little to do with it because, as I said, we have all the materials at hand to make all the bombs we want anyway.

The only motive I can see here for strangling domestic development is their fear of the wrath of nuclear activists.

And speaking of activists – where were they when we were negotiating the export of nuclear technology to the enemy state or North Korea? At the time of Carter’s negotiations I watched the news media for them and saw nothing.

(Written in 2001. Unfortunately today – 2020 – North Korea broke their word and now has nuclear weapons that threaten us.)

I just searched the internet for some sign of protest I may have missed and could find none against this dangerous act.

I did however, find one strong anti nuclear protest concerning North Korea.

The activists raised hell with Taiwan because they were depositing their nuclear waste on a nearby island and demanded it be removed. Well, in the hope of silencing the protesters Taiwan decided to remove the waste and ship it off somewhere. But where? Unfortunately, they can’t just make it disappear into the ethers.

They came up with a humanitarian solution. The people of North Korea were starving and desperately needed money so Taiwan paid them to take it off their hands and bury it there.

This outraged the activists more than ever. They attempted to blockade Taiwan ships and throw every possible difficulty in the path of the transaction.

What was their solution? Return it to the island?

No. They just wanted the waste to go away, but where – no one knows.

Get this. The activists violently protest sending nuclear waste to Korea where it has a chance in a million of hurting anyone, but are silent when we export nuclear technology and plants to Korea where such act creates a risk of around 50% that nuclear bombs will eventually be made which could cost a million lives and untold suffering for the living.

We must cease this mindless emotional reaction and work against dangers real instead of phantom, conjured up, illusionary fears.

Fact Three. The biggest worry of the activists concerning breeder reactors is the production of plutonium 239, but it takes more technical expertise to make a bomb from this than U-235 which is easier to obtain from Uranium ore.

In other words, if a rogue state wants to make a nuclear bomb, it is not likely they will use plutonium, but will most likely use U-235 which is not even a waste product.

If the United States did go ahead with commercial development of breeder reactors the chances of having plutonium stolen by terrorists or a rogue state is close to impossible. The plutonium in a breeder reactor cannot be touched by human hands for it would mean instant death. For one thing the temperature is so high that it would evaporate a body and the radioactivity of the mix would kill. The nuclear materials have to be handled with robotic arms.

Stealing the plutonium would not be like in the movies where the bad guy runs off with a briefcase, but would involve an almost impossible undertaking.

Then, after the plutonium is stolen it would have to be smuggled out of the country and an advanced nuclear technology and equipment would have to be available somewhere in order to make a bomb.

If a rogue state wants to make the bomb, it will have to do it the way Iraq is attempting to do it: build their own reactors, obtain some uranium ore and separate enough U-235 to complete the job.

We have within our grasp and technology the power to create an unlimited supply of power that will, through refinement, have little or no nuclear waste by-product. This energy will be clean, releasing virtually no impurities into our atmosphere, and can pave the way to unlimited electrical energy, even to mass production of electrical vehicles releasing us from dependence on fossil fuels which in turn frees us from the responsibility of going to war over oil as we did in the Gulf War.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Nov 1, 2001

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Ten Deceptions Part IV

(4) The Fourth Deception: Nuclear energy does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will not help with the global warming problem.

Since almost every anti nuclear activist is also a crusader against greenhouse gasses and global warming, it only stands to reason that they would search for some reason to not even acknowledge that nuclear energy is completely clean as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned.

The radioactive rods heat water and this heat is converted into electricity with no CO2 emissions or any other air pollutants at all.

Some scientists will argue that in ancient days when we had much more CO2 in the atmosphere than we do today that the earth was like a Garden of Eden and releasing more into the atmosphere is a good thing. But that is another interesting argument to examine.

In the mean time people have been scared out of their wits about CO2 emissions and you would think that the use of a clean source of power would be viewed as a good thing. It is an especially good thing when you realize that coal fired plants emit many tons of pollutants much more dangerous than CO2.

When I heard that activists were preaching that nuclear power does not reduce greenhouses emissions I became quite curious as to what kind of spin they could possibly come up with to support this argument so I explored.

It took quite a bit of researching to find any explanation at all. A lot of anti nuclear writers just make the statement that nuclear power is not the answer to greenhouse gasses or air pollution and leave it at that. I guess these individuals just want us to accept the beast of authority.

I thought that surely they must have some basis for the argument and continued my investigation. Finally I found something.

Several cite a study bearing the strange name of “Keepin and Kats” which claims that every dollar spent on energy conservation saves seven times as much CO2 as a dollar spent on nuclear energy.

Now even if this were a true statement this does not nullify the fact that a nuclear power plant gives off virtually zero air pollutants and no matter what the cost is, no pollution is no pollution.

And considering cost, nuclear is cheaper than solar or wind and comparable to coal, hydro and gas worldwide.

One could use this same argument with solar power by making a similarly ridiculous statement such as:

“Solar power does not reduce greenhouse gasses because it is very expensive and if we took the money invested in solar and invested it in conservation we would save twenty times the greenhouse gasses per dollar spent.”

This is a silly argument because each kilowatt generated by solar is virtually pollution free no matter how you look at it or how much you conserve by other methods on the side.

I couldn’t find any usable details of this study, but common sense tells you that it has great limitations.

The reason?

Because you can conserve so much and then you can conserve no more. That which is spent on conservation may be wise and more productive than money spent on any energy source, but money thus spent cannot progress in linear fashion.

For instance I just replaced some of my incandescent bulbs around the house with new florescent ones which give the same amount of light for about 23% of the electricity. Even though these bulbs cost ten times the price I figured it was worth it to help conserve and ultimately the power saved would pay the extra cost.

This, I believe, was a wise investment, but there is a problem. I can’t get up in the morning and say: “I want to conserve some again by investing more money in energy saving bulbs.” The bulbs have already been replaced and no more investment is even possible.

I could order better insulation for my house, but once that is done there is no more to do in this area.

Conservation is admirable, but there is a limit to it. Meanwhile, even with superhuman efforts at conservation the demand for energy will go up and we must provide for those needs or the nation and the world will get caught with its pants down as did California recently. The state which has taken the greatest measures to conserve discovered quite painfully that the demand for power will go up no matter how much we try to conserve.

Unfortunately, they are attempting to solve the problem with coal burning plants rather than clean nuclear.

Do the activists have any other arguments to support the ideas that nuclear power does not reduce greenhouse emissions?

I did find one other one. Here it is:

“The building of nuclear power plants, the mining for uranium, transportation involved and the uranium enrichment process demands energy which is delivered through fossil fuels which give out greenhouse gasses.”

This is a pretty lame argument for it can be made against any source of power including wind and solar. All their ingredients take a certain amount of fossil fuel to create and transport, BUT – this is the case only because we are so dependent on fossil fuels. If the fossil fuel plants were all replaced by nuclear plants then we would be using clean nuclear power for manufacturing and greenhouse emissions for the production of electricity would be reduced to near the zero point.

France offers great proof that nuclear power does reduce greenhouse gasses. After the oil embargo in the seventies they made the decision to switch to nuclear as much as possible. They now receive (in 2001) 77% of their electricity by this method and the quality of their air has greatly improved. The reductions in air pollution per kilowatt hour produced nationally has been reduced about 73% in a 20 year period.

It is difficult to deny proof that stares you in the face.

Nuclear power is the only clean source of electricity (concerning air pollutants) that we have available that can supply us with the increasing demand for power. We examined the other clean alternatives and they are just not feasible. The only other choice is to hope for a miracle or risk economic devastation.

I prefer abundance, myself. In times of economic prosperity the chance of breakthroughs in alternative energy are much more possible than in times of financial hardship – which also tends to amplify the possibility of war and terror.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Nov 1, 2001

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

 

The Ten Deceptions Part III

I was considering the paranoia that many have toward nuclear waste and it finally occurred to me how to present the situation in a way that the average reader can identify.

We have an objective which is simply to take the nuclear waste and dispose of it in a manner so we have relative assurance it will not be a major hazard in our lives or that of future generations.

Why do I say “relative assurance?”

Because absolute assurance (which the activists demand) is an impossibility in any aspect of life.

Let us compare a goal of going to the grocery store with a similar paranoia of activist mentality to make a point using similar probabilities that they seek to impose upon humanity.

The Goal: Go to the store, buy a pound of hamburger and return safely.

The first step is to open the door and walk out to your car.

But wait! This is a ‘fatally flawed” plan from the beginning. There are many dangers even in this first step.

There is about one in a trillion chance that a meteorite will fall from the sky and rip a hole through your body. Before you even go outside we must spend several million on a study of meteorite probability and if we are in a high meteorite zone then perhaps you should not leave the house at all.

Then there is the dog problem. Every day throughout the world many people are bitten by dogs as they are leaving their homes.

We need to spend additional millions studying the probability of being bitten by a dog in the area and possible remedies if this dreaded event would happen.

There is also a chance that an angry neighbor may accost you and do you harm before you even get to your car. We must therefore do psychological profiling on all the neighbors to determine risk and if the risk factor is more than .001% over a hundred year period then the trip should be cancelled.

If you are foolhardy enough to venture out to the car you will then have bigger problems. There is a chance that when you attempt to start your car that the electrical system could short circuit and your engine could catch fire. This happens every day to dozens of people.

What’s even more scary is that when you do start your car there will occur thousands of explosions going off in the core of your engine reaching temperatures of thousands of degrees. If by some freak of nature the core of your engine is exposed your fuel could explode and you could wind up burning down your whole neighborhood or even city.

And how secure is your fuel tank? Some silly kid could prey off the lid with a screwdriver and throw a match in the gasoline.

Obviously, you need to do many studies before you even start your car.

Once you start up your car and have nerve enough to ride just a few feet from the terrible exploding forces at the engine’s core you then have even greater problems.

Now there is a danger you may crash into another vehicle driven by exploding fire even more fierce than your own. You could be killed or maimed just as thousand of others are each year.

The frightening thing is that most accidents occur within two miles from your home – so please avoid driving near the house or neighborhood.

Now that you arrive at the store do you realize that the hamburger there may be contaminated – maybe even have e-coli? Before you buy any meat you must find where it came from and have a statistical analysis ran on the purity of meat sold there over the last ten years.

If you are careless enough to buy a pound of hamburger you must now retrace your steps and return home through many perils…

These remote fears sound silly don’t they? Yet many of the fears around nuclear energy are even more remote. Keep in mind that not one person has been killed by the radiation from a reactor for the generation of electricity in the western hemisphere ever, yet people have been struck by meteorites, had their cars explode and have died of e-coli.

The fact is that if we allow ourselves to be alarmed and controlled by fear of remote dangers then life will come to a standstill and deteriorate.

This is what has happened to us concerning this choice source of power in the United States. Because of baseless fears raised by activists and a scared public we have not had a nuclear reactor approved in over 20 years. (Note: ended up being 35 years – in 2016 before a new one came online) We have become paralyzed in this area because of possibilities as remote as getting struck by lightening on a sunny day.

We have had the term “fear based” thrown about when no fear was involved, but if anything deserves this title it is those who are anti nuclear energy because of some fear of harm.

A thousand years from now this fear of nuclear energy will be viewed with more disdain than will be the opinion of the people of the dark ages who feared sailing off the edge of the world because it was flat.

But perhaps a closer correspondence to the activists is the Luddites who appeared at the beginning of the industrial revolution. This activist group was started by weavers who protested incoming steam powered weaving machines. Even though the advance of steam over human power would greatly benefit society as a whole, the Luddites wanted “alternatives” to the powerful and dangerous steam technology.

At first they staged peaceful protests, but when they saw that the new technology was making inroads and their way of life was threatened violent protesting and sabotage became prevalent. The Luddites resorted to attacking and destroying the steam powered looms by any means they had, not caring for the added expense incurred to both the manufacturers as well as consumers.

What made things more difficult for progress was that these anti-technology advocates were not the dummies that some historians portray. Many of them were well educated and had considerable political influence. They were also good at public relations and managed to get a large portion of the public to sympathize with their cause. Many of the farmers, common people and even manufacturers who would benefit by the new technology secretly assisted them.

Fortunately for civilization, the English government came down hard on the Luddites when they broke the law and when violence ensued the authorities greatly increased the crackdown.

Despite their political connections and public support the rule of law prevailed and within a decade the new prosperity brought about by the steam powered technology caused a waning of support for the Luddites and the opposition to the advance of civilization turned into support.

Now, almost two hundred years later, people of this age look back on the Luddites and assume they must have been stupid, backward people to oppose such an obvious benefit. In fact the term “luddite” is sometimes used to identify a dim-witted person who is confused by modern technology or thought.

The fact is the real Luddites were fairly intelligent. They look dim-witted by our standards because they were deceived by their own self interest and belief systems.

Even so, when the power of nuclear technology prevails, several hundred years from now the people of the future age will wonder about the intelligence of those who currently oppose nuclear technology when the risk is so small and the benefit so great – especially when one considers the advance in safety of the new generations of power plants to come.

Oct 31, 2001

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

 

 

The Red Dragon

The other day a reader gave a great link about T.H. Moray from Utah who built a mysterious black box that generated free electricity.

My late brother-in-law was a scientist who spoke of him several times as his favorite scientist. He tried to duplicate the box but never succeeded. I have been curious about the guy and it was nice to finally see some printed information on him.

Here is a LINK on him

I was asked to analyze the handwriting of the recent anthrax terrorists. LINK

I’ve caught a couple glimpses of the handwriting on TV. I haven’t been able to take a close look, but I’ll tell you what I can.

From the look I have caught it appears that all the envelopes have the same handwriting but seem to be written with different pens.

The writing is not the person’s regular handwriting. He wrote the addresses very slowly and deliberately obviously in the hope his handwriting could not be traced back to him. The deliberate printing makes it difficult to analyze much.

The most obvious trait is that the handwriting goes downhill quite significantly. This usually shows a pessimistic attitude and can indicate depression where the downhill slant is so strong.

His pressure appears strong indicating intense feelings.

There is significant space between the lines indicating that he does not like others imposing upon him.

Some of the letters have a simplicity that indicates he learned to write English later in life giving evidence he is a foreigner.

He is not particularly intelligent.

You can’t tell the sex for sure from handwriting, but it shows male characteristics.

Overall we have a passionate man who probably feels like a victim infringed upon by the United States and is seeking to turn the tables on those more powerful than himself. This person was probably a dupe and not in on the planning of the scheme.

If I get a chance to get a better look I’ll tell you more if I see anything significant.

Yesterday we mentioned the Unholy Trinity. The first of these is: Deceit or “the dragon.”

Deceit as it related to the attempted destruction of the plans of the Brotherhood of Light originates with the Dark Brotherhood which is sometimes symbolized by the red dragon in the Bible.

Christ told his disciples to be “as wise as serpents” and Moses lifted up a serpent which saved the lives of those who looked upon it, so the word “serpent” is not always used in a negative light. In esoteric writings the serpent is often used in connection with wisdom.

No symbol can be interpreted in strict black and white terms, but must be examined in the context with which it is used.

In the Book of Revelation John calls the serpent he has in mind, the adversary, one who “deceives the whole world” and persecutes the saints. The serpent John sees here definitely represents the negative aspect of this beast.

The first and most powerful line of attack used by the Dark Brothers is the dragon of deceit. In many cases people do not need any coaxing to use some deceit, but in the case of an important work of light that must be stopped, those on the left hand path will seek out disciples with deceit in their hearts and implant thoughts in their mind that will use this tendency to thwart a work of light.

Could it be true that anti nuclear activists (who appear to just want to make the world a better place) are using outright deceit – that they teach things that are definitely not true and know that they are doing so?

The majority of anti nuclear activists have just not checked out all the facts and are sincere in what they believe, but I do believe that some distortions are so obvious to anyone with an elementary knowledge of nuclear physics and reactors that the deceit is consciously embraced by some of the leaders.

A month or so ago when I first wrote about nuclear energy I planned on stressing illusion on both sides of the equation. It has been about 40 years since I studied the subject so I did some updated studies and checked the internet and some books to see what both sides were saying. The more I read the more difficult it was to find flaws, deceit and illusion in the pro nuclear writers who are mostly real scientists. But I soon became disgusted with the anti nuclear group (mostly non scientists) with their distortion and deceit. It became obvious to me that they approach their cause with a religious mindset. Instead of looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion, they appear to have reached conclusions and only use data that can be used in some way to prove this conclusion.

They often speak with nebulous accusations leaving out details that would reveal the truth. For instance, when they see something nuclear they do not like they will often call it “seriously flawed” but not tell us any details that prove the flaw.

On the other hand, the pro nuclear writers usually tend to give enough details so a reader can use them to make up his own mind. If a seeker can obtain necessary facts in a controversial situation he can use them along with his reasoning mind to arrive at the truth.

One of the reasons for this difference of approach is that many anti nuclear writers and speakers have little scientific background and just do not know what they are talking about.

On the other hand, many pro nuclear writers are scientists who have done actual research and give out reliable facts to back themselves up.

One thing we can say for the activists though – they have done a much better job than the dry nuclear scientists of convincing the public that their point of view is the correct one.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Oct 23, 2001

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Alternative Energy Part III

I left out an important comment on hydro power. One more very important drawback is that a large dam could be a prime target for a terrorist. If a suicide plane were to crash into one it could cause more loss of life than happened at the twin towers.

A reader expressed a view that solar power is more viable than I mentioned because when living in New Mexico she was able to get 60% of hevr power from it.

I think my information was accurate and it doesn’t seem to contradict what you say in any way if you do the math.

I am all for being independent and if one can afford solar, is willing to pay for it, and happens to live in a feasible area with enough sunshine a person can indeed gain a little independence as well as have clean energy.

I would guess that Taos, New Mexico (one of the sunniest spots in the country) is much more productive for solar energy than New York where you are currently living. I notice that you did not include heat or air conditioning in your list which are the big items where I live.

Shortly after the oil crisis in the seventies there seemed to be quite a lot of promotion of solar equipment in my home area. In fact my mother bought a unite at considerable cost for the time.

I was disappointed when she told me that she did not seem to have any noticeable savings in her bill.

Perhaps such experiences is a reason why the market seemed to dry up in this area.

Since then, I’m sure efficiency has increased so I checked out the current costs. Providing that I live in a sunny enough area and I wanted to invest $15,000 I could save $300 a year on my power bill. I would have to invest over $30,000 to completely replace the electricity I am using. This is based on Idaho rates where I live, which is lower than most states, but I think you can see here why I am not eager to convert.

(Note from 2020: I recently got prices on getting solar panels and batteries installed here in Idaho for maximum self sufficiency and the cost was around $50,000 and I would still have to supplement.)

Some states give a rebate of 20-50% to those who convert to solar, but even here this is not free money, but is paid by the taxpayer and still few are willing to make the necessary investment.

I have a nephew who has invented an extra efficient generator using propane or natural gas that sounds like it may be a good alternative. It will only cost a couple thousand and will supply all the power you need at a lower cost than most power companies. The good part is that it will make a person completely self-sufficient powerwise.

I haven’t seen him for a while, but the last time I talked to him he said he was lining up some big investors. I’ll be checking on his progress at the next family reunion.

(Note from 2020: Haven’t seen this nephew for some time and not sure what became of his project.)

Another alternative is to develop electrical engines powerful enough and that will carry a charge long enough to replace the internal combustion engine.

Every so often I hear of some innovative engine and then never hear of it again. For instance, I remember reading a series of articles way back in the 70’s about a guy who claimed to have invented a battery that yielded more electricity than went into it and claimed it could run an electrical motor without ever running down.

Who knows if there was anything to it? The last I heard of the guy was that he was labeled a fraud by government agencies who refused to run tests the inventor desired. It seems like he was also being sued by some car manufacturer.

Now I find it interesting that some Australian inventors are promoting something similar.

The fact to consider is that, even if there has been a cover-up of technology the tide today is turning and progress is being made. It is only a matter of time before we have 100% non polluting electrical vehicles.

This will be a terrific breakthrough IF the electricity can be supplied from a non polluting source. As it is at the present, an all electric car using today’s technology would do little to do to reduce pollutants, for the chances are the power for it would be generated by a coal burning plant. The purchase of an electric car may create the illusion we are helping the environment more than is the case, but all we are doing is cutting down the pollution in the immediate area we are driving while contributing to it in the area where the electrical power is generated.

Unless…

Unless we have a clean source of electrical power.

Is there such a thing as a source of economical energy with little pollution using current technology that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gasses and other pollutants as well, as supply clean power for future electrical engines that in turn could drastically reduce our need for oil, perhaps making us completely free of dependency on foreign oil?

Perhaps.

We will discuss this possibility next.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Oct 22, 2001

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

 

Alternative Energy Part II

The next alternative of which to discuss the pros and cons is wind power.

Altogether renewable sources (namely wind, solar and geothermal) only supply about 2.4% of the electricity for the United States. Of these two wind shows the most promise at present. When I first passed some windmills traveling through California I thought it was cool that they were making use of non polluting wind power, but then as I passed by more of them the thought occurred to me that a few of these would be OK, but if they were everywhere (in an attempt to replace coal or nuclear) that which was pleasant to the view as a novelty would become quite an eyesore as they became ubiquitous.

One or two dandelions in a lawn can be charming, but a whole yard full of them can drive you crazy.

Even so, if windmills ever supplied more than 10% of our power needs, they would become a major source of eye pollution. (Note: Written in 2001; in 2020 the amount is 7.3%) I personally would be willing to put up with it if there were no reasonable alternative, but I would much prefer a source that does not clutter up thousands of acres of landscape.

On the positive side wind is probably the cleanest source of commercially viable power there is. It even beats solar, which has solar panels that use polluting cadmium compounds.

Even so it also has a number of drawbacks. One of them is very similar to solar in the fact that the materials for construction also require a considerable outlay of energy (probably from coal) to produce and maintain.

One of the greatest drawbacks is that there are a very limited number of areas where there is sufficient wind to make windmills economically feasible. We are limited in using this source even if we decided to move ahead full speed with it.

Another problem that limits locations for wind power is that if they are built in an area where there are many birds, the poor fowls tend to fly directly into the blades to their death. Windmills have destroyed numerous birds of prey and even some endangered species such as golden eagles. This problem has put the squeeze on available land for windmills. Now a prospective windmill power station has to do a study of an area as to its impact on the bird life before they build.

Another little known problem is noise pollution. When they have been built close to homeowners the sound of the whirling blades became so disruptive that numerous lawsuits resulted. If future windmill plants have to be built a distance from any homeowner to avoid litigation this will further restrict land selection.

Many think that when windmill construction is complete that the power plant is home free expense wise, but it turns out that repairs have been higher than projected. One will often see non working windmills because of some operating problem waiting for repairs.

A final problem is their unreliability. The wind does not blow consistently the same 24 hours a day and since electricity from wind power cannot be stored there will be gaps where power generated at one time may be only half as much as the day before. I would imagine that a community that uses wind power would have to have a backup source of power for windless days.

Some fairly large companies who have invested in wind power have later abandoned the project because of financial loss. But then there are other, mostly smaller companies, that persist in perfecting this source in the hope of a better cleaner world.

We wish them well.

Hydro Power is a clean option supported by many It is ironical that even though this is a source of power that is as clean and inexpensive as you can get that it is also a prime target of environmentalists. Here in Idaho they are putting tremendous pressure on the state to tear down the dams and return things to their pristine condition.

“Save the salmon,” is the slogan here. It is thought that we can increase salmon runs by breaching a number of dams.

There is a great debate going on in this state over this issue. One side says there are other ways to increase salmon runs – in fact there was a significant increase this year. The pro dam people say that it would take 50 years after the breaching before much natural increase in salmon could be effected through and even then we do not know for sure if it would help.

In addition to the loss of clean energy the breaching would also be a big disruption to irrigation water for farmers, recreation, boating etc.

The only argument for the anti-dam people is that it may increase salmon runs and return the land to its pristine condition.

I personally do not support the breaching for the following reasons.

(A) The electricity lost will be replaced by coal burning supplied power. (B) There are several alternatives to increasing salmon runs that look just as promising as breaching. (C) It would create great hardship on a number of farmers and businesses who are just surviving as it is.

It appears to me that the ultra environmentalists would want to breach the dams even if an alternative salmon solution could be found as many of them want to see the land restored to its original condition. This “original condition of the land is sacred” attitude seems to be a zealous religious attitude with them as strong as that of any anti abortionist I have encountered.

Hydro power currently supplies 8.3% of the nation’s power and clean power it is, but most of the available locations have been dammed and because of breaching advocates we are likely to see less hydro power in the future rather than more.

Therefore, it looks like we should not look to increasing hydro power as a clean solution in there near future.

There is also a negative side to this clean source aside from the salmon problem. Dams wear out or develop flaws and break periodically causing many millions in damage and sometimes great loss of life. Up to 4000 people have been killed through the collapsing of a dam.

Not far from me in Rexburg, Idaho the Teton Dam burst in 1976 causing a billion dollars worth of damage and the loss of 14 lives. This low loss of life was considered very miraculous as it could have been much worse.

There are numerous other lesser known alternatives that may one day pay off. And who knows. Maybe out of the blue some unknown will come up with something simple in his garage that will fill all our energy needs for next to nothing in cost.

However, I have learned some good wisdom in this regard in my short life and that is this.

If you put all your eggs in a basket that is not perfected yet you are likely to spill and break the eggs. The loss will be great and the recovery slow.

It would be dangerous for any nation to neglect the development of proven energy resources while betting on others to come. Plentiful energy is not only important to our creature comforts, but is an essential ingredient to insure the survival of a free society.

The wise course is then to keep the energy flow going with existent technology while aggressively pursuing improvements and innovations.

Take a look. The amount of freedom and prosperity in the world very closely corresponds to the amount of available energy at a reasonable price.

There are many avenues to pursue here, but some of them may not be feasible for a hundred years.

Here are a few.

(1) Wave Power. Ocean waves (as well as tides) have a tremendous amount of power in them that have potential to generate power. Some experiments have been done, but nothing practical has resulted yet. One experiment I read about was overwhelmed by the wave power and destroyed.

(2) Geothermal. This is a very clean source and there are 39 countries in the world which have potential to receive 100% of their electrical power with this method. Most of these are poorer undeveloped countries that could take a leap forward with this technology.

There is some potential here in the United States, but until greater technology is developed to retrieve it from deep within the earth, this will only supply a small amount of our needs. We currently receive far less than 1% of our electrical power from this and the maximum projected would be 4.6%.

About a mile away from my home is a neighborhood that has used geothermal power for about 100 years.

New Zealand fares best among the developed nations in this regard. It has potential to supply over half if its energy needs from this source.

(3) Cold fusion is a much hoped for source of clean energy that dreamed up by a couple University of Utah scientists some time ago. Unfortunately, not a lot of progress has been made in this area.

Oct 20, 2001

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE