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.

Clinton allowed the environmentalists to shutdown Argonne National Lab's  Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR II)  in Idaho and let them poison 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.

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 a 1,000 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.

See Professor Cohn's web site. Click on the below web site,

http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad8301cohen.html

   See Professor Cohen's Facts

The United Kingdom (UK) of England has studied  the world's energy problems and arrived at the following conclusion:

Following our consultation on the future of nuclear power5, the Government has reviewed the evidence and arguments referred to in the consultation document in the light of responses it received and in the light of any other evidence which has emerged. The Government believes it is in the public interest that new nuclear power stations should have a role to play in this country’s future energy mix along side other low-carbon sources; that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies the option of investing in new nuclear power stations; and that the Government should take active steps to open up the way to the construction of new nuclear power stations. It will be for energy companies to fund, develop and build new nuclear power stations in the UK, including meeting the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management costs.

New 1600-MW European PWRs are being built, one in Finland and one in France, with respective power-up dates of 2008 and 2012. On 5 January, France's president, Jacques Chirac, announced plans for an expansion of nuclear energy sources for France, including a PBMR by 2020. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to announce this spring six to eight new reactors in the UK.

Democratic candidates for president are against nuclear power. Hillary Clinton is against every thing about Bush's energy policy.  She simply wants to be president and to hell with every thing else.

After moderator Brian Williams, the "NBC Nightly News" anchor, asked for their views on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, Obama vowed to "end the notion" of using the rural Nevada site to deposit nuclear waste. "I've been clear from the start that Yucca, I think, was a misconceived project," he said. But Clinton quickly cited her vote against the proposal in 2001. She noted that one of Obama's key supporters had tried to push the project. And she pointed out that Edwards had twice voted in favor of the nuclear site. "I have consistently and persistently been against Yucca Mountain, and I will make sure it does not come into effect when I'm president," she said. Edwards,  for his part, criticized past statements by Obama that he would be open to the construction of nuclear plants, and by Clinton that she was "agnostic" on the subject. "I am not for it or agnostic," Edwards said. "I am against building more nuclear power plants, because I do not think we have a safe way to dispose of the waste. (With the IFR  system using Fast  Breeder Reactors there was no waste.)

"The candidates also skirmished over the 2005 energy bill. Signed by President Bush, it was the first national energy legislation in more than a decade. Obama said he supported it as a way to spur the development of alternative energy sources. "If we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we're going to have to ramp up how we're producing energy here in the United States," the Illinois senator said. Clinton called the bill a giveaway to the energy industry that had been concocted by Vice President Dick Cheney. "It was the wrong policy for America," she said. "It was so heavily tilted toward the special interests that many of us, at the time, said, 'You know, that's not going to move us on the path we need.' " 

As for the path we need, Hillary's latest uttering's about energy, during one of her debates with Obama, said that she would get 3 trillion dollars to make solar panels. That would put everyone back to work and also supply most of our energy needs in the US.  •She recommends aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25% of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030.

While Obama is strangely silent on the issue of nuclear energy, Clinton is not. She believes that energy efficiency and renewables are better options. As she sees it, there are significant unresolved issues about the cost of producing nuclear power, the safety of operating plants, waste disposal, and nuclear proliferation. So Clinton opposes new subsidies for nuclear power.

She would strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and direct it to improve safety and security at nuclear power plants. Furthermore, she would terminate work at the Yucca Mountain site while also convening a panel of scientific experts to explore alternatives for disposing of nuclear waste.

My comments: After 35 years of flawless operation Hillary is going to improve nuclear power systems.   I believe that  Hillary Clinton, as president, would complete Bill Clinton's demise of nuclear power in the United States, especially the Fast Breeder concept.   She would again pay back the environmentalists  as Bill did. She would send the US chasing after sun beams and wind power renewables  for the next eight years.  As a result we will experience a shortage of electrical energy and see a sharp rise in energy costs. Also we will not be able to compete in the supply of the world's rapid expansion of nuclear power plants because we will have no home  manufacturing base to build on. 

A break in the dike of the California anti-nukes.

Gov Schwarzenegger told the Wall Street Journal it is time for  the Golden State to reconsider nuclear power if it ever wants to meet energy demands for the future.

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 kilowatthours)

We need to reverse the projective additions of coal and natural gas plants staring right now and replace them with nuclear plants. And it is true that renewable energy systems do not add significantly to the energy mix as the State of California thinks they do. 

 ENERGY BILL OPENS DOOR TO EPA FUEL CREDITS FOR NUCLEAR POWER

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 sevenfold.

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. 

PG&E's Diablo Canyon Power Plant Begins Scheduled Refueling and Maintenance Outage On Unit 1

AVILA BEACH, Calif., April 30, 2007 /PRNewswire

Diablo Canyon Power Plant operators safely shut down Unit 1 at 1:30 a.m. Monday, April 30, 2007 to begin a scheduled refueling and maintenance outage. Unit 1 operated continuously for 513 days, beginning at the conclusion of the last refueling outage in December 2005.

Can you believe this? Full power operation for almost one and a half years. And the environmentalists say nuclear plants are  not safe and are unreliable.

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: