TheThorium.Network

Thorium News

  • Critical Analysis of a Questionable Review on Molten Salt Technology

    Critical Analysis of a Questionable Review on Molten Salt Technology

    The Article

    The name of the article is “Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble today.”, authored by M. V. Ramana and appearing 20 June 2022 on the website of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Keep in mind that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are the keepers of the “Doomsday Clock” – a relic of the cold war era designed to keep Joe Public scared and the public funding coffers open so the industrial-military complex of the west could continue building nuclear weapons. The links is the end of this article.

    The Doomsday Clock has been ticking for 70 years. It’s time to let it die.

    Why I’m giving up on the apocalypse countdown., Shannon Osaka, Reporter

    We could spend hours rebutting and refuting every single piece of purported evidence submitted by the article, but that is not smart thing to do. And it’s not actually the point. When you understand the meaning behind the article a direct refute is actually a waste of time.

    Not a Technical Data Review nor a Rebuttal of Technical Content

    But, on the technical competence of Thorium Molten Salt technology, we have spent many hours interviewing the last surviving members of the research programs of the 1960’s and 1970’s. We can state that all the claims in the article we have reviewed are bogus. Hence our review here.

    The article was clearly a hit piece from the start, so it must be assessed as one. We will review the writing style and the techniques used to make it appear a useful and credible piece. But in fact it is not at all. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with objectives that are not clear from the article itself.

    The article creates a dismal portrayal of actual events, and doubt and hesitation in the mind of the uninformed reader. Even a nuclear scientist who hasn’t studied the MSRE could nod their head in agreement – unless they critically review how the data is presented.

    If used skillfully, the article would be a damaging success and Thorium Molten Salt would remain on the shelf.

    The article is designed to be given to a senator or congress member (India, USA, German etc.) who might be teetering on the edge of supporting the best form of energy generation we have: Thorium Molten Salt.

    This article could also be used to commit USD billions of public money to dilute and bury U233. Who owns the contracting companies work in the place where they will bury it? Follow the money.

    It’s unfortunate that such people exist who put their name to such work, but hey, it’s not a game without an opponent.

    Lessons First: How to Distract with Writing

    Firstly here’s some pointers on how to attack something with an article, without making it appear like an attack. There are certain techniques that a writer can use to make their writing appear full of valuable data while dissuading further analysis.

    These techniques include:

    • Overloading the article with technical jargon and complex language that is difficult for laypeople to understand. This can make the reader feel overwhelmed or intimidated, and discourage them from delving deeper into the topic.
    • Presenting only one side of the argument, and ignoring or downplaying any opposing viewpoints or evidence. This can create the impression that the author has provided a complete and conclusive analysis, when in reality there may be much more to consider.
    • Using emotionally charged language or rhetoric to appeal to the reader’s emotions, rather than presenting objective facts and evidence. This can make it difficult for the reader to separate the author’s opinion from the facts of the matter.
    • Limiting the scope of the article to a narrow or specific aspect of the topic, without providing a broader context or perspective. This can make it seem as though the topic is fully explored, when in reality there may be many other important factors to consider.

    Other variations of techniques that can be used to appear scientific and fact-based while actually presenting a biased or negative view of the subject matter. can be:

    • Selectively citing studies or data that support the writer’s viewpoint while ignoring or downplaying studies or data that contradict it.
    • Using loaded language or emotional appeals to discredit the subject matter or those associated with it.
    • Employing a one-sided or cherry-picked narrative that presents a biased view of events or situations.
    • Using innuendo or insinuation to suggest negative associations with the subject matter, without providing clear evidence to support the claims.

    The Authors Background

    Let’s now consider the author. Who is he and what is his beef with Thorium? It’s important to understand their position and who or what they may be supporting in the background.

    On face value, it seems that M. V. Ramana is a well-respected expert in nuclear disarmament. He has published extensively on the subject, and his work has been recognized with several awards and appointments to prestigious organizations. Ramana’s focus on disarmament and nuclear risk assessment suggests that he is concerned about the potential dangers of nuclear power and views it as a threat to global security.

    Given his expertise in the field and his focus on disarmament, it is not surprising that Ramana is critical of Molten Salt Burners. His emphasis on the risks associated with this technology, such as accidents and proliferation concerns, have been debunked in numerous papers and reports, however it obvious that Ramana still views them as unacceptable given the article and his general concerns about the nuclear topic. Additionally, his affiliation with groups such as the International Nuclear Risk Assessment Group and the team that produces the World Nuclear Industry Status Report suggest that he is part of a broader movement to promote other energy options, which may lead him to be sceptical of any nuclear technologies.

    However, upon reviewing the previous articles Ramana has authored or co-authored, notably absent is anything about UK’s plans to increase their nuclear arsenal. The UK needs to boost their uranium fired power industry to give cover for plutonium production. The material is necessary for the additional 80 Trident warheads the UK intends to build in the next few years.

    You can dive down that rabbit hole of more nuclear weapons with these links:

    UK Planning for Rapid Nuclear Expansion

    UK Increases Nuclear Arsenal Article 1 – Reuters

    UK Increases Nuclear Arsenal Article 2 – Guardian

    Having no article on this is strange considering Ramana’s position as chair of a non-proliferation organization, and his propensity to produce articles. There are 33 articles on The Bulletin alone with his name attached.

    However one must consider what the UK has been doing to rubbish Thorium. We will touch on it here but it does deserve a full article in the near future.

    Put frankly, after the IAEA published their technical memo 1450 in May 2005 supporting Thorium as a fuel and identifying it’s non-proliferation features, the UK set about the systematic vilification of Thorium. An anti-Thorium article by three learned (but non-nuclear) Cambridge professors; a publicly funded 1.5 million GBP “no-to-Thorium” research report by a single person consultancy that referenced Wikipedia as a source; the gagging of a Lord; the possible early demise of the former head of Greenpeace UK, who had switched to Thorium. Then, the announcements of new nuclear energy for UK and shortly thereafter new nuclear weapons. It’s the makings of a sinister plot of a Bond movie. Or perhaps more akin to a “Get Smart” episode, or indeed, for the UK, “Yes, Minister”.

    IAEA Technical Memo 1450 Thorium Fuel Cycle Potential Benefits and Challenges

    Be sure to consider this IAEA report on Thorium focuses on solid fuel uses. This is not ideal. This is addressed very well by Kirk Sorensen in 2009 and you can read that here:

    A Response to IAEA-TECDOC-1450

    So the question is, does Ramana receive funding or any kind not to discuss new weapons for the UK? Has he been prompted (paid) to weigh into the argument against Thorium because of these plans?

    We will never know these answers.

    Review of the Writing Style of the Article

    Launching into the article itself, here are some of the techniques that have been used manipulate readers.

    Emotional Language

    Use of emotional language. The author uses words like “trouble” and “hype” to describe molten salt machines, which could instill a negative emotional response in readers and make them less likely to consider the technology objectively. The author refers to the “failed promises of nuclear power,” which may be intended to evoke a sense of disappointment or disillusionment with nuclear energy in general.

    Cherry Picking Data

    Cherry-picking data. The author points out that “no commercial-scale molten salt reactors have ever been built,” which could be interpreted as evidence that the technology is unproven or unreliable. However, this overlooks the fact that of the numerous activities worldwide to commercializes the technology. There are several countries and many private companies actively pursuing new molten salt reactor designs.

    The author notes that molten salt reactors require “materials that can withstand intense radiation and high temperatures,” which could be interpreted as a major technical challenge. However, this overlooks the fact that many materials capable of withstanding extreme conditions already exist, and that ongoing research is aimed at developing even more robust materials.

    Logical Fallacies

    There’s multiple use of logical fallacies. Here are two examples:

    Example 1: The author suggests that because molten salt reactors were initially developed as part of a military program, they are inherently problematic or dangerous. This is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy, which attacks the character or motives of an argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

    Example 2: The author implies that because molten salt reactors were not ultimately adopted for commercial use in the 1960s, they must be fundamentally flawed. This is an example of a false dilemma fallacy, which presents only two options (in this case, success or failure) and overlooks more nuanced or complex possibilities.

    Appeal to Authority

    Used extensively is appeal to authority. The author repeatedly references well-respected scientists and institutions to bolster his argument against molten salt reactors. While it’s important to consider expert opinions, the constant invocation of authority figures can also be a way to shut down debate and discourage readers from doing their own research. For example, he cites a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that characterizes molten salt burners as “inherently dangerous,” but doesn’t provide any details about the methodology or findings of the report.

    Fear-Mongering

    Basic Fear-mongering is used. In addition to playing up the potential risks of molten salt burners, the author also seems to imply that proponents of the technology are somehow sinister or untrustworthy. For example, he writes that “The companies and individuals involved in promoting this technology today have made claims that range from the dubious to the outright false.” This kind of rhetoric can be effective at turning readers against a particular idea or group, but it doesn’t necessarily contribute to a reasoned discussion of the topic at hand.

    Oversimplification and Generalization

    There are examples of oversimplification. While the author does acknowledge that there are some potential benefits to molten salt burners, he ultimately argues that they are too risky and impractical to be a viable solution to our energy needs. However, his arguments often rely on oversimplifications or generalizations that don’t fully capture the nuances of the technology. For example, he writes that “One of the main reasons molten salt reactors were abandoned in the 1960s was their inherent safety problems,” without providing any additional context or elaboration on what those safety problems were. This kind of oversimplification can be misleading and obscure important details that might challenge the article’s argument.

    Overall, it’s clear that the author is deeply skeptical of molten salt burners and believes that they are not a viable solution to our energy needs. While it’s important to consider potential risks and drawbacks associated with new technologies, it’s also important to have an open and nuanced discussion about their potential benefits and drawbacks. The techniques used in the author’s article are also manipulative and intellectually dishonest, and readers should be aware of these techniques as they consider his argument.

    Further Reviews

    Now here are three credible reviews by three very different professionals:

    • A pro-nuclear scientific author with a PhD in nuclear physics.
    • Another science author but with a PhD in psychology and no nuclear training whatsoever.
    • An environmental scientist and environmental advocate looking for a solution (a degree in environmental science).

    Pro-Nuclear Scientific Author

    I am a pro-nuclear supporter, and must be since I am also a Doctor of Nuclear Physics, I reviewed the article “Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble today” by M. V. Ramana. I will focus on the blatant non-scientific methods used to discredit a perfectly viable technology.

    The article discusses the popularity of molten salt nuclear reactors among nuclear power enthusiasts, and their potential to lower emissions, be cheaper to run and consume nuclear waste, and be transportable in shipping containers. The article mentions how various governments and organizations have provided funding for the development of these reactors. However, the author asserts that this technology was unsuccessful in the past and is the solution to our current energy problems.

    The author uses a several subterfuge techniques to support his argument. Firstly, he uses loaded language to portray molten salt reactors as a risky and problematic technology. For example, he uses the phrase “all the rage among some nuclear power enthusiasts” to imply that people are overly enthusiastic about this technology. The phrase “trouble” in the article’s title also suggests that molten salt reactors are problematic. Additionally, the author uses the phrase “legendary status” to describe the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, which is a hyperbole that can exaggerate the reactor’s success and, therefore, make it seem like a risky venture.

    The author uses a strawman argument to discredit molten salt reactors’ developers and proponents. By implying that these people believe that the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was so successful that it only needs to be scaled up and deployed worldwide, the author sets up a weak and exaggerated version of the opposition’s argument, which is easy to refute.

    The author uses an appeal to emotion by asking readers to adopt a 1950s mindset to understand the interest in molten salt machines. The author makes an emotional appeal by stating that breeder machines would allow humanity to live a “passably abundant life.” By doing so, the author tries to persuade readers that using molten salt machines would not lead to a more abundant life, which is an emotional argument rather than a logical one.

    The author provides detailed information on the fuel used in the MSRE, including depleted uranium, highly enriched uranium (HEU), and uranium-233 derived from thorium. However, the author uses subterfuge by presenting the information on the fuel without providing any context on why these fuels were used. HEU was used during that time because it was the only fuel that could sustain the reactor at high temperatures. Uranium-233 was derived from thorium, which is more abundant than uranium, and the intention was to use this as a breeder fuel to produce more fissile material.

    The author then goes on to criticize the MSRE by stating that the reactor failed to reach its intended power output of 10 MW. However, this information is presented without any context on the significance of this failure. The MSRE was an experimental reactor, and its primary goal was to test the feasibility of the technology. The fact that the reactor was operational for four years and achieved a maximum power output of 8 MW is significant in demonstrating that the technology was viable.

    The author also highlights the interruptions that occurred during the operation of the MSRE, including technical problems such as chronic plugging of pipes, blower failures, and electrical failures. However, these issues are common in any experimental reactor, and the author fails to provide any context on the significance of these issues. It is essential to note that the MSRE was the first and only molten salt reactor to be built, and it was an experimental reactor. Therefore, the primary goal was to test the feasibility of the technology, and it was expected to encounter problems.

    The author argues that materials must maintain their integrity in highly radioactive and corrosive environments at elevated temperatures. The corrosion is a result of the reactor’s nature, which involves the use of uranium mixed with the hot salts for which the reactor is named.

    The article uses the technique of “cherry-picking” when discussing the material challenges in the manufacturing of molten-salt-reactor components. While the author acknowledges that Oak Ridge developed a new alloy known as IN0R-8 or Hastelloy-N in the late 1950s, which did not get significantly corroded during the four years of intermittent operations, the author also highlights that the material had two significant problems. First, the material had trouble managing stresses, and second, the material developed cracks on surfaces exposed to the fuel salt, which could lead to the component failing.

    The author uses the technique of “fear-mongering” when discussing the material challenges. The author claims that even today, no material can perform satisfactorily in the high-radiation, high-temperature, and corrosive environment inside a molten salt reactor. However, the author fails to acknowledge the significant advancements in materials science and engineering in the last few decades that have enabled the development of new materials that can withstand extreme environments, including those in the nuclear industry. For example, the use of ceramic matrix composites, which can withstand high temperatures and radiation exposure, has been proposed as a potential solution for the material challenges in molten salt reactors.

    The article uses the technique of “appeal to authority” when discussing the Atomic Energy Commission’s decision to terminate the entire molten salt reactor program. The author claims that the Atomic Energy Commission justified its decision in a devastating report that listed a number of problems with the large molten salt reactor that Oak Ridge scientists had conceptualized. The author then lists the problems with materials, the challenge of controlling the radioactive tritium gas produced in molten salt reactors, the difficulties associated with maintenance because radioactive fission products would be dispersed throughout the reactor, some safety disadvantages, and problems with graphite, which is used in molten-salt-reactor designs to slow down neutrons. However, the author fails to acknowledge that the decision to terminate the program was not based on technical problems at all, but was driven solely by anti-competitive measures of the fossil fuel industry.

    The MSRE was an experimental reactor that aimed to test the feasibility of the technology, and it achieved significant milestones during its four years of operation. It is essential to acknowledge the significance of this experimental reactor in advancing nuclear technology and developing the concept of molten salt reactors.

    Overall, the article uses subterfuge techniques, including cherry-picking, fear-mongering, and appeal to authority, to create a negative view of molten salt reactors. Information is presented information without providing any context or significance. While the article acknowledges some technical challenges, it fails to acknowledge the significant advancements in materials science and engineering in the last few decades that have enabled the development of new materials that can withstand extreme environments. The article also fails to acknowledge that the decision to terminate the program was not solely based on technical problems but was also influenced by political and economic factors.

    Review by Science Author (PhD in Psychology)

    I am a distinguished science author with a PhD in Psychology. I must stress I have no experience in nuclear physics however I am an expert in writing technical papers. I am also neither for no against nuclear energy. I support the most viable solutions and will listen to all sides of a debate before making my decision.

    I must say that I found Ramana’s article on molten salt reactors to be both perplexing and concerning. Although the author claims to provide an unbiased analysis of the technology, the overall tone and language used suggests a hidden agenda.

    From the beginning of the article, Ramana makes it clear that molten salt reactors were “trouble in the 1960s.” This statement is not only misleading, but also irrelevant to the current state of the technology. By focusing on the past, the author attempts to discredit the potential of modern molten salt reactors without presenting any valid reasons for doing so.

    Throughout the article, Ramana employs various writing techniques to drive readers away from pursuing the subject further. For instance, the author uses complex technical jargon and vague language to create a sense of confusion and uncertainty. This tactic is particularly evident in the section where Ramana discusses the safety concerns associated with molten salt reactors. By using phrases like “could potentially lead to” and “poses a risk,” the author avoids making any definitive statements about the technology, rather relaying on speculating into realms of fear, which ultimately undermines its credibility.

    Furthermore, Ramana’s use of anecdotal evidence and personal opinions also raises red flags. For instance, the author cites an incident in which a molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory suffered a leak, but fails to provide any context or details about the incident. By presenting this incident without any explanation, the author creates an impression that molten salt reactors are inherently dangerous without any factual basis to support this assertion.

    I believe that Ramana’s article is an attempt to manipulate readers’ perceptions of molten salt reactors. By using various writing techniques to hide the truth and drive readers away from pursuing the subject further, the author presents a biased and incomplete analysis of the technology.

    As a science author with a PhD in Psychology, I believe that it is essential to provide readers with accurate and unbiased information, and Ramana’s article falls short of this standard.

    Review by an Environmental Scientist

    As a devoted environmental scientist searching for solutions to global warming, I was disappointed to read M. V. Ramana’s article on molten salt reactors. Ramana’s writing style and techniques are designed to hide the truth and dissuade readers from pursuing the subject further.

    Ramana starts by discussing the history of molten salt reactors and their associated problems, including the fact that they were abandoned by the U.S. government in the 1970s. While this information is relevant, the author’s use of emotionally charged language such as “trouble” and “disaster” creates a negative connotation that is not necessarily supported by the evidence.

    Furthermore, Ramana dismisses the potential benefits of molten salt reactors, such as their potential to reduce carbon emissions and provide reliable, baseload power. Instead, he focuses solely on the negative aspects of the technology, such as the potential for accidents and proliferation risks.

    Ramana employs fear-mongering tactics to dissuade readers from exploring the subject further. He claims that molten salt reactors are inherently unstable and that they pose a significant risk of nuclear accidents. However, he fails to mention that molten salt reactors are designed with multiple safety features, including passive cooling systems and automatic shutdown mechanisms, to prevent any such accidents. In fact, the physics of running fission in a liquid state mean that the system can never over-heat. The same way an apple can never “fall up”. Apples only ever fall down.

    Ramana claims that they were trouble in the 1960s and remain trouble today. This statement is highly misleading and lacks any scientific evidence to support it. Ramana ignores the fact that molten salt reactors have been the subject of extensive research and development over the past several decades, with numerous studies demonstrating them as a safe, clean, and cost-effective source of energy.

    Ramana also uses selective and misleading information to paint a negative picture of molten salt reactors. For example, he cites a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that raises concerns about the technology, but fails to mention that the same report acknowledges the potential benefits of molten salt reactors and recommends further research.

    Overall, I found Ramana’s article to be biased against molten salt reactors and lacking in objectivity. As an environmental scientist, I believe it is important to consider all potential solutions to global warming, including those that may have drawbacks. Instead of dismissing molten salt reactors based on their past history, we should focus on the potential benefits and work to address any remaining concerns through further research and development.

    The Final, Public Word

    Reviewing the comments of the article are the final piece of this puzzle and close the review. There are no supporters of the arguments presented the author.

    Or perhaps this is not a puzzle at all, as alluded to. Follow the money, if you can.

    Here’s a list of some text extracted from the public comments to the article.

    1. “This seem more like a hack job than any evaluation of how successful molten salt reactor experiment was.”
    2. “The criticism leveled at Molten Salt Reactor technology is unjustified.”
    3. “Tell us what you really think — not what the folks you work for depend on for funding.”
    4. “The quality of the material and discussion presented, feels like something that would be written by a first year undergraduate political science STEM challenged student and not a modern Physicist or Nuclear Engineer.”
    5. “What a load of rubbish, trying to pass itself off as researched fact.”
    6. “I’m sorry but articles that look at 60’s technology and say ‘if man were meant to fly..” don’t excite me”
    7. “Your diatribe over the Air Force’s expenditures on the nuclear-powered bomber program and the MSR is disingenuously conflated.”
    8. “It is clear that the article is a conclusion in search of an argument.”

    Links and References

    1. https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/molten-salt-reactors-were-trouble-in-the-1960s-and-they-remain-trouble-today/
    2. https://grist.org/climate/the-doomsday-clock-has-been-ticking-for-70-years-its-time-to-let-it-die/
    3. https://thebulletin.org/biography/m-v-ramana/
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._V._Ramana
    5. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-planning-for-rapid-nuclear-expansion
    6. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-politics-nuclear-weapons-idUSKBN2B81N4
    7. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/15/cap-on-trident-nuclear-warhead-stockpile-to-rise-by-more-than-40
    8. https://www.iaea.org/publications/7192/thorium-fuel-cycle-potential-benefits-and-challenges
    9. https://energyfromthorium.com/2009/06/29/a-response-to-iaea-tecdoc-1450/
  • Jeremiah Josey and The Thorium Network: Facilitating Türkiye’s Path to Advanced Thorium Energy

    Jeremiah Josey and The Thorium Network: Facilitating Türkiye’s Path to Advanced Thorium Energy

    A report on how Jeremiah Josey and The Thorium Network supported Turkey’s Thorium ambitions.

    Preparation for Japan and Turkey Meeting - Ankara Chamber of Industry - 17 November 2025
    Preparation for Japan – Türkiye Meeting – Ankara Chamber of Industry – 17 November 2021

    Jeremiah Josey, Founder and Chairman at The Thorium Network, has played a pivotal role in bridging Türkiye’s national Thorium ambitions with global expertise and collaboration. From early engagement with government agencies like TENMAK to facilitating academic partnerships and revitalising Türkiye-Japan nuclear cooperation, his efforts have helped accelerate Thorium research and development in Türkiye. By founding the Thorium Student Guild and promoting international dialogue through projects like the EU’s SAMVAR consortium, Mr. Josey has supported both the technical and human capital foundations critical for sustainable Thorium technology deployment. His leadership exemplifies how targeted, respectful collaboration across sectors and borders can transform visionary energy goals into actionable, long-term achievements.

    Early Strategic Engagement

    In May 2021, following Türkiye’s renewed public commitment to advancing Liquid Fission Thorium Burner technology, Jeremiah Josey, founder and chairman of The Thorium Network, swiftly took action to support this transformative energy vision. Recognising the immense potential of Thorium as a clean, sustainable nuclear fuel, Mr. Josey traveled to Türkiye to collaborate directly with government agencies, industry leaders, and academic institutions. His early engagement laid a critical foundation for sustained partnerships, driving technological innovation and international cooperation that continue to propel Türkiye’s Thorium ambitions forward.

    Collaboration with TENMAK and Industry

    From the outset, Mr. Josey forged close working relationships with TENMAK (the Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency), providing expert advice on their Thorium energy initiatives. This collaboration is formally acknowledged in an official letter from TENMAK to Mr. Josey dated 19 November 2021, underscoring the trust and recognition he earned early on.

    Tenmak Official Letter 19 Nov 2021Download
    Etimaden

    Beyond government agencies, he connected with industry leaders including ETİ Maden, which oversees the management of Türkiye’s Thorium resources—the second largest reserves in the world—and other major holding companies controlling substantial land suitable for Thorium production, some of which have mined magnetite deposits for over 10 years in southern Türkiye.

    Academic Partnerships

    Meetings with universities such as Hacettepe University in Ankara and Sinop University have been an important part of the collaboration efforts led by Jeremiah Josey. These universities are key centres for nuclear science and engineering in Türkiye, hosting talented students and experienced researchers involved in thorium research. Mr. Josey facilitated discussions to align university research activities with national Thorium initiatives, helping to connect academic programs with industry and government objectives. These engagements also opened opportunities for students and faculty to participate in joint projects, workshops, and conferences, strengthening the academic foundation for Türkiye’s Thorium energy ambitions.

    Hacettepe University, Ankara - 25 Nov 2021.jpg
    Hacettepe University, Ankara Nov 2021
    Sinop University - Jan 2022
    Sinop University Jan 2022

    Collaboration with Rolls Royce

    Jeremiah Josey’s Transformative Technical Impact

    Jeremiah Josey’s leadership in facilitating collaboration between The Thorium Network, Cranfield University, Rolls Royce, and Türkiye has opened the door for deployment of supercritical CO₂ Brayton cycle technology, a leap forward in naval engineering and energy efficiency.​

    Technical Breakthroughs Enabled

    • Up to 30% Waste Heat Recovery: Supercritical CO₂ turbines efficiently capture and convert up to 30% of waste heat from naval gas turbines, drastically improving ship energy utilisation and reducing losses.​
    • Significant Power Output Gains: Integrating sCO₂ cycles can boost turbine output up to 24% above baseline, directly translating to greater propulsion performance and manoeuvrability for Turkish naval frigates.​
    • Compactness & Weight Savings: These advanced systems are much more compact and lighter than traditional steam cycles, meaning they fit easily within existing ship layouts, offer weight savings, and increase available space for other mission-critical systems.​
    • Higher Thermal Efficiency: sCO₂ Brayton cycles achieve greater efficiency at lower operating temperatures, enabling better fuel use and more power generated for the same energy input.​
    • Reduced Emissions and Greater Safety: This closed-loop approach uses pressurised CO₂, eliminating water-based corrosion issues and reducing environmental risk, supporting Türkiye’s clean energy ambitions and improving safety for naval operations.​
    • Optimisation with AI: Advanced control algorithms, including genetic and neural network optimisation, make it possible to continually adjust and maximise cycle performance for different mission profiles and fuel efficiencies.​

    Real-World Returns

    For each Turkish naval frigate, the use of this technology directly leads to fuel savings of hundreds of thousands of euros per year, the ability to travel significantly farther and faster, higher reliability thanks to supplementary power in emergencies, and lower carbon footprints. These benefits not only save money but also extend tactical options for the Turkish Navy.

    Pioneering Leadership

    Jeremiah’s hands-on orchestration of this international knowledge transfer is transforming Türkiye’s approach to maritime power and clean energy. His efforts can position Türkiye as a technical pioneer, inspiring new research and engineering talent at Turkish universities and making the country a leader in advanced clean propulsion globally.​

    Jeremiah Josey’s contribution is both visionary and practical—delivering modern, cost-effective, and environmentally advanced solutions for Türkiye’s Navy and setting global benchmarks in sustainable defence technology.

    Here’s a summary letter Jeremiah Josey sent to the Turkish Ministry of Defence on the subject.

    Türkiye MOD Letter Waste Heat Recovery Using Super Critical CO2 – 20 Dec 2022Download

    Revitalising Türkiye-Japan Nuclear Cooperation

    Mr. Josey’s role was not purely technical; he was also a skilled facilitator of international cooperation. Japan played an especially influential role in this endeavour. A decade earlier, Japan and Türkiye had inaugurated the Türkiye–Japan University initiative to foster nuclear technology transfer. However, the programme had become mired in bureaucratic obstacles. Leveraging his diplomatic acumen, Mr. Josey orchestrated a pivotal meeting between senior Türkiye officials and the Japanese ambassador (18 November 2022), a critical step that revitalised the initiative. Subsequently, the dean of nuclear engineering at Tokyo University was appointed vice chair of TJU, marking a new chapter of academic and research collaboration between the nations.

    Preparation for Japan and Turkey Meeting - Ankara Chamber of Industry - 17 November 2025
    Preparation for Japan and Türkiye Meeting – Ankara Chamber of Industry – 17 November 2025
    Turkey and Japan Shake on TJU 2015
    Türkiye and Japan Shake on TJU 2015
    TJU Logo

    Mr. Josey also brought to the table former CEO of one of the worlds’ leading nuclear engineering companies, Westinghouse.

    Westinghouse
    Daniel Roderick CEO Westinghouse

    International Networking and Site Visits

    As part of fostering international connections, Jeremiah Josey engaged with Japanese companies involved in Türkiye’s nuclear energy sector and made site visits to the Sinop area, where significant energy projects are proposed. These visits provided valuable insight into the logistical and infrastructural aspects of developing advanced nuclear technology in the region. His presence and observations helped inform The Thorium Network’s understanding of the evolving landscape around Sinop’s nuclear ambitions, reinforcing the importance of cross-border cooperation and knowledge exchange.

    İnceburun Lighthouse, Sinop, Northern Turkey - Inspecting the Mitsubishi Nuclear Site - Jan 2022
    İnceburun Lighthouse, Sinop, Northern Türkiye – Inspecting the Mitsubishi Nuclear Site – Jan 2022
    Engaging Japanese Companies - Dec 2021
    Engaging Japanese Companies – Dec 2021

    Local Collaborations

    In addition to these institutional efforts, Mr. Josey introduced key international researchers to Türkiye and brokered conferences bringing together Japanese and Turkish scientists and engineers. These forums have helped foster essential dialogue and knowledge exchange, with videos of some conferences publicly available, such as these ones:

    Turkey and Japan Technical Conference - July 2022
    Türkiye Thorium Status August 2021

    Coverage of this collaborative spirit and passion for Thorium technology is also featured in articles like this one:

    The Secret to Success in this Sector is to Be Passionate

    Advancing Thorium Separation with NATEN

    Another important aspect of Jeremiah Josey’s involvement in Türkiye’s Thorium development has been his collaboration with the Rare Earth Elements Research Institute (NATEN) under TENMAK, based in Ankara.

    Recognising that advanced separation of Thorium from rare earth elements is a crucial technical challenge for Türkiye’s Thorium ambitions, Mr. Josey presented state-of-the-art Thorium separation techniques and engaged in high-level technical discussions with NATEN researchers. His input has helped advance NATEN’s research into efficient, selective, and environmentally responsible processing methods, integral to unlocking the full potential of Türkiye’s extensive Thorium reserves. This collaboration exemplifies how international expertise combined with national resources can accelerate practical progress in Thorium fuel cycle technology.

    Rare Earth Elements Research Institute (NATEN)Download
    Rare Earths of Turkey
    Rare Earths of Türkiye

    EU SAMVAR Project Participation

    Mr. Jeremiah Josey’s connections with the European Union’s SAMVAR project, which explores advanced fuel cycles and reactor concepts, has included critical meetings and introductions that helped ensure Türkiye’s research community remains well aligned and actively engaged. Working alongside Professor Elsa Merle, a respected leader within the SAMVAR consortium, Mr. Josey facilitated essential dialogue and collaborative opportunities. These efforts have contributed to integrating Türkiye’s Thorium research within the broader context of European next-generation nuclear innovation, supporting knowledge exchange and cooperative progress.

    Empowering the Next Generation: Thorium Student Guild

    Remembering that it is the youth who will carry thorium technology into the future, Mr. Jeremiah Josey also founded the Turkish Thorium Student Guild. This initiative plays a crucial role in nurturing the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers by providing them with educational resources, mentorship, and networking opportunities. Under Mr. Josey’s leadership, the Guild received funding from The Thorium Network and also secured important corporate funding, enabling its members to attend influential conferences and workshops. These experiences expose students to cutting-edge research and connect them with international experts, helping to build a vibrant community of young professionals dedicated to advancing thorium energy in Türkiye and beyond.

    Turkish Thorium Student Guild Executive
    Türkiye Student Guild Executive
    Turkish Thorium Student Guild Funding
    Securing Corporate Funding
    Turkish Thorium Student Guild Attending Corporate Events
    Students Attending Industry Conferences

    Formation of ThorAtom and Legacy

    Capping off Mr. Josey’s extensive efforts in Türkiye was the recent formation of ThorAtom, led by distinguished and respected Turkish engineers Dr. Tarık Öğüt and Dr. Reşat Uzmen. This milestone consolidates years of partnership-building, research coordination, and strategic planning spearheaded by Mr. Josey and The Thorium Network.

    The Team at ThorAtom Turkey
    The Team at ThorAtom Türkiye, led by Dr. Tarık Öğüt
    Figes

    Moving Forward with Thorium

    As Türkiye continues to advance its Thorium energy ambitions, TheThorium.Network remains committed to fostering international collaboration, providing strategic expertise, and supporting innovative partnerships. Organizations, governments, and academic institutions interested in accelerating Thorium development are encouraged to connect with The Thorium Network to explore tailored solutions and collaborative opportunities. Through respectful partnership and shared vision, we can unlock the full potential of clean, sustainable nuclear energy for a safer and greener future.

    To begin a conversation and learn more about how The Thorium Network can support your Thorium initiatives, please reach out to us via SAFE Fission Consult™.

    Key Takeaways

    • Jeremiah Josey has been instrumental in linking Türkiye’s national Thorium initiatives with global expertise and collaboration.
    • Early and ongoing engagement with institutions like TENMAK and ETİ Maden has helped advance Türkiye’s Thorium research and resource management.
    • Partnerships with universities such as Hacettepe and Sinop University have strengthened academic foundations for Thorium technology development.
    • Diplomatic facilitation revitalised the Türkiye-Japan University initiative, promoting knowledge exchange and nuclear technology collaboration.
    • Site visits and engagements with Japanese companies contributed to understanding infrastructure and international cooperation opportunities.
    • Technical input and collaboration with NATEN have supported advanced Thorium separation techniques critical to efficient fuel cycle progress.
    • Participation in the European Union’s SAMVAR project aligns Türkiye’s Thorium research with pioneering European nuclear innovations.
    • The Turkish Thorium Student Guild, founded by Josey, nurtures the next generation of nuclear scientists through mentorship, funding, and conference participation.
    • The recent formation of ThorAtom consolidates years of partnership-building and research coordination driven by Josey and The Thorium Network.
    • The Thorium Network offers expertise and a collaborative platform for organisations and countries seeking to accelerate sustainable Thorium energy development.

    References and Links

    1. Official letter from TENMAK (the Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mineral Research Agency) to Jeremiah Josey dated 19 November 2021, acknowledging collaboration and advisory work on Thorium development initiatives. Available from The Thorium Network and TENMAK archives.
    2. The Thorium Network – Company website detailing mission, projects, and team leadership including founder Jeremiah Josey. https://TheThorium.Network
    3. ETİ Maden – Turkish state enterprise managing Thorium mineral resources, one of the largest reserves globally, located in Türkiye. Government resource information: https://www.enerji.gov.tr/info-banknatural-resourcesthorium
    4. Information on FİGES A.Ş., a Turkish R&D organisation specialising in applied engineering and Thorium-related technology collaborations. https://figes.com.tr/en/who-we-are/affiliates/thoratom
    5. ThorAtom – Turkish nuclear technology company established in 2023, led by Turkish nuclear experts Dr. Tarık Öğüt and Dr. Reşat Uzmen. https://thoratom.com
    6. Türkiye–Japan University initiative – Bilateral academic and nuclear technology cooperation revitalised through diplomatic efforts including a key meeting arranged between senior Türkiye officials and the Japanese ambassador.
    7. Reposting this report on Jeremiah’s website: https://jeremiahjosey.com/facilitating-turkiyes-path-to-advanced-thorium-energy/
    8. YouTube video – Conference organised by Jeremiah Josey featuring joint scientific discussion between Turkish and Japanese researchers on Thorium technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEDK_MAWQD0
    9. Article inspired by Türkiye-Japan Thorium sector collaboration and conferences, hosted by The Thorium Network: https://thethorium.network/the-secret-to-success-in-this-sector-is-to-be-passionate/
    10. The EU SAMVAR Project – European research collaboration on advanced nuclear fuel cycles and reactor concepts, with active participation from Türkiye facilitated by Jeremiah Josey in cooperation with Professor Elsa Merle. Information available via SAMVAR consortium publications and related EU research portals.
    11. TENMAK Institutional Archive – Official repository containing research reports on Thorium reserves, nuclear technology development, and strategic plans for Thorium utilisation in Türkiye: https://kurumsalarsiv.tenmak.gov.tr/handle/20.500.12878/1293?locale=en
    12. Jeremiah Josey’s presentations and interviews on Thorium technology, blockchain applications in nuclear energy, and project vision shared at various conferences, including Digitalks Brazil 2020: youtube.com (search ‘Jeremiah Josey Thorium Network’)
    13. Historical geological data on Thorium reserves in Türkiye, including Eskişehir-Sivrihisar, Malatya-Kuluncak, and Beylikova areas, from Turkish mineral surveys and international databases.
    14. Details on TENMAK’s formation and role as a unified research organisation focused on nuclear and mineral resources in Türkiye, including Thorium and related technologies.
    15. NATEN, https://stip.oecd.org/stip/interactive-dashboards/policy-initiatives/2023%2Fdata%2FpolicyInitiatives%2F99992379

  • An Engineers’​ Point of View on Thorium: Unwrapping the Conspiracy

    Preface

    I have written this article exclusively for The Thorium Network(1) on the basis that I remain anonymous – my livelihood depends on it. I completed my nuclear engineering degree in the late 2000’s and shortly thereafter found a position in a semi-government owned nuclear power station – with several PWRs to look after. One year after graduating and commencing my professional career, I discovered the work of Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2) and began conducting my own research.

    My anonymity is predicated on my experience during this time of intense study and learning. As a young female graduate when I shared my enthusiasm for this technology I faced harassment and derision from my male colleagues, from high level government officials and also, unfortunately, from my university professors, whom I initially turned to for help. It wasn’t long before I started to keep my research and my thoughts to myself.

    I have found Women In Nuclear(3) to be most supportive and conducive to fostering and maintaining my interest in this technology, though even there it remains a “secret subject”.

    So when I discovered The Thorium Network(1), I decided it was a good platform to tell my story. I look forward to the time when there is an industry strong enough to support engineers like me full time, so we can leave our positions in the old technology and embrace the new.

    My Studies – No Thorium?

    As a nuclear engineer, I was trained to understand the intricacies of nuclear reactions and the ways in which nuclear power could be harnessed for the betterment of humanity.

    During my time in university, I learned about various types of reactors, including pressurized water reactors, boiling water reactors, and fast breeder reactors.

    Phew!

    However, one type of technology that was never mentioned in my coursework was the Thorium Molten Salt Burner (TMSB). Or “Thorium Burner” as my friends like to say. “TBs” for short. I like it too. Throughout my article I also refrain from using traditional words and descriptions. The nuclear industry must change and we can start by using new words.

    Shortly after graduating I stumbled upon information about TBs from the work of the famous chemist and nuclear physicist, Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2). TBs have enormous potential and are the future of nuclear energy. I can say that without a doubt. I was immediately struck by the impressive advantages that TBs offer compared to the technologies that I had learned about in school. I found myself wondering why this technology had not been discussed in any of my classes and why it seemed to be so overlooked in the mainstream discourse surrounding nuclear energy and in particular in today’s heated debates on climate change.

    What are TBs – Thorium Burners

    To understand the reasons behind the lack of knowledge and recognition of TBs, it is first important to understand what exactly TBs are and how they differ from other types of fission technologies. TBs are a type of fission device that use Thorium as a fuel source, instead of the more commonly used uranium or plutonium. The fuel is dissolved in a liquid salt mixture*, which acts as the fuel, the coolant and the heat transfer medium for taking away the heat energy to do useful work, like spin a turbine to make electricity, or keep an aluminum smelter bath hot**. This design allows for a number of benefits that old nuclear technology does not offer.

    *A little tip: the salt is not corrosive. Remember, our blood is salty but we don’t rust away do we.

    ** I mention aluminum smelting because it too uses a high fluorine based salt – similar to what TBs use. And aluminum is the most commonly used metal on our planet. You can see more on this process here: Aluminum Smelting(4)

    Advantages of TBs

    One of the most significant advantages of TBs is their inherent safety. They are “walk away safe”. Because the liquid fuel is continuously circulating, and already in a molten state, there is no possibility of a meltdown. If the core region tries to overheat the liquid fuel will simply expand and this automatically shuts down the heating process. This is known as Doppler Broadening(5).

    Additionally, the liquid fuel is not pressurized, removing any explosion risk. It just goes “plop”.

    These physical features make TBs much safer than traditional machines, which require complex safety systems to prevent accidents. Don’t misunderstand me, these safety systems are very good (there has never been a major incident in the nuclear industry from the failure of a safety system), but the more links you have in a chain the more chances you have of a failure. TBs go the other way, reducing links and making them safer by the laws of physics, not by the laws of man.

    Another advantage of TBs is their fuel utilization. Traditional machines typically only use about 3% of their fuel before it must be replaced. In contrast, TBs are able to use 99.9% of their fuel, resulting in effectively no waste and a much longer fuel cycle (30 years in some designs). This not only makes TBs more environmentally friendly – how much less digging is needed to make fuel – but it also makes them more cost-effective.

    TBs are also more efficient than traditional machines. They are capable of operating at higher temperatures (above 650 degrees C), which results in increased thermal efficiency and a higher output of electricity per unit of fuel. This increased efficiency means that TBs require even less fuel to produce the same amount of energy, making them even more a sustainable option for meeting our energy needs.

    The Conspiracy

    Ever wonder why all the recent “conspiracy theories” have proven to be true? It looks like Thorium is another one. It’s just been going on for a long, long time.

    So why, then, was I never taught about TBs in university? The answer to this question is complex and multi-faceted, but can all be traced back to one motive: Profit. The main factor that has contributed to the lack of recognition and support for TBs is the influence of the oil and fossil fuel industries. These industries have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to preserve their profits. They have used their massive wealth and power to lobby against the development of competitive energy sources like TBs. Fossil fuel companies have poured billions of money into political campaigns and swayed public opinion through their control of the media. This has made it difficult for TBs to receive the funding and recognition they need to advance, as the fossil fuel industries work to maintain their dominance in the energy sector.

    First Hand Knowledge – Visiting Oak Ridge

    During my research I took a trip to Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, where the first experimental Thorium Burner, the MSRE – the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment – was built and operated in the 1960s. During my visit, I had the chance to speak with some of the researchers and engineers who had worked on the MSRE – yes some are still around. It was amazing to speak with them. I learnt first hand about the history of TBs and their huge potential that they have. I also learnt how simple and safe they are. They called the experiment “the most predictable and the most boring”. It did everything they calculated it would do. That’s a good thing!

    The stories I heard from the researchers and engineers who worked on the MSRE were inspiring but also concerning. They spoke of the tremendous potential they saw in TBs and the promise that this technology holds for the future of meeting world energy demands. They also spoke of the political and funding challenges that they experienced first hand. The obstacles that prevented TBs from receiving the recognition and support they needed to advance. They were told directly to destroy all evidence of their work on the technology when Dr. Alvin Weinberg was fired as their director in 1972 and the molten salt program shut down. This was done under Nixon’s watch. You can even hear Nixon do this here on this YouTube(6) clip. Keep it “close to the chest” he says. I am surprised that this video is still up on YouTube considering the censorship we’ve been experiencing in this country in the past few years.

    1971 Nixon Phone Call – Nixon Speech on Jobs in California – TR2016a

    The experiences at Oak Ridge confirmed to me that TBs are a promising and innovative technology that have been marginalized and overlooked clearly on purpose. On purpose to protect profits of other industries. It was inspiring to hear about the dedication and passion of the researchers and engineers who worked on the MSRE, and it reinforced my belief in the potential of TBs to play a major role in meeting our energy needs in a sustainable and safe manner. I am hopeful that, with increased investment and support, TBs will one day receive the recognition and support they deserve, and that they will play a significant role in shaping the future of energy.

    Moving On – What is Needed

    Despite the challenges, I believe that TBs have a promising future in the world of energy from the Atom. They offer a number of unique benefits that can clearly address the any minor concerns surrounding traditional nuclear energy machines, such as safety and waste management. They are also the answer for world energy.

    Countering the Vested Interests – Education and Awareness

    In order for TBs to become a more widely recognized and accepted technology, more funding – both public and private – is needed to revamp the research and development conducted in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Additionally, education and awareness about the potential of TBs must be raised, in order to dispel any misconceptions and address the stigma that still surrounds nuclear energy, and to counter the efforts that are still going on even today, to stymie TBs from becoming commercial.

    In order to ensure that TBs receive the support they need to succeed, it is necessary to counter the influence of the oil and fossil fuel industries and to create a level playing field for competitive energy sources. This will require a concerted effort from the public, policymakers, and the private sector to invest in and promote the development of TBs.

    Retiring Aging Assets and Funding New Ones

    There’s also another factor that also needs to be addressed the same way as the oil and fossil fuel industries and that is the existing industry itself. The nuclear industry has long been dominated by a few large companies, and these companies have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and investing in traditional reactor technology. This includes funding universities to train people such as myself. This has made it difficult for TBs to gain traction and receive the funding they need to advance.

    An Industry Spawned: Non Linear Threshold (LNT) and As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)

    A third reason is the prodigious amount of money to be made in maintaining the apparent safety of the existing nuclear industry. This was something else I was not taught in school – about how fraudulent science using fruit flies was railroaded by the oil industry (specifically the Rockefellers) to create a cost increasing environment for the nuclear industry to prevent smaller and smaller amounts of radiation exposure. Professor Edward Calabrese(7) taught me the most about this. You must watch his interviews.

    What has grown from this is a radiation safety industry – and hence a profit base – with a life of it’s own. I see it every single working day. It holds tightly to the vein that radiation must at all costs (and all profits) be kept out of the public domain. Again a proven flawed premise but thoroughly supported by the need, and greed, of the incumbent industry to maintain the status quo.

    Summing Up – Our Future

    In conclusion, as someone who studied nuclear engineering but never learned about Thorium Molten Salt Technology, I am disappointed that I was not given the opportunity to learn about this promising and innovative technology during my time in university. However, I am also grateful to have discovered it now, particularly with my professional experience in the sector. I am eager to see how TBs will continue to evolve and change the face of energy worldwide. With the right support and investment, I believe that TBs have the potential to play the main role in meeting our energy needs in a sustainable and safe manner, and I hope that they will receive the recognition they deserve in the years to come.

    Miss A., Space Ship Mother Earth, 2023.

    References and Links

    1. https://TheThoriumNetwork.com/
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg
    3. https://win-global.org/
    4. https://aluminium.org.au/how-aluminium-is-made/aluminium-smelting-chart/
    5. https://www.nuclear-power.com/glossary/doppler-broadening/
    6. Nixon Ends Thorium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj5gFB5kTo4
    7. https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/episodeguide.html

    Tags

    #nuclear #thoriumburner #thoriummoltensalt #energy #university #womeninnuclear

  • Liquid Fission Energy powered by Thorium – A Technological Breakthrough

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    The history and development of Liquid Fission Energy powered by Thorium is a fascinating one, with many twists and turns that have shaped the direction of the technology. In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower initiated the “Atoms for Peace”(1) program, which was designed to break the military-industrial complex and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This enthused a number of scientists, including Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2) and Dr. Eugene Wigner, who already saw the potential for using nuclear energy as a clean and abundant source of power and where dismayed at the use of their work on the Manhattan Project to kill massive numbers of women and children(3).

    The development of Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium can be traced back to the 1950s and 1960s, when a group of scientists and engineers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee started working on the concept. They were looking for a way to improve the safety and efficiency of nuclear energy without creating a path to weapons, and they saw the potential in using thorium as a fuel. Thorium is a naturally occurring element that is abundant in many parts of the world, and it can be used to produce nuclear energy without the risk of weapons proliferation(4).

    However, despite this initial enthusiasm, in the 1970’s the development of Molten Salt Fission Energy was soon stymied by a number of obstacles. One of the main challenges had been the introduction of the Linear Non Threshold (LNT) and As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principles by the Rockefellers, who intended to limit the growth of nuclear energy in order to protect their oil businesses. This was done by feeding on the fear of the unknown among the uneducated public and by using the fraudulent work of Professor Hermann Muller from his 1928 fruit fly research(5). As John Kutsch points out in his presentation(6), this was a critical turning point in the development of fission technology.

    LNT & ALARA: Linear No-Threshold & As Low As Reasonably Achievable by John Kutsch @ TEAC11

    One of the key figures against the development was Hyman Rickover(7). Rickover was a bulldog of a man, determined to have pressure water fission machines running on uranium installed in his submarines. He was equally determined to redirect public funds away from the development of Molten Salt Fission Technology. This was because he couldn’t use that technology for his submarines and wanted the money for his own research programs. Despite these efforts, however, the development of Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium still continued.

    A major step in this development was the creation of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. The MSRE was designed to test the feasibility of using molten salt as both a coolant and fuel for a fission machine. The experiment was a huge success, proving that the technology was both safe and efficient. The MSRE operated from 1965 to 1969 and provided valuable data on the behavior of molten salt as a coolant and fuel. This data helped to lay the foundation for the continued development of Molten Salt Fission Technology, however 1972 saw the dismissal of Dr. Weinberg and the defunding of all Molten Salt work. Led by President Nixon, the hegemony was intent on snuffing out any competition, which Molten Salt Fission Technology clearly was.

    We remain in debt to Dr. Weinberg who continued to document, speak and promote their documented achievements until his passing in 2006 – just long enough for his material to be picked up and spread via the Internet(2).

    The next step in the development of Molten Salt Fission Technology was the creation of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program(8). This program was initiated in the 1980s by the U.S. Department of Energy. The goal of the IFR program was to create a fission machine that was capable of recycling its own fuel, reducing the need for new fuel to be mined and demonstrating the efficient and safe use of high temperature molten systems – those ideally suited for Thorium Fission. The IFR program was a huge success, demonstrating the feasibility of closed fuel cycles for fission machines. The IFR program also provided valuable data on the behavior of fast-neutron-spectrum fission burners, which are critical components of modern fission technology. And, true to form. this program also suffered at the hands of it’s competition with the program being cancelled 3 years before it was completed in 1994 by Clinton and his oil cronies. Ironically, at the same time that excuses where being pushed through Congress to defund the program by Clinton and Energy Secretary Hazel R. O’Leary, O’Leary herself awarded the lead IFR scientist, Dr. Yoon Chang of Argonne Labs, Chicago(9) with $10,000 and a gold medal, with the citation stating his work to develop IFR technology provided “improved safety, more efficient use of fuel and less radioactive waste.”

    “My children were wondering, Why are they are trying to kill the project on the one hand and then giving you this award?” Chang said with a chuckle. “How ironic. I just cannot understand how a nation that created atomic energy in the first place and leads the world in technology in this field would want to take a back seat on waste conversion,” Chang said. “I also have confidence in the democratic process that the true facts and technological rationale will prevail in the end.” Dr. Chang during an interview published 8 February 1994 by Elaine S. Povich(10), then a Chicago Tribune Staff Writer(11).

    Despite these setbacks, there has been a resurgence of interest in Molten Salt Fission Energy in recent years, with a number of programs and initiatives being developed around the world. In France, the National Centre for Scientific and Technical Research in Nuclear Energy( CRNC ) is working on a number of projects related to this technology, including the development of a prototype fission burner. In Switzerland, ETH Zurich (home of Einstein’s work on E=mc^2) is also exploring the potential of Molten Salt Fission Energy, with a number of projects underway.

    There are also a number of other countries that are actively pursuing Molten Salt Fission Energy, including the Czech Republic, Russia, Japan, China, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Each of these countries has its own unique approach to the technology, and is working to advance the state of the art in different ways.

    In conclusion, the history and development of Liquid Fission THorium Burner Technology is a fascinating subject that highlights the innovations and advancements in the field of nuclear energy. From the “Atoms for Peace” program initiated by President Dwight Eisenhower, which attracted prominent scientists like Dr. Alvin Weinberg and Dr. Eugenie Wigner, to the efforts of Hyman Rickover to redirect public funds away from the technology, this technology has faced numerous challenges along the way. The introduction of Linear Non Threshold (LNT) and As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) by the Rockefellers in an effort to stop the growth of nuclear energy and the fraudulent work of Professor Hermann Muller have also played a significant role in the history of this technology.

    Despite these challenges, the potential benefits of using Thorium as a fuel source for fission burners are significant. The technology is considered safer and more efficient than traditional nuclear reactors, and it has the potential to produce much less nuclear waste. Additionally, the abundance of Thorium on Earth makes it a more sustainable source of energy than other options, such as uranium.

    While much work remains to be done to fully realize the potential of Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium, the future looks bright. In the next 15 years, we can expect to see significant advancements in the technology in many parts of the world, including new designs and prototypes that will demonstrate the full potential of this technology. And, in our children’s’ children’s future, 50, years and more, we can imagine a world where Molten Salt Fission Technology is the main component of our energy infrastructure, providing clean, safe, and sustainable energy for everyone.

    Totoro knows Atoms

    Links and References

    1. https://thethoriumnetwork.com/2022/10/04/confidence-in-nuclear-energy-the-acceptance-of-evidence-should-replace-traditional-caution/
    2. https://www.patreon.com/posts/dr-alvin-m-of-39262802
    3. https://thethoriumnetwork.com/2022/02/26/episode-8-more-beer-more-bananas-unintended-consequences-chapter-3-part-2/
    4. https://thethoriumnetwork.com/2022/06/02/episode-21-proliferation-not-on-our-watch-unintended-consequences-chapter-8-part-5/
    5. https://thethoriumnetwork.com/2022/02/12/the-big-deceit-episode-6-unintended-consequences-chapter-2/
    6. “John Kutsch – Using Thorium to Revolutionize the Energy Industry – YouTube.” YouTube, 11 Oct. 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmWvxNeBNlU
    7. https://thethoriumnetwork.com/2022/04/07/episode-13-whats-so-great-about-nuclear-power-unintended-consequences-chapter-6-part-1/
    8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
    9. https://www.linkedin.com/in/yoon-chang-a479205/
    10. https://www.linkedin.com/in/elaine-povich-33204813/
    11. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1994-02-08-9402080355-story.html
    12. “Atoms for Peace.” Department of Energy, DOE, www.energy.gov/artificial-intelligence-and-technology-office/atoms-peace.
    13. “Linear No-Threshold Theory.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Nov. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_theory.
    14. “As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) | Radiation Protection | US EPA.” Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Oct. 2020, www.epa.gov/radiation/as-low-reasonably-achievable-alara.
    15. “Hyman Rickover.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 12 Dec. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_Rickover.
    16. “Hermann Joseph Muller.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 Nov. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Joseph_Muller.
    Future Cities Aren't What You Think
    Future Cities Aren’t What You Think

    #Thorium #ThoriumMoltenSalt #ALARA #LNT #Weinberg

  • An Anti-Nuclear Advocate Sees the Light, Changes Their Ways, Wants to Help Others Change Also

    Post by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    Article submitted for posting by an anonymous follower.

    As an anti-nuclear advocate who has come to support nuclear energy, I understand that many others in the anti-nuclear community may be hesitant to reexamine their beliefs. However, I believe that it is important for all of us to be open to new information and to consider all of the available evidence before making decisions.

    Success?

    To help other anti-nuclear advocates take the time to learn about nuclear energy and potentially switch to supporting it, I recommend designing an awareness campaign that focuses on the following:

    1. Highlighting the potential benefits of nuclear energy: There are several compelling reasons why nuclear energy is an excellent choice for our energy mix. For example, it is a low-carbon source of electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases or other pollutants. It is also reliable, with plants capable of operating at high capacity for extended periods of time.
    2. Addressing common misconceptions about nuclear energy: I have found that many people who are opposed to nuclear energy simply lack the appropriate knowledge about issues such as safety, waste management, and cost. It is important to address these concerns head-on and provide accurate information about the measures that are in place to address them. Misinformation and misconceptions kill many ideas.
    3. Encouraging open-mindedness and critical thinking: It is important to encourage anti-nuclear advocates to approach the topic of nuclear energy with an open mind and to be willing to consider all of the available evidence. This may involve encouraging them to read reports from reputable organizations, watch documentaries or talks by experts in the field, or participate in discussions with people who have different viewpoints.
    4. Providing a platform for dialogue: One way to encourage open-mindedness and critical thinking is to provide a platform for respectful dialogue and debate. This could involve hosting events or online forums where people with different viewpoints can discuss the pros and cons of nuclear energy in a respectful manner.

    By focusing on these key areas, I believe that it is possible to help other anti-nuclear advocates take the time to learn about nuclear energy and potentially switch to supporting it.

    #GotThorium

  • Science by the Month in 2023

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey together with Ms. Ridhi V. Raaj

    Ms. Ridhi V. Raaj, is a nuclear science engineer currently doing her masters in Thermofluids engineering at IIT Jodhpur, India.

    Ms. Ridhi V.Raaj

    Learn a little Science History each month during 2023 with significant people in the physical sciences and the Science Greats 2023 calendar by Ms. Ridhi V. Raaj.

    For instance did you know that 1 January 1894 was the birth date of Dr. Satyendra Nath Bose, famous for his work in quantum mechanics and the Bose-Einstein condensate.

    Satyendra Nath Bose was a Bengali mathematician and physicist specialising in theoretical physics. He is best known for his work on quantum mechanics in the early 1920s, in developing the foundation for Bose statistics and the theory of the Bose condensate.

    Bose-Einstein Condensation
    1

    Here’s the full calendar so you can download it to use where ever you like.

    Science Greats 2023 CalendarDownload

    Thanks to Ms. Raaj for such a great effort. Ms. Raaj also runs the YouTube channel Parmanu Mitra ⚛ Atoms friend

    Naruto tribute to Hiroshima Atomic bomb victims

    Links and References

    1. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ridhi-v-raaj-849a07122/
    2. https://www.iitj.ac.in/
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1d5vKhRxWk
    4. https://www.youtube.com/@parmanumitraatomsfriend569
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose
    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

    #2023Caldenar #RidhiVRaaj #Science #GreatPeople #AtomsForPeace

  • The Secret to Success in this Sector is to Be Passionate

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network featuring content from Başkani Gül GOKTEPE, Nutek Inc, Türkiye

    NÜKAD BAŞKANI GÜL GÖKTEPE:
    “BU SEKTÖRDE BAŞARININ SIRRI, TUTKULU OLMAK”

    NÜKAD CHAIRMAN GÜL GÖKTEPE:
    “THE SECRET TO SUCCESS IN THIS INDUSTRY IS TO BE PASSIONATE”

    President / Başkani Gül GÖKTEPE, Nutek Inc, and Chapter President, Women in Nuclear, Türkiye

    Tarih boyunca devrim niteliğinde buluşlarıyla çok sayıda kadın insanlığın gelişimine katkı sağlayan sayısız başarıya imza atarken, bu başarıların çoğu gölgede kaldı. Bilim, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik alanlarında çalışan kadınlara yönelik asırlardır var olan ve Einstein’ın “atom çekirdeğini parçalamaktan daha zordur” dediği ön yargıların da bunda etkisi büyük oldu.  Yaşadıkları dönemin önüne geçmeyi başaran bilim kadınları ise halen günümüze ışık olmaya devam ediyorlar. Radyolojiden kanser tedavilerinde kullanılan radyoterapiye kadar çok sayıda alanın temelini oluşturan, iki Nobel ödüllü Polonya asıllı Kimyager ve Fizikçi Marie Curie, nükleer füzyon konusundaki buluşları ile tarihe geçmeyi başaran Avusturyalı Fizikçi Lise Meitner, nükleer endüstriye kazandırdığı teknolojilerle ‘elementlere hükmeden kadın’ diye tanımlanan Rus nükleer fizikçi Zinaida Yerşova nükleer alanda ‘ilham kaynağı’ olan önemli isimler.

    While many women have achieved countless successes that have contributed to the development of humanity with their revolutionary inventions throughout history, most of these successes have been overshadowed. The prejudices against women working in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, which have existed for centuries and that Einstein said “it is harder than splitting the atomic nucleus”, had a great effect on this. The women of science who managed to get ahead of the period they lived in still continue to be the light of today. Two Nobel laureates, Polish-born Chemist and Physicist Marie Curie, which forms the basis of many fields from radiology to radiotherapy used in cancer treatments, Austrian Physicist Lise Meitner, who managed to go down in history with her discoveries on nuclear fusion, Russian nuclear physicist who is defined as “the woman who rules the elements” with the technologies she brought to the nuclear industry. Zinaida Yerşova is an important name in the nuclear field who is an ‘inspiration’.

    Marie Curie
    Marie Curie, Poland & France
    Lise Meitner
    Lise Meitner, Austria & England
    Zinaida Yershova
    Zinaida Yershova, Russia

    ROL MODELLERİN ROLÜ

    Zorlu koşullara göğüs gererek, inandığı şeyden vazgeçmeyen cesur ve güçlü kadınların ‘yaşanabilir bir dünya için’ mücadeleleri bugün de devam ediyor. Ancak, hem ortaöğretim hem de yükseköğretimde kadın sayısındaki artışlara rağmen, halen “STEM” adı verilen bilim, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik alanlarında yeterince temsil edilmiyorlar.  Uluslararası Atom Enerjisi Ajansı’na (IAEA) göre gençler meslek seçimi yaparken, toplumun bir bilim insanının neye benzediğine dair klişe bakış açılarından ve önyargılarından çok etkileniyorlar. Özellikle nükleer alanda rol modellerin, gençlerin tercihinde önemli rol oynadığına dikkat çekiliyor. Türkiye’de de son yıllarda başarılı bilim kadınları, ilham veren hikâyeleri ve yürüttükleri projelerle pek çok gence ilham kaynağı oluyorlar. Radyolojiden çevreye, sağlıktan tarıma, güvenlikten iklim değişikliğine kadar farklı alanlarındaki örnek çalışmalarıyla nükleere yönelik mitlerin ve ön yargıların önüne geçmeyi de başarıyorlar.

    THE ROLE OF ROLE MODELS

    The struggle of brave and strong women, who do not give up on what they believe in by enduring difficult conditions, continues today for a livable world. However, despite the increases in the number of women in both secondary and higher education, they are still underrepresented in the so-called “STEM” fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), when choosing a career, young people are influenced by society’s stereotypical viewpoints and prejudices about what a scientist looks like. It is noted that role models, especially in the nuclear field, play an important role in the choice of young people. In recent years, successful women scientists in Turkey have been a source of inspiration for many young people with their inspiring stories and projects. With their exemplary work in different fields from radiology to the environment, from health to agriculture, from security to climate change, they also succeed in preventing myths and prejudices about nuclear.

    Türkiye Red Map
    Türkiye

    SORUNLAR İÇİN ORTAK MÜCADELE

    Avrupa Nükleer Araştırma Merkezi CERN’de önemli çalışmalara imza atan, uzay radyasyonu ve uzay fiziği konularında uluslararası başarılara sahip, “Dünyanın bilime, bilimin kadınlara ihtiyacı var” mottosu ile verilen ‘Uluslararası UNESCO Yükselen Yetenek Ödülü’nü 2017 yılında alan Prof. Dr. Bilge Demirköz, önemli rol modellerden biri. Türkiye’nin ilk ‘Parçacık Radyasyonu Test Altyapısı Projesi’ şu anda onun liderliğinde sürdürülüyor.  Demirköz, bir yandan da gençleri bilim dünyasına teşvik edecek projelere katılıyor, konferanslar veriyor, sergiler düzenliyor.  Demirköz,  kadınları bilime teşvik etmenin önemini şöyle anlatıyor: “Dünyanın yükleri ve problemleri artıyor. Bu problemleri çözmek için güce ihtiyacımız var. Bu gücün yüzde 50’sini kadınlar oluşturuyor. Küreselleşen dünyada ise kadının geride kaldığı toplumlar gelişemez. Bu nedenle hem problemleri hep birlikte çözmek hem de kadınların gelişimini desteklemek için kadınları bilime daha çok teşvik etmeliyiz.”

    COMMON FIGHTING FOR PROBLEMS

    Having carried out important studies at the European Nuclear Research Center, CERN, having international achievements in space radiation and space physics, and receiving the “International UNESCO Emerging Talent Award” in 2017, given with the motto “The world needs science and science needs women”, Prof. Dr. Bilge Demirköz is one of the important role models. Turkey’s first ‘Particle Radiation Test Infrastructure Project’ is currently under his leadership. Demirkoz also participates in projects that will encourage young people to the world of science, gives conferences and organizes exhibitions. Demirköz explains the importance of encouraging women to science as follows: “The burdens and problems of the world are increasing. We need power to solve these problems. Women make up 50 percent of this power. In the globalizing world, societies where women are left behind cannot develop. For this reason, we should encourage women to science more, both to solve problems together and to support the development of women.”

    “The world needs science and science needs women.”

    Prof. Dr. Bilge Demirköz, Ankara, Turkey
    “The world needs science and science needs women” – Prof. Dr. Bilge Demirköz,, Ankara, Turkey

    TÜM DÜNYADA BİTKİLERDE VERİM ARTIŞI

    Türkiye’de yürüttüğü sayısız başarılı tarım projesinin ardından IAEA’da Nükleer Bilimler ve Uygulamalar Bölümü’nde ‘Bitki Islahçısı ve Genetikçi’ olarak çalışan Türk bilim insanı Ziraat Mühendisi Fatma Sarsu, ‘rol model’ kadınlardan biri.  Sarsu, IAEA’nın sitesinde çok sayıda gence ilham verecek hikâyesini şöyle anlatıyor: “Babamın çiftliğinde büyüdüm. Onun ekinlerine duyduğu sevgiyi, onlara nasıl baktığını izlemek beni tarımda çalışmaya ikna etti. Ürün ve mutasyon ıslahını incelemek, mahsul verimliliğini nasıl artıracağımızı öğrenmenin en hızlı yolu olarak ortaya çıktı. IAEA’da bitki ıslahı ve genetiği üzerinde çalışmak, tüm dünyada tarım ürünleri verimliliğini artırmak gibi daha da büyük bir çiftlik verdi bana.  Her gün profesyonel bir tarım bilimcisi olarak insanlığın yararına çalıştığımı bilmek bana büyük mutluluk veriyor.”

    INCREASED PRODUCTION OF PLANTS ALL OVER THE WORLD

    Agricultural Engineer Fatma Sarsu, a Turkish scientist working as a ‘Plant Breeder and Geneticist’ in the Nuclear Sciences and Applications Department of the IAEA, after numerous successful agricultural projects she carried out in Turkey, is one of the ‘role model’ women. Sarsu tells his story that will inspire many young people on the IAEA website: “I grew up on my father’s farm. Watching his love for his crops and how he looked after them convinced me to work in agriculture. Studying crop and mutation breeding has emerged as the fastest way to learn how to increase crop productivity. Working on plant breeding and genetics at the IAEA has given me an even bigger farm to increase crop productivity around the world. It gives me great pleasure to know that every day I work for the benefit of humanity as a professional agronomist.”

    Fatma (Demir) Sarsu
    Fatma (Demir) Sarsu

    YAŞAMI İYİLEŞTİRME SORUMLULUĞU

    Türkiye’nin çeşitli dönemlerdeki nükleer teknoloji transferi ve nükleer santral kurma hazırlık süreçlerine yakından tanıklık eden Türkiye’de “Nükleer Alanda Kadınlar” (NÜKAD) olarak bilinen, “WIN (Women in Nuclear) Global Turkey” Grubu’nun kurucusu ve Başkanı olan B. Gül Göktepe de nükleer alanın öncü isimlerinden. Çekmece Nükleer Araştırma Merkezi için geliştirdiği Göl Projesi, Birleşmiş Milletler (BM) ve Uluslararası Atom Enerjisi Ajansı’nın (IAEA)  en başarılı teknik işbirliği projeleri arasında gösterilen “Karadeniz’in Çevresel Yönetimi” gibi dikkat çeken çevre projelerine imza attı. BM Viyana Daimi Temsilciliği’nde Türkiye’nin ilk kadın Nükleer Ataşesi olarak görev yaptı. “Nükleer alanda çalışmak büyüleyici olduğu kadar zordur da” ifadelerini kullanan Göktepe, “Yaşamı iyileştirmek ve gezegeni korumak gibi büyük sorumluluk taşıyoruz. Ve bu sektörde başarılı olmanın sırrı, tutkulu olmak! Nükleerde kadın sayımız gün geçtikçe artacak, buna inanıyorum. Yapacak çok işimiz var ve dünyanın bize ihtiyacı var!” diyor.

    LIFE IMPROVEMENT RESPONSIBILITY

    Witnessing Turkey’s nuclear technology transfer and nuclear power plant preparation processes in various periods, Gül Göktepe., the founder and President of the “WIN (Women in Nuclear) Global Turkey” Group, known as “Women in the Nuclear Field” (NÜKAD) in Turkey. Gül Göktepe is one of the leading names in the nuclear field. She undersigned remarkable environmental projects such as the Lake Project she developed for the Çekmece Nuclear Research Center and the “Environmental Management of the Black Sea”, which is shown as one of the most successful technical cooperation projects of the United Nations (UN) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). She served as Turkey’s first female Nuclear Attaché at the UN Vienna Permanent Mission. Göktepe said, “Working in the nuclear field is as challenging as it is fascinating” and said, “We have a great responsibility to improve life and protect the planet. And the secret to success in this industry is to be passionate! I believe that the number of women in nuclear will increase day by day. We have a lot of work to do and the world needs us!” she says.

    AKKUYU GİBİ UZUN İNCE BİR YOL

    Hayat hikâyesini “Türkiye’nin Akkuyu hikâyesi gibi zorluklarla dolu, çok uzun ve ince bir yol” olarak tanımlayan Göktepe, İngiltere’de atom mühendisliği okuduğunu, ülkeye dönüşünde katıldığı enerji kongresinde, dönemin Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanının ‘600 MW gücündeki ilk nükleer santralin Akkuyu’da kurulacağı ve 1986 yılında işletmeye alınacağı müjdesi’ ile sektöre umutla adım attığını söylüyor.  “O kongreden bu yana nerdeyse 44 yıl geçmiş. Düşünüyorum da o zamandan bu yana nükleerde dünya nerede, biz neredeyiz” diyen Göktepe, Türkiye’nin nükleer santral hikâyesini ise şu sözlerle özetliyor: “Türkiye’nin ilk nükleer santrali Akkuyu Nükleer Santrali projesinde geçmişte öngörülemeyen zorluklar, ertelemeler yaşandı. Şimdi, ne mutlu ki inşaatı tüm hızıyla sürüyor. Kafamda bunca yıllık zorlu mücadeleden sonra değişmeyen bir tek olgu var. O da nükleer teknolojinin dünyanın ve Türkiye’nin geleceği için vazgeçilemez olduğu. Şu anda dünyanın geleceğini tehdit eden en büyük tehlike; iklim değişikliği. Sera gazı emisyonlarını azaltmak için karbonsuz elektrik üretimine ihtiyaç var. O da yenilenebilir enerji, nükleer santraller ve karbon yakalama ve depolamalı fosil yakıtlar (carbon capture and storage-CCS)  olmak üzere sadece üç yoldan elde edilebiliyor.”

    A LONG THIN ROAD LIKE AKKUYU

    Defining her life story as “a very long and narrow road full of difficulties, like Turkey’s Akkuyu story”, Göktepe said that she studied atomic engineering in England, and that she attended the energy congress on her return to the country, and that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of the time said that the first nuclear power plant with 600 MW power was Akkuyu. She says that she stepped into the sector with hope with the good news that it will be established in ‘Turkey and will be put into operation in 1986’. “It has been almost 44 years since that congress. Goktepe, who says, “Where are we and where are we in the nuclear field since then,” said, and summarizes Turkey’s nuclear power plant story with these words: “In the past, unforeseen difficulties and delays were experienced in the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant project, Turkey’s first nuclear power plant. Now, fortunately, its construction is in full swing. There is only one fact in my mind that has not changed after all these years of hard struggle. That nuclear technology is indispensable for the future of the world and Turkey. The biggest danger threatening the future of the world right now; climate change. Carbon-free electricity generation is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It can be obtained in only three ways: renewable energy, nuclear power plants and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage (CCS).

    Gul Goltepe President of Nutek inc of Turkey and Women in Nuclear, Turkey
    Gül Göktepe President of Nutek inc of Turkey and Women in Nuclear, Turkey

    President of Nutek inc, and Women in Nuclear, Turkey, Gül Göktepe of Istanbul, Turkey was the first women representing Turkey at the IAEA in Vienna, Austria, having also spent time on numerous international nuclear missions, including the Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents. She has published over one hundred and thirty scientific papers and authored many articles related to nuclear power stations, and the Black Sea. She has received numerous awards and fellowships including an international medal, the Black Sea Medal, awarded for outstanding services to protect the Black Sea environment, by UNDP GEF, BSC and BSERP.

    Akkuyu Nuclear Power Station, Turkey
    Akkuyu Nuclear Power Station, Turkey by Rosatom of Russia

    BAŞARILARI DİKKAT ÇEKİCİ

    Hacettepe Üniversitesi Radyasyon Onkolojisi Ana Bilimdalı Radyoterapi Fiziği Programı’ndaki doktora çalışması kapsamında geliştirdiği ‘radyoterapide her hastaya ve bölgeye (meme, tiroid vb.) uyabilecek zırh ve karşı memeyi tedavi alanından uzaklaştıracak sütyen tasarımıyla Hacettepe Üniversitesi ve Hacettepe Teknokent Teknoloji Transfer Merkezi işbirliği ile düzenlenen “Hacettepe Hamle İnovasyon Yarışması”nda 2018 yılında Sağlık Teknolojileri alanında birinci olan Nükleer Enerji Mühendisi Nur Kodaloğlu, alanın genç ve başarılı isimlerinden biri. 2019 yılında Teknofest kapsamında Türk Patent Enstitüsü’nün düzenlediği ISIF 2019- Uluslararası Buluş Fuarı’nda “İkincil Kanser Riskini Azaltan Bir Sütyen” patenti ile ‘bronz madalya’ ile ödüllendirilen ve yeni buluşlar üzerinde çalışan Kodaloğlu kadınların bilime katkısını şu sözlerle vurguluyor: “Farklı meslek gruplarındaki kadınlar toplumun çeşitliliğini yansıtmaktadır. Bugün hem nükleer mühendislik alanında, hem de hastanelerin radyoterapi bölümlerindeki kadın medikal fizikçi ve kadın hekimler ile nükleer tıp, radyoloji bölümlerindeki kadın hekimlerin sayısı azımsanmayacak kadar çok. Yaptıkları yayınlar göz önünde bulundurulduğunda bilime yaptıkları katkının da bir o kadar fazla olduğu görülecektir. Kadınların toplumun nükleer teknolojilere olan güvenini arttırmada da önemli rolleri var.”

    SUCCESSFUL ACHIEVEMENTS

    Organized in cooperation with Hacettepe University and Hacettepe Teknokent Technology Transfer Center, with the armor design that can fit each patient and region (breast, thyroid, etc.) and the bra that will move the opposite breast away from the treatment area, she developed within the scope of her doctoral study in the Radiation Oncology Department of Hacettepe University, Radiotherapy Physics Program. Nuclear Energy Engineer Nur Kodaloğlu, who won the first place in the field of Health Technologies in the Hacettepe Move Innovation Competition in 2018, is one of the young and successful names in the field. Kodaloğlu, who was awarded the ‘bronze medal’ with the patent “A Bra that Reduces the Risk of Secondary Cancer” at the ISIF 2019-International Inventions Fair organized by the Turkish Patent Institute within the scope of Teknofest in 2019 and working on new inventions, emphasizes the contribution of women to science with the following words: “Different professions Today, the number of female medical physicists and female physicians in both nuclear engineering and radiotherapy departments of hospitals, and female physicians in nuclear medicine and radiology departments is substantial. “Women also play an important role in increasing society’s confidence in nuclear technologies.”

    Nur Kodaloglu
    Nur Kodaloglu, MSc. Medical Physicist- Nuclear Engineer

    POZİTİF KATKI SAĞLIYORUZ

    “Teknolojik gelişmeyle paralel nükleer enerjinin kullanıldığı her alanda Türkiye’yi ileriye taşıyacağına inanıyorum” diyen Feride Kutbay, nükleer reaktör güvenliği alanında yaptığı çalışmalarla dikkat çeken başarılı genç bilim insanlarından biri. İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi (İTÜ) Enerji Enstitüsü’nde Nükleer Araştırmalar Ana Bilim Dalı’nda Araştırma Görevlisi olarak görev yapan Kutbay, Türkiye’de bu alanda yeni iş fırsatlarının da artmaya başladığına dikkat çekerek, şunları ifade ediyor: “Nükleer güç santralini barındıran bir ülke olarak, nükleer reaktörlerin işletilmesi için yetiştirilen uzmanların dışında IAEA standartlarının ülkemizde uygulanmasında görev alacak uzmanlara da ihtiyaç var. Şu anda Rusya’da eğitim gören öğrencilerimizin dışında Türkiye, son birkaç yıldır Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı’na bağlı yurt dışı yüksek lisans bursu ile nükleer alanda yetiştirilmek üzere farklı ülkelere öğrenci gönderiyor. Geleceğe yönelik insan kaynağımızı güçlendiriyoruz. Kadın istihdam oranının artırılması ve kadın profesyonellerin yetiştirilmesine yönelik adımların Türkiye’de gelişmekte olan nükleer sektöre pozitif yönde etki edeceğini düşünüyorum. Kadınlar bu mesleğe enerji ve güç veriyor.”

    WE PROVIDE POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION

    Feride Kutbay, who said, “I believe that it will carry Turkey forward in every field in which nuclear energy is used in parallel with technological development,” is one of the successful young scientists who draw attention with her studies in the field of nuclear reactor safety. Kutbay, who works as a Research Assistant in the Department of Nuclear Research at Istanbul Technical University (ITU) Energy Institute, draws attention to the fact that new job opportunities have started to increase in this field in Turkey, and says: “As a country that hosts a nuclear power plant, In addition to the experts trained for the operation of nuclear reactors, there is also a need for experts who will take part in the implementation of IAEA standards in our country. Apart from our students currently studying in Russia, Turkey has been sending students to different countries to be trained in the nuclear field for the last few years, with a graduate scholarship from the Ministry of National Education. We are strengthening our human resources for the future. I think that steps towards increasing the rate of female employment and training female professionals will have a positive impact on the developing nuclear sector in Turkey. Women give energy and strength to this profession.”

    Feride Kutbay, Nuclear Engineer

    “I believe that it will carry Turkey forward in every field in which nuclear energy is used in parallel with technological development.”

    Feride KUTBAY, Istanbul Institute of Technology. Türkiye
    Gül Göktepe

    First published in Gulnar City 8 July 2020. Reproduced here in English and Turkish.

    Links and References

    1. https://www.gulnarcity.com/m-haber-6082.html?islem=haber&id=6852
    2. http://nutekinc.biz/en/gul-goktepe
    3. https://www.enerjigunlugu.net/goktepe-hem-cevreci-hem-nukleer-karsiti-olamazsiniz-37611h.htm
    4. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/turkey.aspx
    5. https://nonproliferation.org/the-black-sea-women-in-nuclear-network/
    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey
    7. https://www.linkedin.com/in/b-g%C3%BCl-g%C3%B6ktepe-71420888/
    8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
    9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner
    10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Yershova
    11. https://www.linkedin.com/in/bilgedemirkoz/
    12. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/photoessays/women-in-nuclear-science
    13. https://www.linkedin.com/in/fatma-sarsu-71733361/
    14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkuyu_Nuclear_Power_Plant
    15. https://rosatom.ru/en/
    16. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nur-kodaloglu-62582574
    17. https://www.linkedin.com/in/feride-kutbay-2b0943155

    #Turkey #Türkiye #NuclearEnergy #Fission #WomenInNuclear

  • How U.S. Policy Shifted Energy & Technology Hegemony to China

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network on 11 October 2022

    By James Kennedy, President of ThREEConsulting.com and John Kutsch, Executive Director of Thorium Energy Alliance, October 3, 2022.

    Ordinally appearing in LinkedIn Pulse. Reproduced for educational purposes and with permission.

    The Pentagon recently halted the delivery of F-35 fighter jets when it was discovered that they contained Chinese rare earth components. If the Pentagon would look a little more closely, they would find that Chinese rare earth derived components are ubiquitously distributed throughout all U.S. / NATO weapon systems.

    It isn’t only U.S. weapon systems, China controls global access to rare earth metals and magnets (and other downstream critical materials) for EVs, wind turbines, and most other green- technology.

    However, China’s vision is much more ambitious than controlling the supply-chain for high-tech commodities, they are leveraging their dominance into the clean energy sector. Last month Chinese authorities authorized the startup of what should be considered the world’s only Generation-5 nuclear reactor: a reactor that is inherently safe, non-proliferating, and can consume nuclear waste.

    The goal of Net-Zero, and any potential economic benefits, are entirely under China’s control.

    China’s leadership position in both of these areas can be traced back to irrational policies and legacy prejudices specific to Thorium, a mildly radioactive element that is commonly found in heavy rare earth minerals.

    The words that follow, detail the history of how China surpassed the U.S. with its own nuclear technology and displaced its historic leadership position in rare earths.

    A Short History on U.S. Nuclear Development

    In 1962 Nobel Prize Winning scientist Glenn Seaborg responded to President John F. Kennedy’s request for a Sustainable U.S. Energy Plan. The report titled “Civilian Nuclear Power” called for the development and deployment of Thorium Molten Salt Breeder Reactors.

    Glenn T Seaborg 1961
    Glenn T. Seabourg – Nobel Prize winner and adviser to 10 Presidents – knew a thing or two about Atomic Energy
    Civilian Nuclear Power – Report to the President – Glenn Seaborg 1962Download

    Abstract
    This overarching report on the role of nuclear power in the U.S. economy was requested by U.S. President John F. Kennedy in March, 1962. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was charged with producing the report, gaining input from individuals inside and outside government, including the Department of Interior, the Federal Power Commission, and the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Natural Resources. The study was to identify the objectives, scope, and content of a nuclear power development program in light of prospective energy needs and resources. It should recommend appropriate steps to assure the proper timing of development and construction of nuclear power projects, including the construction of necessary prototypes and continued cooperation between government and industry. There should also be an evaluation of the extent to which the U.S. nuclear power program will further international objectives in the peaceful uses of atomic energy.

    Civilian Nuclear Power, a Report to the President by Glenn T Seaborg, Atomic Energy Commission, U.S.A. 1962

    These ultra-safe reactors are nothing like the legacy reactors that make up today’s Light Water fleet (LWR). When deployed globally, many believe they will be the primary backbone of Green Energy – replacing the existing natural gas dispatchable power that makes up over 70% of the ‘balance-of-power’ in renewable systems.

    Unfortunately, Seaborg’s plan died with Kennedy. The cold-war preference for uranium and plutonium over Thorium in the 1960s and 70s, coupled with the 1980s modification to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations that also impacted how Thorium is classified and processed, led to the termination of the U.S. Thorium Molten Salt Reactor program and, effectively, the U.S. (French and Japanese) rare earth industry.

    Today, China controls the downstream production of rare earth metals and magnets (used in EVs, Wind Turbines and U.S. / NATO weapon systems) and is boldly pursuing Glenn Seaborg’s plan for clean, safe energy. China’s nuclear regulatory authorities have cleared the 2MWt TMSR-LF1, China’s first Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (Th-MSR), for startup. There is no U.S. equivalent program on the horizon.

    TMSR LF1 Cutaway SINAP
    TMSR LF1 Cutaway SINAP

    Considering that the U.S. initially developed this reactor, it begs the question of why China is leading with its commercial development. That requires a bit of a history lesson.

    The goal of harnessing nuclear energy began shortly after World War II. At that time, a number of Manhattan Project scientists were tasked with quickly developing civilian nuclear power. One of the mission goals was to distribute the ongoing cost of producing bomb-making materials across our secretive Manhattan Project campuses onto a ‘civilian’ nuclear energy program. That program eventually morphed into the Atomic Energy Commission and then to the Department of Energy.

    From an accounting standpoint, the DOE’s primary purpose was to divert the balance- sheet cost of our nuclear weapons programs off the military’s books.

    For its entire history, 70% or more of the Department of Energy’s budget has been directed towards nuclear weapons development, maintenance, and research programs (and cleanup funding of legacy Manhattan Project sites). As the budget priorities demonstrate, solving America’s energy needs was never the first priority of the DoE. Accept that reality, and the long history of DoE mal-investment begins to make sense.

    James Kennedy

    Results came quickly. The first reactor designs, still in use today, are essentially ‘first concept reactors’: something more than a Ford Model T, but possibly less than a Model A, as economies of standardization were purposely never attempted in the USA, and therefore the USA never achieved the economies of scale that comes from making only 1 type of reactor model like the French and Japanese do.

    The rollout of Thorium MSRs will be the equivalent of a modern-day automobile (with standardization of parts and licensing, automated assembly-line production and centralized operation permitting).

    Every U.S. Light Water Reactor (LWR) facility is uniquely engineered from the ground up— maximizing its cost. Every permit application is unique. Permit requirements, timelines and outcomes are fluid. The timeline from initial funding for permitting to buildout can take decades. This equates to tying up tens of billions of dollars in financial commitments over a very long time for an uncertain outcome (a number of reactor projects were terminated during the buildout phase, with some near completion). There is an incentive to drag projects out because the EPC builders of the plan are not the operators, so they have to make all their money in the build. For example, the most recent U.S. nuclear buildout is 8 years behind schedule and at twice the estimated cost. This is a recipe for failure.

    Plant Vogtle

    The original LWR designs, largely developed by Alvin Weinberg, boiled water under immense pressure to turn a shaft, similar to the turbines of a coal fired power plant. The use of water as a coolant is one of the largest contributors to LWR system complexity, risk and costs.

    Water’s liquid phase range at normal pressure is 1 to 99°C. Water’s natural boiling temperature does not generate sufficient pressure to economically operate traditional steam turbines so all LWR type reactors use high pressure to force water to remain liquid at higher temperatures. The need to contain coolant failures in such a high-pressure operating environment greatly effects the safety and cost of the entire system. All water-cooled reactors have an inherent design risk, no matter how small, built in.

    Weinberg knew there must be a better design, but government and military support rushed in to prop up the development of the Light Water Reactor design. Admiral Hyman Rickover was the leading advocate, quickly developing the first nuclear-powered submarine. The U.S. Army also got in the game, developing a prototype mobile field reactor. The Air Force, feeling left out, looked to Alvin Weinberg to develop a nuclear-powered aircraft.

    The Air Force Reactor project required that he develop something entirely new; keeping in mind that this reactor would operate inside an airplane with a crew and live ordinance. These are truly remarkable constraints in terms of weight, size, safety, and power output. Weinberg’s insight led to a reactor that used a liquid fuel instead of solid fuel rods. It was simply known as Alvin’s 3P reactor, all he needed was a Pot, a Pipe and a Pump to build his new reactor design.

    High Temperature Reactor Experiment 3 ARE
    High Temperature Reactor Experiment 3

    Elegant in its simplicity, its safety was based on physics and geometry – not pumps, valves, backup generators and emergency protocols.

    Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Air Force, May 1996 by Bernard J. SnyderDownload

    The Air Force Reactor program was able to prove out all requirements of the program. It was / is possible to build a nuclear-powered bomber aircraft and keep the crew ‘reasonably safe’. However, the development of nuclear-launch capable submarines and the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile supplanted the need for a nuclear bomber.

    ORNL Aircraft Nuclear Power Plant Designs 1721Download

    The original Air Force Reactor Experiment evolved into the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) developed at Oak Ridge National Lab. This moderated reactor operated for 19,000 hours over 5 years. The reactor was designed to run on a Thorium-uranium mixed fuel. Prior to termination of the project, all operational, safety, material science, and corrosion issues were resolved.

    Molten Salt Reactor Technology for Thorium Fueled Small Reactors Dr. Jess C. Gehin March 2011Download

    More importantly, the MSRE project proved that you could build a revolutionary nuclear reactor that eliminated all of the inherent safety concerns of the LWR while minimizing the spent fuel issue (what some people call nuclear waste).

    The new reactor, commonly known as a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR), used heated salt with a liquid-to-boil temperature range that can exceed 1000°C (a function of chemistry), to act both as coolant and fuel. The recirculation of the liquid fuel/coolant allowed for the fuller utilization (burn up) of the actinides and fission products. The salt’s higher temperature operation that did not need water for cooling, eliminated the need to operate under extreme pressures.

    The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment

    This salt coolant cannot overheat, and meets the definition of having inherent safety – MSR’s are inherently safe reactors that eliminate scores of redundant systems, significantly increasing the simplicity of the overall system while lowering risks and cost and increasing its safety profile.

    Another advantage is that MSR’s higher operating temperatures allow it to utilize liquid CO2 (or other high compression gases), thus eliminating H2O steam from the system. Moving away from the Rankine turbine system to much smaller and more efficient Brayton turbines delivers a much higher energy conversion at lower costs. The real promise of the MSR was that it produced process heat directly, for hydrogen, desalination, fertilizer, steel production – avoiding inefficient electricity production all while utilizing 100% of the heat energy directly.

    Brayton Power Systems for Floride Salt High Temperature Reactors, 2010 by Steven WrightDownload

    Another beneficial feature is the reduced quantity and timeframe of storage requirements for spent fuel (aka: nuclear waste). Inherent to their design, MSRs use-up nuclear fuel far more efficiently than LWRs, less than 1% of the original fuel load can end up as spent fuel, and due to acceleration of decay under the recirculation of the fuel/coolant load the residual spent fuel decays to background (radiation levels equal to the natural environment) in as little as 300 years.

    LWRs utilize about 3% of the available energy in solid fuels and the spent fuel does not decay to background levels for tens of thousands of years.

    The most promising MSR design feature was found to be that fission criticality (a sustained chain reaction) is self-regulating due to the reactor’s geometry and self-purging features that dumped the fuel/coolant into holding tanks and regulated fission rates (again, based on geometry) if the reactor exceeded design operating temperatures. These features made a reactor “meltdown” impossible and “walk-away safe”.

    Because the salt coolant has such a high liquid phase the system can be air cooled (in any atmosphere: the artic, the desert , even versions for space). The elimination of water from the system eliminates the primary failure-point of all conventional nuclear reactors, including explosive events that can occur with water cooled reactors.

    NOTE: LWR reactor explosions are due to disassociation of water into hydrogen and oxygen when exposed to Zirconium at high temperatures during coolant system failure. The zirconium fuel casings act as a catalyst, causing a massive rapid atmospheric expansion. This atmospheric expansion was the cause of the explosive event associated with the Fukushima disaster.

    The elimination of any high-pressure hydrogen event excludes the potential for widespread radiation release and thus, the need for a massive containment vessel.

    Alvin Weinberg’s reactor design also solved another challenge of that time. Prior to the mid- 1970s the U.S. government believed that global uranium resources were very scarce. This new reactor, fueled with a small amount of fissile material added to the Thorium salt, could breed new fuel. In fact, it turned out that the reactor could also be used to dispose of weapons grade plutonium or even spent fuel (stockpiled nuclear waste).

    ABSTRACT
    The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) option for burning fissile fuel from dismantled weapons is examined. It is concluded that MSRs are very suitable for beneficial utilization of the dismantled fuel. The MSRs can utilize any fissile fuel in continuous operation with no special modifications, as demonstrated in the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. Thus MSRs are flexible while maintaining their economy. MSRs further require a minimum of special fuel preparation and can tolerate denaturing and dilution of the fuel. Fuel shipments can be arbitrarily small, all of which supports nonproliferation and averts diversion. MSRs have inherent safety features which make them acceptable and attractive. They can burn a fuel type completely and convert it to other fuels. MSRs also have the potential for burning the actinides and delivering the waste in an optimal form, thus contributing to the solution of one of the major remaining problems for deployment of nuclear power.

    ORNL – Thorium MSRs From Using Dismantled Weapons, 1991
    ORNL Thorium MSRs From Using Dismantled Weapons 1991Download
    Fuel Summary Report Shippingport Light Water Breeder Reactor Sept 2002Download

    Unlike natural mined Uranium, which needed intensive processing to concentrate the fissile U235, Thorium is widely abundant and a byproduct of phosphate, titanium, zircon and rare earth ores. Thorium can be used in a nuclear reactor after minimal processing, all benefits that were unheeded in the 60s and 70s.

    Since MSRs run at a much higher temperature than LWRs, the greatest benefit would be the direct utilization of thermal energy for industrial processes requiring thermal loads (allowing for the carbon free production of steel, cement and chemicals that make up nearly 25% of all CO2 emissions). Possibilities seemed endless.

    Glenn Seaborg’s 1962 report to President Kennedy devised a national plan for sustainable civilian nuclear power. Evaluating the relative safety, efficiency, and economy of the Th-MSR vs. the LWR, Seaborg recommended that the U.S. phase out LWRs in favor of Alvin Weinberg’s Th- MSR Thorium “breeder reactor”.

    So why didn’t this reactor design prevail? Considering its economic advantages, the Th-MSR would cause the phase out of the existing nuclear fleet and would be more cost competitive than coal or natural gas (and could replace petroleum via a nuclear-powered Fischer Tropes process), it is no wonder that the reactor was rejected by the prevailing political-economy of cold-war industrialism and what was primarily a hydro-carbon based economy.

    The production cost for these reactors was a key concern. The relative cost of assembly line built MSRs reactor would be a fraction of traditional LWRs (these are small modular reactors). As such, MSRs could bring installed cost per megawatt in line with coal fired power plants.

    The construction cost advantages are numerous: inherent safety based on geometry (translates into simplicity of design and construction), small, modular, assembly-line built, roll-off permitting, air cooled (eliminating the primary critical failure risk of LWRs and, thus the possibility for a wide-spread radiation event), no need for a massive containment vessel, and small Bryton turbines.

    The Thorium fuel would be a byproduct of rare earths (no enrichment is necessary). Rare earths would be a byproduct of some other mined commodity.

    Regardless of the economic opposition, there was also a geopolitical conflict. Fueled with Thorium, the MSR did not produce plutonium (fissile bomb making materials) or anything else that was practically usable for the production of nuclear weapons. The reactor was highly proliferation resistant—and who would not like that?

    The Nixon Administration, for one. American politics in 1968 were largely influenced by the U.S.’s relative status in the nuclear weapons arms race with Russia. Nixon, a nuclear hawk, killed the MSR program and committed the country to the development of fast spectrum breeder reactors (the program was a total failure), circa 1972.

    As early as 1970 a new, safe, clean, cost-efficient, and self-generating energy economy was technically possible but was sacrificed to the objectives of the cold war and preservation of the existing LWR fleet.

    If the U.S. had followed Seaborg’s advice the entire world could be pulling up to the curb of Net-Zero today and U.S. energy hegemony would be preserved long into the future.

    Instead, today, China is leading the world in the development of Thorium fueled reactors and Thorium based critical materials. They intend to use it as a geopolitical tool: the Chinese version of “Atoms for Peace”. This would end U.S. energy hegemony.

    Sadly, most Americans can’t fathom how that would impact their standard of living and create a domestic energy source that would cement their position in the world.

    But the story of how Thorium politics and policy derailed U.S. energy and national security interests does not end there.

    The Story of Rare Earths

    A decade later, the production and proliferation of nuclear weapons material became an international matter of concern. In 1980 the NRC and IAEA collaborated on regulations to ratchet down on the production and transportation of uranium. The regulatory mechanism 10 CFR 40, 75 applied the rules and definitions specific to the uranium mining industry to all mining activity, using the 1954 Atomic Energy Act terminology of nuclear “source material” to define the materials to be controlled.

    Uranium, plutonium and Thorium are all classified as nuclear fuel: source material. However, Thorium cannot be used for nuclear weapons (Thorium is fertile, not fissile).

    James Kennedy

    This caused a new and unintended problem. At the time, nearly 100 percent of the world’s supply of heavy rare earths contained Thorium in their mineralization and were the byproduct of some other mined commodity. Consequently, when these commodity producers extracted their target ores (titanium, zirconium, iron, phosphates, etc.) they triggered the new regulatory definition of ‘processed or refined ore (under 10 CFR 40)’ for these historical rare earth byproducts, causing the Thorium-bearing rare earth mineralization to be classified as “source material”.

    In order to avoid the onerous costs, regulations, and liabilities associated with being a source material producer these commodity producers disposed of these Thorium-bearing resources along with their other mining waste and continue to do so today.

    Currently, in the U.S. alone, the annual quantity of rare earths disposed of to avoid the NRC source material regulations exceeds the non-Chinese world’s demand by a factor of two or more. The amount of Thorium that is also disposed of with these rare earths could power the entire western hemisphere if utilized in MSRs.

    The scale of this potential energy waste dwarfs the collective efforts of every environmentalist on a global basis (including all of the World Economic Forum programs being forced on farmers and consumers across the globe).

    As a result, all downstream rare earth value chain companies in the U.S. and IAEA compliant countries lost access to reliable supplies for these rare earth resources.

    Capitalizing on these regulatory changes, China quickly became the world’s RE producer.

    World Rare Earth Production

    During the 1980s, China increased its leverage by initiating tax incentives and creating economically favorable manufacturing zones for companies that moved rare earth technology inside China.

    U.S., French and Japanese companies were happy to off-shore their technology and environmental risks (mostly related to Thorium regulations). The 1980 regulatory change and China’s aggressive investment policies allowed China to quickly acquire a foothold in metallurgical and magnet capabilities.

    For example: China signed rare earth supply contracts with Japan that required Japan to transfer rare earth machinery and process technology to mainland China while establishing state-sponsored acquisition strategies for targeted U.S. metallurgical and magnetic manufacturing technologies.

    By 1995 the U.S. had sold its only NdFeB magnet producer, and all of its IP, to what turned out to be Deng Xiaoping’s family.

    In just two decades China moved from a low value resource producer to having monopoly control over global production and access to rare earth technology metals.

    By 2002 the U.S. became 100% dependent on China for all post-oxide rare earth materials. Today, China’s monopoly is concentrated on downstream metallics and magnets. In 2018, Japan, the only country that continued to produce rare earth metals outside of China, informed the U.S. government that they no longer make “new” rare earth metals.

    Japan stated the reason for terminating all new rare earth metal production is “China controls price”.

    Thorium policy was the leading culprit in America’s failure to lead the world in the evolution of the rare earth dependent technologies. From its powerful vantage point, China was able to force technology companies to move operations inside China. From a practical standpoint all past and future breakthroughs in rare earth based material science and technology migrate to China.

    Cumulative Patent Deficit USD vs China
    Cumulative Patent Deficit USD vs China

    The best example of this is Apple. Because the iPhone is highly rare earth dependent, Apple was forced to manufacture it in China. In January 2007 Apple introduced its revolutionary iPhone. By August of the same year high quality Chinese knockoffs were being produced by a largely unknown company named Huawei. By 2017 Huawei was outselling Apple on a worldwide basis.

    This story is not uncommon. It is typical of what happens to Western companies who move manufacturing inside China. Apple knew this but had no choice: developing a domestic rare earth value chain was impossible for any single company, industry, or even country by this point in the game.

    Today China’s monopoly power allows them to control the supply chain of the U.S. military and NATO defense contractors.

    From its diminished vantage point, the Pentagon is somehow unable to understand that China’s monopoly is a National Program of Industrial and Defense Policy.

    Instead, the Pentagon pretends that this is a problem that can be solved by ‘the free market’, naively betting U.S. national security on a hodgepodge of junior rare earth mining ventures with economically questionable deposits, no downstream metal refining capabilities and no access to the critical heavy rare earths.

    The Pentagon twice bet our national security on a geochemically incompatible deposit in California. The first time was in 2010. The Pentagon was forewarned that the deposit controlled by Molycorp, was incompatible with U.S. technology and defense needs, due to its lack of heavy rare earths, and that its business plan was “unworkable”. The company was bankrupt in just 5 years.

    In 2020, despite the same deposit’s intractable deficiencies, Chinese ownership and a commitment to supply China, the Pentagon backed a venture capital group ‘developing’ the deposit under the name MP Materials. The new company has made the same unfulfillable promises as its predecessor but further domestic downstream capability into metallics is unlikely.

    MP may remain profitable as long as it continues to sell concentrate and oxides into China, but profitable downstream refining into metallics / magnets is not possible when accounting for China’s internal cost, scale and subsidy advantages (and control over price).

    The Pentagon, like so many other investors, fails to accept the reality of China’s monopoly.

    It is both an economic monopoly, and a geopolitical monopoly.

    Consequently, there have been over 400 bankruptcies in rare earth projects since 2010. Only two western controlled rare earth mines went into production: Molycorp, mentioned above, and Lynas, the Australian company Lynas. Lynas’s success is mostly due the current environment of higher prices (ultimately under China’s control) and a modestly superior rare earth chemistry when compared with the Molycorp Mt. Pass deposit. Lynas survived the 2015 downturn through direct subsidies form the Japanese government, price supports and debt forgiveness from its customers and investors.

    Today the U.S. and all western governments find themselves outmaneuvered in rare earths (and other critical materials), the green economy and Thorium nuclear energy.

    China is leading the world in the development of Thorium MSRs. Their first two-megawatt prototype reactors was recently cleared for startup (August, 2022). China’s MSR program was built on massive direct investment by the Chinese government and the direct transfer of technology and technical support by the U.S. Department of Energy.

    China’s first to market strategy can be expected to conform to their tendency to vertically and horizontally monopolize industries, like rare earths. As such, China is poised to control the global roll out of this technology—displacing the U.S. as the global energy hegemon.

    Because the U.S. failed to rationalize Thorium policy it has lost control of its destiny in rare earths and the future of safe, clean, affordable, and sustainable nuclear energy.

    Unchallenged, China will be the global champion of net-zero energy.

    What are the domestic obstacle to achieving Thorium MSR?

    Opposition is directly linked to the cold war policies of the past and the intersection of legacy energy producers (LWR nuclear, coal, natural gas and petroleum) and renewable energy producers. These energy sectors individually and collectively are the political constituents of the DoE. So, despite the opposing interests between each of these energy sectors, the threat of Th-MSR expresses itself as DoE opposition (that is beginning to change).

    The other problem with Th-MSR development is the regulatory environment. Regulations are more about protecting legacy interests than public safety. In nuclear regulation it is all about protecting the legacy fleet from new entrants.

    For example, the company Nuscale spent over $600 million, over a decade, to certify a new nuclear reactor design. This expense was not to build a reactor. It was the regulatory cost of permitting a new reactor design that (highly conforms to existing LWR designs).

    What people overlook is that the real cost and risk in new reactor design is a function of time, money and investor expectations.

    In the case of Nuscale, the regulatory and construction cost of a new reactor will be in the multi-billion-dollar range, with over a decade of investor money tied up in the highly speculative investment (speculative in regulatory outcomes and customer orders against existing and alternative technologies) makes this the highest investment risk imaginable.

    Accounting for the magnitude of these risks and return expectations, this type of investment is at the outer bounds of what is achievable — in the absence of a monopoly. That is why public investment was always necessary in the nuclear industry. China understands this and has acted accordingly.

    What are the domestic obstacles to a domestic rare earth value chain?

    The current rare earth issue has not been a mining issue but rather a regulatory issue. The U.S. continues to mine enough rare earths, as the byproduct of some other commodity, to exceed the entire non-Chinese world demand. These resources would quickly become available if the U.S. rationalized its Thorium policy.

    The larger downstream problems resulting from China’s massive overinvestment and negligible return requirements in its rare earth industry have yet to express themselves, as the U.S. government blindly funds non-compatible, non-viable, non-economic downstream projects.

    Without a production tax credit to off-set Chinese subsides, all of these projects will fail.

    Balancing the comparative cost of capital and investor return expectation also must be answered.

    Solutions

    There are potential solutions. For rare earths there is a production tax credit bill that could off- set China’s generous subsidies, zero-cost capital and production cost advantages (comparative labor & environmental costs). There may also soon be proposed legislation to solve the Thorium problem. This same proposal would also provide a funding and development platform for a U.S. based Thorium MSR reactor industry.

    There are solutions, but time is running out.

    To learn more about advancing U.S. interests in the development of MSRs and ending China’s rare earth monopoly please visit the ThoriumEnergyAlliance.com or ThREEConsulting.com.

    Authors

    James Kennedy is an internationally recognised expert, consultant, author, and policy adviser on rare earths and Thorium energy.

    John Kutsch is the executive director of Thorium Energy Alliance, an organisation dedicated to the advancement of Thorium for power and critical materials applications.

    References and Links

    1. http://threeconsulting.com/
    2. https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-kennedy-5622bb50/
    3. https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/
    4. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kutschenergy/
    5. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-us-policy-shifted-energy-technology-hegemony-china-james-kennedy/
    6. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/07/pentagon-suspends-f-35-deliveries-china-00055202
    7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg
    8. https://pastdaily.com/2018/10/29/october-29-1961-dr-glenn-seaborg-has-a-word-or-two-about-nuclear-energy-meet-the-press-past-daily-reference-room/
    9. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1212086
    10. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chinese-molten-salt-reactor-cleared-for-start-up
    11. https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/2021/11/04/georgia-power-nuclear-reactors-plant-vogtle-cost-doubles-energy-costs/6286729001/
    12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover
    13. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Aircraft_reactor_experiment
    14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
    15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o
    16. https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-engineering/thermodynamics/thermodynamic-cycles/rankine-cycle-steam-turbine-cycle/
    17. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/sandia-researchers-deliver-power-grid-new-brayton-cycle-technology
    18. https://threeconsulting.com/mt-content/uploads/2021/04/th_msrs_heufrom_dismantled_weapons.pdf
    19. https://web.archive.org/web/20151107033818/https:/inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sti/2664750.pdf
    20. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part075/index.html
    21. https://threeconsulting.com/mt-content/uploads/2021/04/chiarepatent.pdf
    22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping
    23. https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt676/CRPT-115hrpt676.pdf
    24. https://threeconsulting.com/mt-content/uploads/2021/04/sme-rareearthsdeceptionwebv.pdf
    25. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chinese-molten-salt-reactor-cleared-for-start-up
    26. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/08/chinas-2-megawatt-molten-salt-thorium-nuclear-reactor-has-start-up-approval.html
    27. https://threeconsulting.com/mt-content/uploads/2021/04/casdoetech.pdf
    28. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5033/text?r=164&s=1

    #rareearths #nuclearenergy #nationalsecurity #nationaldefense #china #criticalminerals #departmentofenergy #departmentofdefense #EV #netzero #netzerocarbon #greentech #geopolitics #renewableenergy #cobalt #nickel #graphite #lithium #weapons #defensetechnology #mining #miningindustry #miningnews #greensteel #neodymium #terbium #pentagon #hegemony #monopoly #intellectualproperty #windenergy #solarenergy #hydrogen #thorium #thoriumenergyallianc #energy #scienceandtechnology #aviationindustry #aviationnews #airforce

  • Confidence in Nuclear Energy – The acceptance of evidence should replace traditional caution

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    Content comes from Wade Allison, professor of physics at Oxford University. Written 20 September 2022

    Wade Allison is emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University and author of Radiation and Reason, and Nuclear is for Life.

    Though an ideal energy source, nuclear made an unfortunate entry into world affairs. Accompanied by frightening tales of destruction it failed early on to gain the confidence required of a leading contributor to future human prosperity. Is radioactivity and nuclear radiation particularly dangerous? It has been wielded as a political weapon for 70 years. But does the myth of a possible radiation holocaust have objective substance? The inhibition that surrounds nuclear radiation obstructs the optimum solution to real dangers today – climate change, the supply of water, food and energy, and socio-economic stability.

    Is radioactivity and nuclear radiation particularly dangerous? It has been wielded as a political weapon for 70 years. But does the myth of a possible radiation holocaust have objective substance?

    Professor Wade Allison

    Primary Energy Sources

    By studying the natural world, humans have succeeded where other creatures failed. Satisfying our needs depends on understanding the benefits that nature offers. In particular, the study of energy and the acceptance by society of improved sources have been critical to prospects for the human race several times in the past. The first occasion was pre-historic, perhaps 600,000 years ago, when fire was domesticated. Confidence and good practice spread through the use of speech and education. Then came the harnessing of sunshine and the weather, delivered by windmills, watermills and the growth of food and vegetation. Nevertheless, these energy supplies were weak and notoriously unreliable. Additional energy was routinely provided by slave labour and teams of animals. Generally though, life was short and miserable.

    The use of fossil fuels and their reliable engines began in the 18th Century and displaced the use of intermittent sources. Life was transformed for those who had the fuels. Health, sport, holidays, leisure and human rights flourished, all previously unavailable. Political affairs were largely concerned with which people had access to fossil fuels. Though fossil fuels were never safe or environmental, their combustion probably triggered, if not caused, changes to the climate. Consequently, the decision was taken in Paris in 2015 to discontinue their use. What should replace them? And how may we live in a climate that is never likely ever to revert to the way it was?

    Fortunately, natural science today has a firm and complete account of energy – that is apart from one or two intriguing cosmological goings-on such as “dark matter”. Secondary sources, such as hydrogen, ammonia, batteries, electricity and biofuels, are beside the point, because they need to be generated from some primary source, and it’s the latter we need to secure. The weak, unreliable and weather-dependent primary sources that failed previously continue to be inadequate. Without fossil fuels, that leaves only one widely available source, sufficient to support the continuation of society as we know it, namely nuclear energy[1]. It ticks every box, except that many know little about it and are wary of it.

    One who learnt early was Winston Churchill. In 1931 he wrote prophetically in the Strand Magazine that nuclear energy is a million times that of the fuel that powered the Industrial Revolution[2].

    One who learnt early was Winston Churchill. In 1931 he wrote prophetically in the Strand Magazine that nuclear energy is a million times that of the fuel that powered the Industrial Revolution[2]

    Professor Wade Allison

    Both chemical and nuclear energy can be released explosively. Unfortunately, it was as a weapon that many in society first heard about nuclear energy. Released in anger at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the combination of blast and fire produced was fatal to the majority of inhabitants within a mile or two. Those much further away were not affected, nor were those who came to the site weeks afterwards. The result of the nuclear bombs was similar to the destruction by conventional explosives and fire storm in WWII of Tokyo, Hamburg and Dresden – or by explosives in recent years of Chechnya, Aleppo and Mariupol – except that it may come from a single device.

    It comes as a surprise to many people that nuclear radiation makes no major contribution to the mortality of a nuclear explosion, even in later years[3]. That is not what they have been told. What is the truth and why has it remained hidden?

    Wade Allison: “The Fukushima nuclear accident and the unwarranted fear of low-dose radiation”

    Is Radiation a Danger to Life?

    A great deal has been learnt about the effect of radiation on life in the past 120 years. When nuclear radiation was discovered by Marie Curie[4] and others in the last years of the 19th Century, they took great care to study its effect on life. Shortly thereafter, high doses were used successfully to cure patients of cancer, as they still are today. Millions of people have reason to be thankful as a result.

    As with any new technology, much was learnt from accidents and mistakes in the early days. But by 1934 international agreement[5] had been reached on the scale of a safe radiation dose, 0.2 roentgen per day – in modern units, 2 milli-gray (or milli-Sievert) per day. In 1980 Lauriston Taylor (1902-2004), the doyen of radiation health physicists, affirmed[6] that “nobody has been identifiably injured by a lesser dose”– a statement that remains true today.

    At first sight it is strange that ionising radiation, with its energy easily sufficient to break the critical molecules of life, should be harmless in low and moderate doses. And it does indeed break such molecules indiscriminately, but living tissue fights back because it has evolved the ability to do so. In early epochs the natural radiation environment on Earth was more intense than today. Life would have died out long ago, if it had not developed multiple layers of defence. These act within hours or days by repairing and replacing molecules and whole cells, too. Control of these mechanisms was devolved to the cellular level long ago, and it is a mistake for human regulations to try to micromanage the protection already provided by nature. So, although the details of natural protection and its workings are still being discovered today, the effectiveness of the safety it provides were known and agreed already in 1934.

    But then in the mid-1950s, in spite of initiatives like “Atoms for Peace” by President Eisenhower, human society lost its nerve about nuclear energy and its radiation. What went wrong?

    Record Group 306 Records of the U.S. Information Agency, 1900-2003 Still Pictures Identifier: 306-PPB-81a

    But then in the mid-1950s, in spite of initiatives like “Atoms for Peace” by President Eisenhower, human society lost its nerve about nuclear energy and its radiation. What went wrong?

    Professor Wade Allison
    Atoms For Peace Speech – Eisenhower 1953

    When fear hid the benefits of nuclear and its radiation

    Few today are old enough to remember those days, as I do. The 1950s was an unpleasant time with military threats abroad, spying, secrecy and mistrust at home. In the USA it was the era of Senator Joseph McCarthy[7] when all manner of innocent people were accused of being communist sympathisers or Soviet agents. Suspicion was everywhere. Already following the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, knowledge of nuclear radiation was seen as a “no-go” area, supposedly too difficult to understand and beyond the educational paygrade of normal people. After the War a vast employment structure, the industrial military complex, continued to develop, test and stockpile nuclear weapons to the horror of large sections of the populace, worldwide. They were supported in their concern by many scientists, including Albert Einstein, Robert Oppenheimer, Andre Sakharov and many Nobel Laureates. Whether they were knowledgeable in radiobiology or not – and few were – they did not trust the judgement of the military and political authorities with this new energy and its million-fold increase. Everybody was frightened that the power might fall into foreign hands or be used irresponsibly by allies. This fear increased after 1949 when the Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear device[8]. As the years went by, ever larger popular marches and political demonstrations attempted to halt the nuclear Arms Race with the USSR, frequently alarming civil authorities with their threats to law and order.

    This civil disturbance had more success in stopping the Arms Race when it focused on the biological effects of nuclear radiation. Few in the industrial military complex knew much about this – they were mostly engineers, physical and mathematical scientists. In truth, few other scientists did either and in the absence of data were easily alarmed. The concern was that irreparable radiation damage incurred by the human genome might be transmitted to subsequent generations. Such a prediction was made by Hermann Muller, a Nobel Prize winning geneticist – without any evidence. A ghoulish spectre of deformed descendants was eagerly adopted by the media as real. The popular magazine Life, dated May 1955 page 37, explicitly quoted Muller, saying “atomic war may cause” such hereditary damage (emphasis added). The qualification of the possibility was lost on the media and general public – the horror was seen as just too awful. It was widely taken as likely to be true by academic opinion, too, as there was no evidence to deny it.

    Herman Muller
    Herman Muller, LIFE Magazine, 1957

    Significantly, it is not difficult to detect levels of radiation exposure many thousand times lower than the level accepted as safe in 1934[5]. Anxious to quell popular pressure, regulatory authorities acceded to a regime in which life should be spared any radiation exposure above a level As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). For the public, the advice was set at 1 milli-Sievert per year, a modest fraction of the typical natural background received from rocks and space. National regulatory authorities, concerned to protect themselves from liability, readily adopted the advice of the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) under the auspices of the United Nations.

    These regulations are based, not on evidence, but on a philosophy of caution, namely that any exposure to radiation is harmful and that all such damage accumulates throughout life – in denial of the natural protection provided by evolution. A discredited ad hoc theory of risk, the Linear No Threshold model (LNT)[9,10], supplanted the Threshold Model of 1934 at the behest of the BEAR Committee of the US Natural Academy of Sciences in 1956.

    A discredited ad hoc theory of risk, the Linear No Threshold model (LNT) [9,10], supplanted the Threshold Model of 1934 at the behest of the BEAR Committee of the US Natural Academy of Sciences in 1956.

    Professor Wade Allison

    Such excessive caution incurs huge extra costs. Worse, adherence to ALARA/LNT regulations has caused serious social and environmental damage – for instance, in the response to the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. International bodies and committees, unlike individuals, stick rigidly to their terms of reference. So, the ICRP still supports ALARA/LNT today[11] and advocates protection which is not necessary – except in extreme cases.

    What about these extreme cases? Muller supposed that an exposure to radiation can alter a person’s genetic code and that this error can then be passed onto off-spring. But the medical records of the survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their children and grandchildren[12] never supported this. As a result, nobody today maintains that there is any evidence for such inheritable genetic changes. This is confirmed in animal experiments, and was accepted even by the ICRP in 2007[11] – to be precise they lowered their estimated genetic risk factor by an order of magnitude. So Muller was wrong[10]. Incidentally, he was also wrong about the evidence for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1946.

    So Muller was wrong [10]. Incidentally, he was also wrong about the evidence for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1946.

    Professor Wade Allison

    Dedicated to protect people against radiological damage, the ICRP focused on the induction of cancer by radiation instead of inheritable genetic defects. The medical history of 87,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with their children, have been followed since 1950. Data on solid cancers and leukaemia in 50 years and their correlation with individually estimated exposures have been published by DL Preston et al ([13], Tables 3 and 7). Inevitably, some survivors died from these diseases anyway, but their numbers are allowed for by comparing with distant residents who received no dose, being too far away. Some 68,000 survivors received a dose less than 100 milli-Sievert and these showed no evidence of extra cancers. Altogether, between 1950 and 2000 there were 10,127 deaths from solid cancers and 296 from leukaemia – 480 and 93, respectively, more than expected on the basis of data for those not irradiated. This number of extra deaths, 573, is significant, but less than half a percent of those who died from the blast and fire. Furthermore, it is only a third of the number of deaths reported as caused by the unnecessary and ill-judged evacuation at Fukushima Daiichi[14], an accident in which nobody died from radiation, or is likely to. Evidently, the fear of radiation can be far more life-threatening than its actual effect, even as recorded in the bombing of two large cities. This conclusion in no way belittles the enormous loss of life from the blast and fire of a nuclear explosion with its localised range and limited duration.

    The medical history of 87,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with their children, have been followed since 1950.

    Professor Wade Allison

    But it is important to check that all available evidence corroborates this conclusion. How are other biological risks checked? A new vaccine is checked with blind tests in which patients are unaware of whether they have been treated or been given a placebo. In similar studies with radiation on groups of animals[15], one is irradiated every day throughout life and the other not. Those irradiated daily show a threshold of about 2 milli-Sievert per day for additional cancer death or other life shortening disease, similar to the threshold set in 1934. In fact doses below threshold increase life expectancy and the same is found for humans[16].

    At Chernobyl 28 fire fighters died of acute radiation syndrome in a short time[17], 27 from doses above 4000 milli-Sievert and 1 from a dose between 2000 and 4000 milli-Sievert. There were 15 deaths from thyroid cancer (but opinion is divided on these). Other cases of ill health were related to severe social and mental disturbance. Being told “you have been irradiated and are being evacuated immediately” is disorientating. Like Voodoo or a mediaeval curse, it can be life-threatening. Notably, the wild animals in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone are thriving, as seen on wildlife programmes[19, 20] – but then they have not been shown videos on the horrors of radiation!

    An important question is how human society has persisted with such a gross misperception for seventy years. Entertainment, courage and excitement are important emotional exercises that prepare us to face real dangers, although there is a need to distinguish fact from fiction. The Placebo Effect describes the genuine health benefits found by patients who think they have been treated when they have not. The Nocebo Effect is its inverse[21], that is where people who have not been harmed, suffer real symptoms as if they had. In the aftermath of the Fukushima accident families endured terrible suffering including family break up and alcoholism – as a direct consequence of regulations based on ALARA and LNT. If the regulations had been based on the 1934 threshold, no evacuation longer than a week would have been justified[22].

    The nuclear option for generations to come

    Evidently, committees that advocate regulation based on ALARA/LNT are harmful and should be disbanded. Future generations should be free to make informed decisions involving nuclear energy, in peace or war, unencumbered by the erroneous legacy of the 1950s.

    Evidently, committees that advocate regulation based on ALARA/LNT are harmful and should be disbanded.

    Professor Wade Allison

    In years to come, when reference is made to the “nuclear option” in other contexts, we may hope that it will be shorthand for “the best solution”. In medicine this is nearly true now. During a course of radiotherapy the healthy tissue close to a tumour receives a high dose – about 1000 milli-Gray, every weekday for several weeks. By spreading the treatment over many days, this healthy tissue just recovers, and radiologists ensure that this huge dose seldom causes a secondary cancer. This would be disastrous strategy according to LNT – in six weeks or so the equivalent of about 30,000 years at the precautionary dose limit of 1 milli-Sievert per year!

    Future generations should be free to make informed decisions involving nuclear energy, in peace or war, unencumbered by the erroneous legacy of the 1950s.

    Professor Wade Allison

    In future we should not allow ourselves to be blackmailed by fear of the radiation from a nuclear weapon. That may have terrified our parents, but we should ensure that our children understand that radiation is dangerous only in the immediate vicinity of a nuclear detonation where death is caused by the blast and fire. At school all teenagers should study natural science and understand how nuclear energy compares with other sources, for safety, availability, reliability, security and preservation of the environment[1]. Then they should go home and reassure their parents.

    In future we should not allow ourselves to be blackmailed by fear of the radiation from a nuclear weapon.

    Professor Wade Allison

    Professor Wade Allison, Oxford, United Kingdom, 20 September 2022

    Links and References

    1. Allison, W. Nature, Energy and Society (2020) https://www.mdpi.com/1784714 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339629356_Nature_Energy_and_Society_A_scientific_study_of_the_options_facing_civilisation_today
    2. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/fifty-years-hence.html
    3. Allison, W. Radiation and Reason, The Impact of Science on a Culture of Fear ISBN 978-0-9563756-1-5 (2009), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234037551_Radiation_and_Reason_The_Impact_of_Science_on_a_Culture_of_Fear
    4. Grammatikos PC, Pioneers of nuclear medicine, Madame Curie https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16868638/
    5. International Recommendations (1934) International Commission for Radiological Protection. https://www.icrp.org/images/1934.JPG
    6. Taylor LS, The Sievert Lecture 1980, health physics (1980) 39 851 https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=health+physics+1980+39+851&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
    7. McCarthyism and the Red Scare https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/age-of-eisenhower/mcarthyism-red-scare
    8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project
    9. Meyerson G, Siegel JA Epidemiology without Biology (2016) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-016-0244-4
    10. The History of the Linear No-Threshold Model, Health Physics Society (2022) http://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/index.html
    11. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2-4). https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20103
    12. National Research Council (1956). Effect of Exposure to the Atomic Bombs on Pregnancy Termination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18776 .
    13. Preston DL et al. Effect of recent changes in atomic bomb survivor dosimetry on cancer mortality risk estimates (2004) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15447045/
    14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties#UNSCEAR_Report
    15. Olipitz W et al, Integrated Molecular Analysis Indicates Undetectable Change in DNA Damage in Mice after Continuous Irradiation at ~ 400-fold Natural Background Radiation (2012) https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104294
    16. David E et al, Background radiation impacts human longevity and cancer mortality: reconsidering the linear no-threshold paradigm (2021) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10522-020-09909-4
    17. Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Health”, Health effects of the Chernobyl accident and special health care programmes, World Health Organisation (2006) https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241594179
    18. –
    19. BBC News, Science and Environment, Cameras reveal the secret lives of Chernobyl’s wildlife (2015) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32452085
    20. Discovery Channel, Chernobyl Life in the Dead Zone (2012) http://t.co/puM2rwyBMH
    21. Pincher, H. New Scientist (2009) https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081-100-the-science-of-voodoo-when-mind-attacks-body/
    22. Allison, W. BBC Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation (26 March 2011) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842
    23. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/find-an-expert/professor-wade-allison
    24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace
    25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxGSfOd1Dpc
    26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2syXBL8xG0
    27. https://amzn.to/3rGmgSG
    28. https://amzn.to/3EudS0h

    #Radiation #WadeAllison #ALARA #LinearNoThreshold #AtomsForPeace

  • Nuclear is the Only Answer to Our Energy Transition

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    Content by Wade Allison, professor of physics at Oxford University.

    This was first published in the New Statesman special supplement on Energy and Climate Change on 27 May 2022. Reproduced with permission from the author.

    Wade Allison
    Wade Allison is emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University and author of Radiation and Reason, and Nuclear is for Life.

    Finding sufficient energy is essential to all life. Humans have excelled at this, notably when they studied and overcame their innate fear of fire some 600,000 years ago. Until the Industrial Revolution they made do with energy derived, directly or indirectly, from the daily sunshine that drives waterpower, the wind and other manifestations including the production of vegetation and food. But, although better than for other creatures, human life was short and miserable for the population at large. The causes were the anemic strength of the Sun’s rays, averaging 340 watts per square meter, and its random interruption by unpredicted weather.

    Homo Sapiens Discovering Fire – 600000 years ago

    With fossil fuels, available energy increased, anywhere at any time. Life expectancy doubled and the world population quadrupled. For 200 years whoever had access to fossil fuels had world power. However, at the 2015 Paris Conference nations agreed that the emission of carbon posed an existential threat and that, sooner rather than later, this should cease.

    “The coal a man can get in a day can easily do 500 times as much work as the man himself. Nuclear energy is at least one million times more powerful still…”

    Sir Winston Churchill, 1931
    World Population Growth 1700-2100

    Technology may be challenging and exciting, but it cannot deliver energy where none exists, today as in pre-industrial times. Writing in 1867, Karl Marx dismissed wind power as “too inconstant and uncontrollable”. He saw waterpower as better, but “as the predominant [source of] power [it] was beset with difficulties”. Today, the vast size of hydro, wind and solar plants comparative to their power reflects their weakness and destructive impact on flora and fauna – a point often curiously ignored by environmentalists.

    Karl Marx – “Wind power is backwards”

    If renewables are simply inadequate and fossil fuel emissions only accelerate climate change further, what abundant primary energy source might permit political and economic stability for the next 200 years? Natural science can say without doubt, the only answer is nuclear.

    Nature – Energy and Society by Prof. Wade AllisonDownload

    In 1931, Winston Churchill wrote: “The coal a man can get in a day can easily do 500 times as much work as the man himself. Nuclear energy is at least one million times more powerful still… There is no question among scientists that this gigantic source of energy exists. What is lacking is the match to set the bonfire alight… The discovery and control of such sources of power would cause changes in human affairs incomparably greater than those produced by the steam-engine four generations ago.”

    Churchill and Trumann

    The History of the Linear No-Threshold Model

    He was right, but this transition requires adequate public education. In recovering from World War Two and its aftermath, the world lost confidence and demonised nuclear energy. This denial of an exceptional benefit to society has persisted for 70 years supported by bogus scientific claims around radiation and oil interests. But, aside from the blast of a nuclear explosion, nuclear energy and its radiation are safer than the combustion of fossil fuels, as confirmed by evidence from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Furthermore, nuclear applications in medicine pioneered by Marie Curie (such as the use of radiation to treat cancerous tumours) have been widely appreciated for 120 years.

    Abstract
    Among those who have made important discoveries in the field of radioactivity and thus helped in the development of nuclear medicine as an identical entity are: Heinrich Hertz who in 1886 demonstrated the existence of radiowaves. In 1895 Wilhelm Röntgen discovered the X-rays. In 1896 H. Becquerel described the phenomenon of radioactivity. He showed that a radioactive uranium salt was emitting radioactivity which passing through a metal foil darkened a photographic plate. An analogous experiment performed by S.Thomson in London was announced to the president of the Royal Society of London before the time H.Becquerel announced his discovery but Thomson never claimed priority for his discovery. Muarie Sklodowska Curie (1867-1934) was undoubtedly the most important person to attribute to the discovery of radioactivity. In 1898 she discovered radium as a natural radioactive element. This is how she describes the hard time she had, working with her husband Pierre Curie (1859-1906) for the discovery of radium and polonium: “During the first year we did not go to the theater or to a concert or visited friends. I miss my relatives, my father and my daughter that I see every morning and only for a little while. But I do not complain…”. In presenting her discovery of radium, Madame Curie said: ” …in the hands of a criminal, radium is very dangerous. So we must often ask ourselves: will humanity earn or lose from this discovery? I, myself belong to those who believe the former…”. The notebooks that Madame Curie had when she was working with radium and other radioactive elements like polonium, thorium and uranium are now kept in Paris. They are contaminated with radioactive materials having very long half-lives and for this reason anyone who wishes to have access to these notes should sign that he takes full responsibility. There are some more interesting points in Madame Curie’s life which may not be widely known like: Although her full name is Maria Sklodowska-Curie, she is not known neither by that full name nor as Maria Sklodowska but as Marie Curie. Madame Curie was the second of five children. At the age of 24 she went to Sorbonne-Paris after being invited by her sister Bronja to study for about 2-3 years; instead she stayed in Paris for her whole life. Her doctorate was on the subject: “Research on radioactive substances” which she completed in six years under the supervision of H. Becquerel. Pierre Curie was Director of the Physics Laboratory of the Ecole Municipale of Physics and Industrial Chemistry when he married M. Curie in 1895. Pierre Curie left his other research projects and worked full time with his wife. In this laboratory M. Curie and her husband Pierre discovered radium and polonium. In 1901 Pierre Curie induced a radiation burn on his forearm by applying on his skin radiferous barium chloride for 10 hours. During World War I, M.Curie organized for the Red Cross a fleet of radiological ambulances each with X-ray apparates which were called “Little Curies”. The X-ray tubes of these apparates were unshielded and so M.Curie was exposed to high doses of radiation. Once an ambulance fell into a ditch and M.Curie who was inside the ambulance was badly bruised and stayed at home for 3 days. M. Curie with her daughters, Irene and Eve, was invited and visited America in 1921. She led a successful campaign to collect radium for her experiments. Before leaving America, President Harding donated through her to the Radium Institute of Paris 1 g of radium for research purposes. At that time the process to obtain 0.5 g of pure radium bromide required 1 ton of ore and 5 tons of chemicals. No measures of radiation protection were taken back then. In 1929 Madame Curie visited the United States for a second time. She met with President Hoover and with the help of the Polish women’s association in America collected funds for another gram of radium. Madame Curie died of leukemia on July 4, 1934. Sixty years after her death her remnants were laid to rest under the dome of the Pantheon. Thus she became the first woman under her own merit, to rest in the Pantheon. In 1934 at the Institute of Radiology in Paris, Frederique Joliot and Irene Curie-Joliot discovered artificial radiation. They studied alpha particles and beta;-radiation.

    Pioneers of nuclear medicine, Madame Curie, Hell J Nuclear Medicine, 2004 Jan-Apr; 7(1):30-1

    Regulation around nuclear needs to be commensurate with actual risk, and it should be financed appropriately, with richer nations covering the costs for developing countries.

    Fully informed, everybody should welcome the security of small, mass-produced, cheap, local nuclear energy plants dedicated to serving modest-sized communities for 80 years with on-demand electricity, off-peak hydrogen, fertiliser, industrial heat, and seasonless farming.

    The only real challenges are in building a new generation with the relevant scientific knowledge and skills, and instilling public confidence.

    Professor Wade Allison, Oxford, United Kingdom.

    Professor Wade Allison is author of Radiation and Reason, and Nuclear is for Life.

    Nuclear is for Life by Prof. Wade Allison
    Nuclear is for Life by Prof. Wade Allison
    Radiation and Reason by Prof. Wade Allison
    Radiation and Reason by Prof. Wade Allison

    Links and References

    1. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/find-an-expert/professor-wade-allison
    2. https://www.newstatesman.com/
    3. https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/energy/2022/05/debate-nuclear-only-answer-energy-transition
    4. https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/use-fire-peking-man-goes-back-600000-years-chinese-scientists-020450
    5. https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
    6. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth-past-future
    7. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm#S4
    8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339629356_Nature_Energy_and_Society_A_scientific_study_of_the_options_facing_civilisation_today
    9. https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/fifty-years-hence.html
    10. https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/index.html
    11. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-12860842
    12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16868638/
    13. https://amzn.to/3rGmgSG
    14. https://amzn.to/3EudS0h

  • Safeguards for the Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor: A Preliminary Nuclear Material Control and Accounting Assessment – by Oak Ridge National Laboratories – Publication ORNL/TM/2022/2394

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    The most modern reproduction and replication of the work of the 1960’s undertaken by Flibe Energy Inc. is reviewed by Oak Ridge National Laboratories in a private public partnership. (ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle).

    Today we spotlight the most recent production from Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee, USA, (ORNL). The report is all about Molten Salt Fission Technology Powered by Thorium. This concise 54 page report is akin to the ORNL report produced 44 years ago in August 1978, entitled Molten-Salt Reactors Efficient Nuclear Fuel Utilization without Plutonium Separation and further extends the ORNL work reported in The Development Status of Molten Salt Breeder Reactors from August 1972. (It appears that August is the month of important reports by ORNL). This later behemoth 434 page report is the mother lode of information for all work done at ONRL regarding Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology powered by Thorium. Anyone looking at investing into this technology must make it a priority read – all of the work has been done before. The report can be found further below in this post.

    This most recent report on this technology has been produced by the authors, Dr. Richard L. Reed, Dr. Louise G. Evans and Donald N. Kovacic, B.Sc. All are senior scientists involved with Molten Salt Technology at ORNL.

    Before we discuss the report, first we’ll discuss why it’s important to define new terminology for nuclear energy sector.

    For generations massive amounts of negative press and target funding has branded the word nuclear as simply bad. And let’s face it. Nuclear Physics is complicated, and so conversations get complicated pretty quickly too. Let’s just look at the elements we can play with.

    Periodic Table

    Out of 118 elements in the Periodic Table, 80 are stable having 339 isotopes, leaving 38 elements – those heavier than lead – as unstable. These 38 elements have over 3,000 possible isotope existent states. Hence thousands of unstable isotopes, lead to 10’s of thousands of combinations of decay, neutron absorption, and possible fission events, from neutrons both fast – high energy particles, and thermal – low energy particles, and then hundreds of other non responsive isotopes of non responsive elements that exhibit different behaviours over time and distance. For example water is better for absorbing fast neutrons and lead is better for thermal neutrons. Boron-10 absorbs neutrons, whilst boron-11 does not. Neutrons bounce off, are reflected by graphite, beryllium, steel, tungsten carbide, and gold (There are more too). OK, so the picture is clear – fission energy gets complicated very quickly.

    DOE Explains…Isotopes

    Shielding Neutrons with Different Materials

    Remember too, that this all started in a race to build nuclear weapons – not to make energy. Weapons should all be dismantled and destroyed. USA and UK should follow in the footsteps of South Africa who dismantled their last bomb in 1989. Today the USA and UK combined have enough firepower to destroy humanity entirely 150 times over. We are thankful that Molten Salt technology was pursued with such vigor precisely because it cannot make weapons. It only makes energy.

    The Thorium fuel cycle is “intrinsically proliferation-resistant”

    The International Atomic Energy Agency, 2005

    Thorium fuel cycle — Potential benefits and challenges IAEA, May 2005

    IAEA Tecdoc 1450 Thorium Fuel Cycle May 2005Download

    Hans Blix, former head of IAEA explaining why Thorium, and Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology doesn’t even need to be addressed by the IAEA.

    Former head of IAEA, Hans Blix, discussing why Thorium is superior

    Why South Africa Dismantled Its Nuclear Weapons

    by Evelyn Andrespok, March 2010
    South African Nuclear Bomb Casings
    Why South Africa Dismantled its Nuclear Weapons Evelyn Andrespok March 2010Download
    Bomb Delivery – English Electric Canberra South African Air Force in Angola

    We are also thankful that nuclear weapons are now illegal (why did THAT take so long?)

    Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

    So back to the nomenclature.

    We call it Fission, not nuclear.

    We call them Machines, not reactors. (By the way, there’s no reactions going on, and indeed in the core region fuel is “burned” according to the physics text books. In Fission, atoms are split, so “splitter” is the correct term!)

    We say Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology – MSFT. Not anything else. Calling it LFTR ties the technology to a specific fluid-fuel type. Even the company FLIBE are considering changing the Beryllium metal to Sodium metal (the BE means Beryllium in their company’s name).

    And Fission – Nuclear Energy – is effectively Carbon Free. Even Bill Gates knows this.

    Bill Gates getting into Molten Salt [Archive]

    Bill Gates going Nuclear

    The latest ORNL report is excellent at defining the challenges already identified 50 years ago. The net result is that ORNL have made recommendations to modify the Flibe design thus eliminating any chance of weapons production from Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology powered by Thorium.

    Some of these recommendations are:

    • Use multiple, smaller decay vessels for salt distribution for emergency shutdown events.
    • Install stringent material monitoring systems with tamper evident features for fuel processing.
    • Use batch fuel processing and not continuous for better inventory controls.
    • Recombine fuel elements to increase gamma activity of the fuel processing cycle.
    • Allow U232 production to increase hence increasing the self protection mechanism.
    • Eliminate the decay fluorinator entirely by allowing protactinium to decay in the fuel salt.
    • Remove physical access to the UF6 stream by have vessels immediately adjacent to each other.

    These, and other recommendations, effectively define Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium as proliferation proof.

    You can see the full report here:

    Oak Ridge Report on Flibe LFTR ORNL-TM-2022-2394-175487-August 2022Download

    The latest ORNL report must be read in conjunction with a 1978 report, also by ORNL staff – and also released in the month of August – where proliferation concerns of the earlier designs where addressed. In that report the authors J. R. Engel, W. R. Grimes, W. A. Rhoades and J. F. Dearing allowed the build up of U232 to create self protection whilst still maintaining machine performance – “denatured”, as they called it.

    Here is that report, Technical Memorandum TM 6413, from August 1978:

    ORNL TM 6413 August 1978 Molten-Salt Reactors for Efficient Nuclear Fuel Utilization Without Plutonium Separation

    ORNL TM6413 Aug 1978 Molten-Salt Reactors for Efficient Nuclear Fuel Utilization Without Plutonium Separation Download

    Here’s one of the authors of that report – John Richard “Dick” Engel – shortly before his passing in 2017.

    Dick Engel & Syd Ball – ORNL Molten Salt Reactor Engineer Interview shot for THORIUM REMIX

    The following documents should also be read together with ORNL report 2022/2394 to ensure full understanding:

    ORNL TM 3708 1964 Molten Salt Reactor Program Semiannual Progress Report for Period Ending July 31, 1964

    This report summarized the work leading up to the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, that ran from 1965 to 1969 – the “most boring experiment ever. It did everything we expected it to do.”, said by Dr. Sydney Ball.

    ORNL-3708-1964-Molten Salt Reactor Program Semiannual Progress Report for Period Ending July 31, 1964Download
    The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment

    ORNL TM 4658 1972 Chemical Aspects of MSRE Operations

    This report debunks corrosion myths surrounding Molten Salt Technology.

    ORNL 4658 1972 Chemical Aspects of MSRE OperationsDownload

    ORNL TM 4812 August 1972 Development Status of Molten-Salt Breeder Reactors

    This is the report that ended in the program being shut down. The USD 1 billion funding request was too obvious to ignore and many people realised what impact this would have on existing business interests in energy.

    ORNL 4812 1972 Development Status of Molten-Salt Breeder ReactorsDownload

    Why MSRS Abandoned ORNL Weinberg’s Firing by Bruce Hoglund

    A concise summary of the facts behind the closure of the Molten Salt Program at Oak Ridge.

    Why MSRS Abandoned ORNL Weinbergs Firing by Bruce HoglundDownload

    Here is the 2015 assessment report referenced in ORNL report 2022/2394.

    Electric Power Research Institute – Program on Technology Innovation: Technology Assessment of a Molten Salt Reactor Design – The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)

    Program on Technology Innovation Technology Assessment of a Molten Salt Reactor Design – The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor – LFTRDownload

    Electric Power Research Institute Report Abstract

    EPRI collaborated with Southern Company on an independent technology assessment of an innovative molten salt reactor (MSR) design—the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR)—as a potentially transformational technology for meeting future energy needs in the face of uncertain market, policy, and regulatory constraints. The LFTR is a liquid-fueled, graphite-moderated thermal spectrum breeder reactor optimized for operation on a Th-233U fuel cycle. The LFTR design considered in this work draws heavily from the 1960s-era Molten Salt Reactor Experiment and subsequent design work on a similar two-fluid molten salt breeder reactor design. Enhanced safety characteristics, increased natural resource utilization, and high operating temperatures, among other features, offer utilities and other potential owners/operators access to new products, markets, applications, and modes of operation. The LFTR represents a dramatic departure from today’s dominant and proven commercial light water reactor technology. Accordingly, the innovative and commercially unproven nature of MSRs, as with many other advanced reactor concepts, presents significant challenges and risks in terms of financing, licensing, construction, operation, and maintenance.

    This technology assessment comprises three principal activities based on adaptation of standardized methods and guidelines: 1) rendering of preliminary LFTR design information into a standardized system design description format; 2) performance of a preliminary process hazards analysis; and 3) determination of technology readiness levels for key systems and components. The results of the assessment provide value for a number of stakeholders. For utility or other technology customers, the study presents structured information on the LFTR design status that can directly inform a broader technology feasibility assessment in terms of safety and technology maturity. For the developer, the assessment can focus and drive further design development and documentation and establish a baseline for the technological maturity of key MSR systems and components. For EPRI, the study offers an opportunity to exercise and further develop advanced nuclear technology assessment tools and expertise through application to a specific reactor design.

    The early design stage of the LFTR concept indicates the need for significant investment in further development and demonstration of novel systems and components. The application of technology assessment tools early in reactor system design can provide real value and facilitate advancement by identifying important knowledge and design performance gaps at a stage when changes can be incorporated with the least impact to cost, schedule, and licensing.

    Thorium Reactor Graphic by PopSci

    Finally, a reminder. Why all the fuss about Thorium Molten Salt anyway? What did those giants of nuclear energy see starting way back in 1947 that we don’t see today? It’s because of this chart by ANSTO of Australia. It’s a little known – public – secret, that Australia, part of the Generation IV Forum, but ironically staunchly anti nuclear, is also one of the strongest countries in technology development for Molten Salt Fission Energy powered by Thorium.

    ANSTO Energy Density
    ANSTO Energy Density (LWR = Solid Fission; MSR = Molten Salt Fission)

    We hoped you enjoyed this article, produced free for all advocates and students of Molten Salt Fission Energy powered by Thorium. If you like this work and want to see more, please support this work by going to our contributions page, where you can then find our Patreon account.

    Links and References

    1. https://www.ornl.gov/
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UT%E2%80%93Battelle
    3. https://flibe-energy.com/
    4. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-elements-are-there.html
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope
    6. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5289038-molten-salt-reactors-efficient-nuclear-fuel-utilization-without-plutonium-separation
    7. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5688579-molten-salt-reactors-efficient-nuclear-fuel-utilization-without-plutonium-separation
    8. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1033578/
    9. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4099994-status-us-program-development-molten-salt-breeder-reactor
    10. https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-reed-98769430/
    11. https://www.linkedin.com/in/louisegevans/
    12. https://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-kovacic-7b468a6/
    13. https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/neutron/shielding-neutron-radiation/
    14. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-elements-are-there.html
    15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons
    16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
    17. https://wp.towson.edu/iajournal/articles/2010-2019/fall-2010-issue/why-south-africa-dismantled-its-nuclear-weapons/
    18. https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1450_web.pdf
    19. https://splash247.com/bill-gates-joins-nuclear-powered-shipping-push/
    20. https://www.epri.com/
    21. https://www.southerncompany.com/
    22. https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002005460
    23. https://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2011/11/04/thorium-fueled-nuclear-plant-to-be-built/
    24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o
    25. https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/knoxnews/name/john-engel-obituary?id=16904544
    26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yO0Qk-_Gms
    27. https://www.linkedin.com/in/bruce-hoglund-52194814/
    28. https://www.ansto.gov.au/our-science/nuclear-technologies/reactor-systems/advanced-reactors/evolution-of-molten-salt
    29. https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years/
    30. https://www.gen-4.org/

    #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GotThorium #ORNL #OakRidge #MSRE #MoltenSaltFissionEnergy #Thorium

  • Episode 30 – Longevity and Reliability – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 9 Part 7

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    Number 5 – Longevity and Reliability

    Because 33% efficient windmills only have 20-year lifespans, they must be rebuilt two times after initial construction to match the 60-year lifespan of 90% efficient nuclear power plants.

    Here’s what an anonymous wind technician from North Dakota said about the usefulness of windmills:”Yeah, we all want to think we’re making a difference, but we know it’s bullshit. If it’s too windy,  they run like sh , if it’s too hot, they run like sh , too cold, they run like sh . I just checked the forecast, and it’s supposed to be calm this weekend so hopefully not very many will break down, but hell man, they break even when they aren’t running. I’ve given up on the idea that what I’m doing makes a difference in the big picture. Wind just isn’t good enough.”

    If it’s too windy,  they run like sh , if it’s too hot, they run like sh , too cold, they run like sh .

    Wind Technician, North Dakota
    Former London banker Alexander Pohl worked for years for one of the world’s greenest banks. Idealistically driven he financed big wind and solar farms genuinely convinced he was making the world a better place. Together with film maker Marijn Poels created this mind blowing documentary, Headwind “21
    Headwind 21 Press Release 18 September 2021Download
    Headwind”21

    Number 6 – Resources and Materials

    Organizations like the Sierra Club wear blinders that exclude wind’s defects, and when I or my associates offer presentations on the safety records and costs of the various forms of power generation, including nuclear, we rarely get a reply, and my Minnesota chapter provides a case in point.

    Because of those blinders, they apparently don’t know that It will take 9,500 1-MW windmills running their entire life spans to equal the life-cycle output of just one average nuclear plant. Perhaps they don’t realize that those windmills, which last just 20 years, require far more steel and concrete than just one nuclear plant with a lifespan of at least 60 years.

    As a result, the carbon footprint of inefficient windmills is much larger than that of a 90% efficient nuclear power plant.

    Offshore Wind Requires 63,000lbs Of Copper Per Turbine, by Irina Slav 17 May 2021

    For videos of storm-fragile windmills that were stripped of their blades by Caribbean hurricanes in 2017, please see these

    22 September 2017 – Puerto Rico – Wind – Solar – Cellular Structures Destroyed

    The German electric power company Energieerzeugungswerke Helgoland GmbH shut down and dismantled their Helgoland Island wind power plant after being denied insurance against further lightning losses. They had been in operation three years and suffered more than $540,000 (USD) in lightning-related damage.

    Nick Gromicko

    “The material in five, 2 MW windmills (10 MW total) could build a complete 1 GW nuclear power plant that will generate ~100x the power, on 1/1000 the acreage, with no threat to species or climate.”

    Dr. Alex Cannara

    Wind Turbines and Lightning, by Nick Gromicko

    Wind Power: Our Least Sustainable Resource? By Craig Rucker 25 October 2016

    Furthermore, the wind industry doesn’t know what to do with these 170-foot, 22,000-pound, fiberglass blades that last just 20 years and are so difficult to recycle that many facilities won’t take them.

    Wind energy’s big disposal problem

    Unfurling The Waste Problem Caused By Wind Energy

    Germany has more than 28,000 wind turbines — but many are old and by 2023 more than a third must be decommissioned. Disposing of them is a huge environmental problem.

    DW.com

    A 1-GW windfarm needs 1300 tons of new blades per year, and because they cost USD100k each, that’s USD200 million every 18 years, or USD33.6 million per year per gigawatt created just for the blades – all this for a fraud that primarily relies on carbon-burning generators to supply the majority of their rated power that they don’t supply.

    Those who guide the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, etc., should know that windmills require magnets made from neodymium, which comes primarily from China, where mining and refining the ore has created immense toxic dumps and lakes that are causing skin and respiratory diseases, cancer and osteoporosis. If they know this, why are they silent? If they don’t, they should.

    A visit to the artificial lake in Baotou in Inner Mongolia – the dumping ground for radioactive, toxic waste from the city’s rare earth mineral refineries. The byproduct of creating materials used to do everything from make magnets for wind turbines to polishing iPhones to make them nice and shiny.

    The dystopian lake filled by the world’s tech lust, By Tim Maughan 2 April 2015

    Please research “Lake Baotou, China”.

    Baotou Lake, Mongolia: The Toxic side of Cleantech, by Brendan Palmer 21 September 2015

    According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, “a two- megawatt windmill contains about 800 pounds [360 kg] of neodymium and 130 pounds [60 kg] of dysprosium.”

    The myth of renewable energy, by Dawn Stover 22 November 2011

    Unlike windmill generators, ground-based generators use electromagnets, which are much heavier than permanent magnets, but do not contain rare-earth elements.

    Here’s the problem: Accessing just those two elements produces tons of arsenic and other dangerous chemicals. And because the U.S. added about 13,000 MW of wind generating capacity in 2012, that means that some 5.5 million pounds [2.5 million kg] of rare earths were refined just for windmills, which created 2,800 tons of toxic waste, and it’s worse now.

    For perspective, our nuclear industry, which creates 20% of our electricity, produces only about 2.35 tons of spent nuclear fuel (commonly called “waste”), per year, which they strictly contain, but the wind industry, while creating just 3.5% of our electricity, is making much more radioactive waste where rare- earths are being mined and processed – and its disposal is virtually unrestricted.

    Windmills also use 80 gallons [300 litres] of synthetic oil per year, and because there are at least 60,000 US windmills, this means that the windmill industry requires 500,000 gallons [1.9 million litres] per year plus even more crude oil from which synthetics are derived.

    Get me a mask!

    Wind Turbines Generate Mountains of Waste, by Carol Miller, 3 October 2020

    We know that it takes several thousand windmills to equal the output of one run-of-the-mill nuclear reactor, but to be more precise, let’s tally up all of the materials that will be needed to replace the closed Vermont Yankee nuclear plant with renewables.

    Dr. Tim Maloney has done just that, writing, “Here are numbers for wind and solar replacement of Vermont Yankee.

    Let’s assume a 50/50 split between wind and solar, and for the solar a 50/50 split of photovoltaic (PV) and CSP concentrated solar power, which uses mirrors.

    1. Amount of steel required to build wind and solar;
    2. Concrete requirement;
    3. CO2 emitted in making the steel and concrete;
    4. Money spent;
    5. Land taken out of crop production or habitat.

    To replace Vermont Yankee’s 620 MW, we will need 310 MW (average) for wind, 155 MW (average) for PV solar, and 155 MW (average) for CSP… Using solar and wind would require:

    • Steel: 450,000 tons. That’s 0.6% of our U.S. total annual production, just to replace one smallish plant.
    • Concrete: 1.4 million tons; 0.2% of our production/yr.
    • CO2 emitted: 2.5 million tons
    • Cost: about 12 Billion dollars
    • Land: 73 square miles, which is larger than Washington DC, just to replace one small nuclear plant with solar/wind….

    Offshore windmills use up to 8 tons of copper per mW.

    The Nuclear Alternative

    a.) Replace Vermont Yankee with a Westinghouse /Toshiba model AP1000 that produces 1070 MW baseload, about 2 x the output of Yankee.

    Normalizing 1070 MW to Vermont Yankee’s 620 MW, the AP1000 uses:

    • Steel: 5800 tons – 1 % as much as wind and solar.
    • Concrete: 93,000 tons – about 7% as much.
    • CO2 emitted: 115,000 tons [from making the concrete and steel] – about 5% as much.
    • Cost: We won’t know until the Chinese finish their units. But it should be less than our “levelized” cost. [Perhaps $4-5 billion]
    • Land: The AP1000 reactor needs less than ¼ square mile for the plant site. Smaller than CSP by a factor of 2000. Smaller than PV by a factor of 4,000. Smaller than wind by 13,000.

    b.) Better yet, we could get on the Thorium energy bandwagon. Thorium units will beat even the new AP1000 by wide margins in all 5 aspects – steel, concrete, CO2, dollar cost, and land.“

    Nuclear Power Versus Renewable Energy by Richard Matthews, 20 July 2022

    Ten, 3 MW wind generators’ use as much raw material as a 1-Gigawatt nuclear plant (Think of their carbon footprints.)

    PV electricity generation requires 10,000 pounds of copper per megawatt. Wind needs 6,000, but highly efficient, CO2-free nuclear power needs only 175, which provides a huge financial saving and the smallest impact on the environment.

    Full energy chain CO2 equivalent emissions – Markandya and Wilkinson

    This was the last episode in our series Unintended Consequences. It’s been a wonderful experience and thanks to everyone in our team. Everyone has done a tremendous effort to put it all together. 30 weeks has gone by too fast.

    A special warm thanks goes out to Dr. George Erickson for creating all of this wonderful material in the first place.

    Thank you Dr. Erickson.

    Stay tuned for the next series where we promote key, factual information relevant to a world focused on producing clean, green, safe energy from Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium.

    Links and References

    1. Previous Episode – Episode 29 – Methane Blows Up Wind’s Gains
    2. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
    3. Dr. George Erickson on LinkedIn
    4. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
    5. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
    6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RgyLDVlAg4
    7. https://www.marijnpoels.com/headwind
    8. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Offshore-Wind-Requires-63000lbs-Of-Copper-Per-Turbine.html
    9. https://www.linkedin.com/in/irina-slav-a2569293/
    10. https://www.nachi.org/wind-turbines-lightning.htm
    11. https://www.masterresource.org/windpower-problems/wind-power-least-sustainable-resource/
    12. https://www.dw.com/en/wind-energys-big-disposal-problem/a-44665439
    13. Unfurling The Waste Problem Caused By Wind Energy
    14. Baotou toxic lake
    15. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth
    16. https://www.linkedin.com/in/britishjournalistjapan/
    17. The myth of renewable energy
    18. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/baotou-lake-mongolia-toxic-side-cleantech-palmer-mba-ba-law-mciwm/
    19. https://www.citizensjournal.us/wind-turbines-generate-mountains-of-waste/
    20. https://thegreenmarketoracle.com/2022/07/20/nuclear-power-versus-renewable-energy/
    21. https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext
    22. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/the-nuclear-sell-why-one-swedish-town-welcomes-a-waste-dump-a-763081.html

    #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #WindTurbines #Solar #RareEarthWastes

  • Episode 29 – Methane Blows Up Winds Gains – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 9 Part 6

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    In their excellent Wind and Solar’s Achilles Heel: The Methane Meltdown at Porter Ranch, Mike Conley and Tim Maloney reported:

    “Even a tiny methane leak can make a gas-backed wind or solar farm just as bad – or worse – than a coal plant when it comes to global warming. And the leaks don’t just come from operating wells. They can happen anywhere in the infrastructure… In the U.S., these fugitive methane leaks can range up to 9%.

    “If the fugitive methane rate of the infrastructure… exceeds 3.8 %, then you might as well burn coal for all the “good” it’ll do you. All in all, the numbers are pathetic – some of the most recent measurements of fugitive methane in the U.S. are up to 10%. But the gas industry predictably reports a low 1.6%.”

    Emissions from the latest natural gas-fired turbine technologies. Tests include PM2.5, wet chemical tests for SO2/SO3 & NH3, and ultrafine PM. Strong presence of high concentrations of nanoparticles. Two orders of magnitude higher turbine particle emissions than background.

    PM2.5 and ultrafine particulate matter emissions from natural gas-fired turbine for power generation

    Eli Brewera Yang Lia Bob Finkenb Greg Quartucyc Lawrence Muzioc Al Baezd Mike Garibayd Heejung S. Junga


    a University of California Riverside (UCR), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
    b Delta Air Quality Services, Inc., 1845 North Case Street, Orange, CA 92865, USA
    c Fossil Energy Research Corporation (FERCo), 23342-C South Pointe Dr., Laguna Hills, CA 92653, USA
    d South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765, USA

    The sediments in many of the world’s shallow oceans and lakes also release vast amounts of methane from frozen organic matter as it thaws and decomposes. When a Russian scientist searched the Arctic shores for methane, he found hundreds of yard-wide craters, but when he returned a few years later, they were 100 yards in diameter.

    Massive Craters From Methane Explosions Discovered in Arctic Ocean Where Ice Melted

    In 2014, N. Nadir, of the Energy Collective wrote, “The   most   serious   environmental   problem  that renewable energy has is that even if it reached 50% capacity somewhere, this huge waste of money and resources would still be dependent on natural gas, which any serious environmentalist with a long-term view sees as disastrous.

    “Natural gas is not safe – even if we ignore the frequent news when a gas line blows up, killing people. It is not clean, since there is no place to dump its CO2; it is not sustainable; and the practice of mining it – fracking – is a crime against all future generations who will need to live with shattered, metal-leaching rock beneath their feet, and huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    Britain to impose immediate moratorium on fracking

    “If politicos impose a carbon-tax, a methane-leakage tax, etc., utilities will build nuclear plants as fast as they can.”

    Dr. Alex Cannara

    Burning just 1 gallon of gasoline creates about 170 cubic feet of CO2.

    Tim Maloney of the Thorium Energy Alliance argues that we should be conserving natural gas because methane is the primary feed stock for ammonia, and ammonia is used to produce nitrogen-based fertilizers, a shortage of which could cause starvation. In addition, closing nuclear plants and expanding “renewables” that require natural gas will substantially increase CO2 and methane emissions.

    From THINKPROGRESS, Nov. 2017, “A shocking new study concludes that the methane emissions escaping from New Mexico’s gas and oil industry are equivalent to the climate impact of approximately 12 coal-fired power plants.”

    Natural gas has no climate benefit and may make things worse. Methane leaks in New Mexico’s oil and gas industry equal 12 coal-fired power plants.

    Joe Romm 13 November 2017
    Oil and Gas Methane Emissions in New MexicoDownload

    Who will clean up the ‘billion-dollar mess’ of abandoned US oil wells?

    Heather Hansman 25 February 2021

    As oil companies go bankrupt, who will clean up the ‘billion-dollar mess’ of abandoned, methane-leaking oil wells?

    https://twitter.com/LeoHickman/status/1512082172491943953

    Coming up next week, Episode 30 – Longevity and Reliability

    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 30 – Longevity and Reliability
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 28 – Cow Farts – Methane is a Natural Gas
    3. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
    4. Dr. George Erickson on LinkedIn
    5. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
    6. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
    7. https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-conley-5529b3/
    8. https://www.linkedin.com/in/timothy-maloney-40833844/
    9. https://www.newsweek.com/hundreds-craters-methane-explosions-seafloor-arctic-norway-russia-619068
    10. https://thehill.com/policy/international/468662-britain-to-impose-immediate-moratorium-on-fracking/
    11. https://thinkprogress.org/natural-gas-no-climate-benefit-b9118a087875/
    12. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/25/us-abandoned-oil-wells-leak-methane-climate-crisis
    13. https://twitter.com/LeoHickman/status/1512082172491943953

    #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #Methane #NaturalGas #Fracking

  • A Crib Sheet for Journalists and Students of Thorium

    A Crib Sheet for Journalists and Students of Thorium

    Authored by Jeremiah Josey 23 July 2022

    Are you a journalist – or a student – looking for the inside on Liquid Fission Thorium? Unlimited energy. Secure. Reliable. Well this page is for you.

    We’ve been asked many times for a summary of resources or key people to speak with.

    Are we biased? Of course we are. Read on and you’ll know why. You’ll probably want to Join Us too.

    A Future Powered by Thorium is our objective. We are leveraging the billions of USD in today’s value and millions of hours invested over 50 years ago in a technology that is demonstrably superior to anything else we have today. China knows this very well and is now leading the world in it’s re-deployment.

    Here’s a summary of that work from Oak Ridge National Laboratories:

    The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment from 1969

    We have this YouTube and other useful 3rd party links on our website here:

    The Thorium Knowledge Base

    See this chart of energy density from an Australian government website. Everything else pales into insignificance when compared to Liquid Fission Thorium Burners. Some people like to call them MSR Molten Salt Reactors. We just call them LFTBs.

    ANSTO Energy Density Bar Chart
    ANSTO Energy Density Bar Chart

    Here’s a recent article from Germany we translated into Japanese. It contains a lot of information on China’s progress also. China is replicating the 1960’s USA program, publicly announcing in 2011 investing USD 3,3 billion and 700 engineers for the work. This is not about reinventing the wheel, it’s just remembering what we’ve done before to bring LFTBs back to life. Remember also China and Australia worked together to create a replacement for the super alloy metal “Hastelloy”. The original super metal was created in the 1950’s in the USA for their advanced nuclear programs and is only made today by two companies in the world – one in the USA and Mitsubishi. Now China, supported by Australia, has an alternative.

    「パーフェクトテクノロジー」-バイリンガル記事-日本語/英語 – “The Perfect Technology” – a Bilingual Article – Japanese & English

    The article also includes information on Japan’s LFTB project –  FUJI.

    Here’s a list of must-do-interviews for background on Liquid Fission Thorium Energy, LFTBs or subjects related, such as radiation safety, the effects of Chernobyl and Linear No Threshold theory.

    Professor Geraldine Thomas
    Director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, the world’s preeminent knowledge base for all things related to the real effects of that industrial accident. Prof. Thomas is became staunchly pro-nuclear due to her directorship. George Monbiot – a former Greenpeace anti-nuc activist, and now no longer in Greenpeace and strongly pro nuclear – after an interview he also had with Prof Thomas he had as a writer for the UK’s Guardian. 

    Geraldine Thomas

    George Monbiot on Wikipedia

    Geraldine Thomas on Wikipedia

    Chernobyl Tissue Bank

    Mr. Daniel Roderick
    Former President and CEO of Westinghouse and then Toshiba Energy Systems. Danny steered the sale of  Westinghouse for Toshiba, securing a positive, multi billion USD outcome for Japan. Danny was also the leader of negotiations to secure USD 50 billion in funding for a new nuclear build in Türkiye (derailed by the 2016 attempted coup in Türkiye). Mitsubishi subsequently submitted (and withdrew)  a nuclear build in Sinop, Northern Türkiye. Rosatom (Russia) is now building a nuclear power station in Akkuyu, southern Türkiye.

    Daniel Roderick

    Dr. Adi Paterson
    Dr. Paterson is the former head of ANSTO and an advocate of Liquid Fission Thorium Energy Technology. During his 9 year tenure at ANSTO, Dr. Paterson steered Australia to membership of the Generation IV forum, kind of the United Nationals for advanced fission designs and includes LFTBs. This is no mean feat given Australia’s lack of much to do with nuclear energy. 

    Generation IV Forum

    Adi Paterson

    Dr. Resat Uzman
    Director of nuclear energy systems at Figes AS, of Türkiye. Dr. Uzman has more than 40 years experience in all things nuclear, Türkiye and rare earths – the materials where Thorium is often found bound with.

    Interview #3, Dr. Reşat Uzmen, Nuclear Technology Director of FİGES. Part of the Thorium Student Guild Interview Series, “Leading to Nuclear”
    Nukleer Enerji Seminer 3 Dr. Resat Uzmen
    Dr. Resat Uzmen

    Professor Berrin Erbay
    Senior lecturer and former dean of mechanical engineering at Osmangazi University, Türkiye Prof. Erbay has been liaising with the professors in Japan for several decades. You can see one of her presentations on the status of Liquid Fission Technology and LFTBs in Japan here on Youtube: 

    Berrin Erbay
    4. Nesil Nükleer Reaktör Teknolojileri Toplantısı

    Mr. Phumzile Tshelane
    Mr. Tshelane is a former CEO of NECSA South Africa, now holds various directorships across a wide range of industrial sectors. His position as head of a state owned nuclear technology development company gives him a particular view point on commercialisation of nuclear energy technologies, especially LFTBs.

    Mr. Phumzile Tshelane
    S3E6 Africa4Nuclear: The Story of Thorium

    Ms. Rana Önem
    Former president of the Thorium Student Guild. You should hear from someone discovered the benefits of Liquid Fission Thorium and LFTBs when studying their nuclear engineering degree. You can see Rana interviewing Dr. Uzman here. Follow the links at the end of the article to see her role as president of the Guild: 

    Interview #3, Dr. Reşat Uzmen, Nuclear Technology Director of FİGES. Part of the Thorium Student Guild Interview Series, “Leading to Nuclear”
    President – Ms. Rana Önem, Eng
    Fmr. President – Ms. Rana Önem, Eng
    Student Guild

    An important subject to cover is linear no threshold theory – a fraudulent model of radiation management that, unfortunately, has spawned an industry of radiation protection and radiation safety keen on maintaining its own survival. This results in massive, unnecessary overspending on nuclear builds. Professor Edward Calabrese is a leading expert on this subject and you can watch a series of interviews with Ed here: 

    The History of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Model Episode Guide

    Together with Professor Jerry Cuttler, Ed presents clearly, laying out how LNT has demonstrably been proven false. (And consequently those that died at Fukushima died unnecessarily, as a direct result of inappropriately applying that theory).

    What would become of nuclear risk if governments changed their regulations to recognize the evidence of radiation’s beneficial health effects for exposures that are below the thresholds for detrimental effects?

    Here’s the background on the Türkiye Japan University (TJU). Our founder, Jeremiah Josey, met with the Japanese Ambassador to Türkiye in 2021 and confirmed Japanese support for technology development of Liquid Fission and LFTBs is easier should such work be included in the curriculum of the TJU. Early planning stages of the TJU can be seen here below. The vice president of TJU is a senior professor at the Tokyo University responsible for nuclear engineering.

    The “only” obstacle to adoption of Liquid Fission Thorium and LFTB technology is the incumbent energy industries, coal, oil and gas. It’s a significant obstacle, and it would be naive to think otherwise. Operating much like the tobacco industry has done in the past, lobbyists and funding at all levels occurs to stymie any potential competitors.

    It is predicted that the 7 Trillion USD per year fossil fuel energy market would shrink to a few hundred billion USD per year with a society powered by Liquid Fission Thorium and LFTBs. This is an obvious disincentive for incumbents to do anything but to obfuscate and delay. For the true scale of these numbers, that means that a world powered by Liquid Fission Thorium energy would require only one ship like the one below to carry ALL WORLD’s Energy for ONE year.

    100,00 DWT Bulk Carrier Cape Ace

    You can see that obfuscation at work here with both Wired and the Bulletin in 2019 on USA presidential candidate Andrew Yang:

    Fact-check: Five claims about thorium made by Andrew Yang – Bulletin

    Andrew Yang Wants a Thorium Reactor by 2027. Good Luck, Buddy – Wired

    The half truths and lies are difficult, if not impossible, for the layperson to identify. We contacted one of Andrew’s advisory team members and confirmed Andrew supports Liquid Fission Thorium, and was committing several billion USD to have USA’s energy footprint 100% on the technology by 2030. Technically very doable. Politically, not.

    It is important to recognise the ecological and economic footprint of energy from Thorium (a substance as common as lead) as being much smaller than even uranium. In the article link above (the Japanese translation one) there are three slides that demonstrate the significant benefits Thorium has over uranium.  These slides are repeated below.

    Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 1 of 3
    Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 1 of 3
    Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 2 of 3
    Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 2 of 3
    Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 3 of 3
    Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 3 of 3

    The IAEA report TE1450 from 2005 is an excellent read. It says Thorium is not an issue and is a good prospect for energy – back in 2005. Once the physics is proven it doesn’t need to be “upgraded” every 6 months like an iPhone.

    And yes, Thorium doesn’t explode. “Walk away safe” is a suitable term for Liquid Fission Technology and LFTBs.

    IAEA Tecdoc 1450 Thorium Fuel Cycle May 2005Download

    Here’s the former head of IAEA, Hans Blix, stating that “Thorium shouldn’t be treated like uranium”. 

    Thorium Nuclear Power and non Proliferation Hans Blix IAEA ThEC13

    See more Hans Blix on Liquid Fission Thorium Energy

    Attached below is a brief summary of “Why Thorium didn’t take off” by Bruce Hoglund, 5 November 2010. It’s an excellent starting point for data gathering and research – and not “Wikipedia”. Wikipedia was used as partial evidence why the United Kingdom should’t use Thorium for energy. Around 2012 in a UK government 1.5m GBP funded “study”, rubbished Thorium and directly contradicted the advice of the IAEA’s TE 1450 report.

    Why MSRS Abandoned ORNL Weinbergs FiringDownload

    The information here is but the tip of the iceberg, however it gives an excellent starting point. There are of course, many, many others who can contribute considerably for a balanced and objective article or articles on Thorium for our energy future with LFTBs. And with today’s communications technology, such conversations are only but a few key strokes away.

    Burning stuff is old tech.

    Star Trek technology is where we have to be now. Fission does that, especially Liquid Fission Thorium Energy Technology and Liquid Fission Thorium Burners – LFTBs.

    Uncle Martin would be proud. Nanu, nanu!

    Post created following a 2 hour interview between Associated Press representative for Japan, Ms. Yuri Kageyama and chairman and founder of The Thorium Network, Jeremiah Josey

    1. Join The Thorium Network
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o
    3. https://thethorium.network/about-thorium/thorium-knowledge-base/
    4. https://www.ansto.gov.au/our-science/nuclear-technologies/reactor-systems/advanced-reactors/evolution-of-molten-salt
    5. https://thethorium.network/%e3%83%91%e3%83%bc%e3%83%95%e3%82%a7%e3%82%af%e3%83%88%e3%83%86%e3%82%af%e3%83%8e%e3%83%ad%e3%82%b8%e3%83%bc-%e3%83%90%e3%82%a4%e3%83%aa%e3%83%b3%e3%82%ac%e3%83%ab%e8%a8%98%e4%ba%8b-%e6%97%a5%e6%9c%ac/
    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas
    7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot
    8. https://www.chernobyltissuebank.com/contact-us
    9. https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielroderick/
    10. https://www.linkedin.com/in/adi-paterson/
    11. https://www.gen-4.org/
    12. https://figes.com.tr/en/
    13. https://www.linkedin.com/in/resat-uzmen-051a824/
    14. https://thethorium.network/interview-3-dr-resat-uzmen-nuclear-technology-director-of-figes-part-of-the-thorium-student-guild-interview-series-leading-to-nuclear/
    15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEDK_MAWQD0
    16. https://www.linkedin.com/in/l-berrin-erbay-61b04745/
    17. https://www.linkedin.com/in/phumzile-tshelane-3014945a/
    18. https://www.necsa.co.za/
    19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MsgDx8K-t4
    20. https://www.linkedin.com/in/rana-%C3%B6nem-57a14718b/
    21. https://thethorium.network/join-us/student-guild/
    22. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ed-calabrese-697a1119/
    23. https://thethorium.network/2022/02/12/the-big-deceit-episode-6-unintended-consequences-chapter-2/
    24. https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/episodeguide.html
    25. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jerry-cuttler-26106763/
    26. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jerry-cuttler-26106763_what-would-become-of-nuclear-risk-if-governments-activity-6870517584475824128-qr3W
    27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJSeQIW-X44
    28. https://thebulletin.org/2019/12/fact-check-five-claims-about-thorium-made-by-andrew-yang/
    29. https://www.wired.com/story/andrew-yang-wants-a-thorium-reactor-by-2027-good-luck-buddy/
    30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4m10Y0rWBY
    31. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hans+blix+thorium
    32. https://www.linkedin.com/in/bruce-hoglund-52194814/

    #Journalist #CribSheet #Thorium #Interviews #LiquidFissionThoriumBurner #MoltenSalt #RosAtom #Japan #Turkey #China #LNT #LiquidFission #AssociatedPress

  • Episode 28 – Cow Farts – Methane is a Natural Gas – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 9 part 5

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    Number 4 – Methane [aka “Natural Gas”]

    Because windmills generate just 1/3 of their rated capacity, the rest is supplied by plants that primarily burn coal or natural gas – which is 90% methane, which makes more CO2. I repeat: methane, over its lifetime, is 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but during its youth, it is 80 times worse – and the next ten to twenty years are years of deep concern. Gas companies love “renewables”.

    “…methane, over its lifetime, is 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas…”

    Dr. George Erickson

    Methane, explained, By Alejandra Borunda, 24 January 2019

    Cows and bogs release methane into the atmosphere, but it’s by far mostly human activity that’s driving up levels of this destructive greenhouse gas.

    Alejandra Borunda

    Fossil fuel firms accused of renewable lobby takeover to push gas, Arthur Neslen, Brussels, 22 January 2015

    Gas Explosions Not Uncommon, Pia Malbran, 10 September 2010

    Ground and satellite surveys reveal that huge volumes of “fugitive” methane are leaking from our wells and distribution system. According to WSJ and the pre-Trump EPA, “Natural gas explosions cause death and/or property damage every other day, and U S ”leakage” is equivalent to the emissions from 70 million cars.” (CNN 9-13-18: “1 dead, 24 injured in 30 natural gas explosions in three Boston area towns.”)

    Deadly Gas Explosions in 3 Mass. Towns Leave 1 Dead: ‘It Looked Like Armageddon’, 13 September 2018, NBC Boston

    Boston Methane Leaks 2021

    In Boston, ground-based measurements reveal profuse methane leaks.

    The Surprising Root of the Massachusetts Fight Against Natural Gas, by Jenessa Duncombe 21 May 2021

    Tree lovers are hunting down the cause of arboreal deaths—and may remake the regional energy system in the process.

    Jenessa Duncombe
    Boston Common Autumn Trees Boston MA is a photograph by Toby McGuire which was uploaded on November 11th, 2016.
    Daily Satellite Observations of Methane from Oil and Gas Production Regions in the United States, 28 January 2020

    A survey of oil and gas facilities in Texas and New Mexico revealed 30 so-called “super-emitters,” which are leaking as much heat-trapping pollution as roughly half a million cars.

    New Report Carbon Mapper and the Environmental Defense Fund

    Large Permian Basin Methane Leaks Are Causing As Much Climate Pollution as 500,000 Cars, 24 January 2022

    The US natural gas industry is leaking way more methane than previously thought. Here’s why that matters, by Anthony J. Marchese and Dan Zimmerle, 6 July 2018

    While we pollute our aquifers by fracking for methane in Texas and elsewhere to assist inefficient wind and solar farms, we are simultaneously flaring (burning) huge volumes of natural gas across much of the Bakken “field” in North Dakota because it’s “too costly” to pipe it to market.

    Sarah Feldman
    Sarah Feldman

    Study Finds EPA Underestimates Methane Emissions, by Sarah Feldman, 3 August 2018

    Bakken Flares at Night

    Climate crisis: ‘Fracking is over’ in UK, energy minister says, by Harry Cockburn, 19 June 2020

    Bakken Flare

    “The Bakken field is flaring enough gas to power Chicago AND Washington, DC.”

    London Daily Mail

    What a waste! Picture from space reveals how new U.S. oil field is burning off enough gas to power Chicago AND Washington – because it’s cheaper than selling it, by Simon Tomlinson, 28 January 2018

    Night Lights in USA
    Wasting energy: This NASA satellite image shows how the gas being burned off at the Bakken oil field in North Dakota is almost as bright as the light emitted from major U.S. cities such as Minneapolis-St Paul and Chicago

    “Women living within 0.6 miles [1,000 meters] of active oil and gas wells were 40% more likely to have babies with low birth weight than those not near active wells.”

    California Air Resource Board April 2020

    Windmills are, in effect, glorified, heavily subsidized carbon-burners that needlessly create more of the carbon dioxide that we seek to avoid. Were it not for our misguided passion for inefficient renewables, we’d have less need for fracking and less of the environmental damage they cause.

    Satellite images of oil and gas basins reveal staggering 9-10% leakage rates of heat-trapping methane. Because of these leaks, fracking accelerates climate change even before the methane it extracts is turned into CO2.

    The fatal consequences of high atmospheric methane levels in Climate Change, by Dr Andrew Glikson, 22 January 2021

    “In the Permian Basin, operators are wasting enough gas to heat 2 million homes a year.”

    EDF, 2021

    In 2015, thanks to a “discovered” email message from Lenny Bernstein, a thirty-year oil industry veteran and ExxonMobil’s former in-house climate expert, we learned that Exxon accepted the reality of climate change in 1981, long before it became a public issue – but then, Exxon spent at least $30 million on decades of Climate Change denial.

    Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years, by Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent 8 July 2015

    Climate Files Hard to Find Documents All in One Place. Top Ten Documents Every Reporter Covering ExxonMobil Should Know by Kert Davies 23 May 2016

    Climate Files – Hard to Find Documents All in One Place

    In addition, despite studies from Johns Hopkins that reveal an associate fracking and premature births and asthma, Pennsylvania health workers were told by their Department of Health to ignore inquiries that used fracking “buzzwords.”

    Johns Hopkins study links fracking to premature births, high-risk pregnancies

    Study: Fracking Industry Wells Associated With Increased Risk of Asthma Attacks

    Where Has the Waste Gone? Fracking Results in Illegal Dumping of Radioactive Toxins

    Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are spiking, scientists report

    And according to a 2014 UN report, atmospheric methane levels have never exceeded 700 parts per billion in the last 400,000 years, but they reached 1850 ppb by 2013.

    In 2015, a Duke University study reported: “Thousands of oil and gas industry wastewater spills in North Dakota have caused “widespread” contamination by radioactive materials, heavy metals and corrosive salts, putting the health of people and wildlife at risk.”

    Duke Study: Rivers Contaminated With Radium and Lead From Thousands of Fracking Wastewater Spills

    Twenty-One Bad Things About Wind Energy — and Three Reasons Why, By John Droz, Jr. — March 22, 2018

    John Droz, Jr, Founder of AWED
    AWED – Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions
    Contribution for Green House Gases for Different Energy Sources

    Coming up next week, Episode 29 – Methane Blows Up Winds Gains

    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 29 – Methane Blows Up Winds Gains
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 27 – Fake and Vulgar – The Truth Paid Bare
    3. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
    4. Dr. George Erickson on LinkedIn
    5. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
    6. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
    7. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/methane
    8. https://www.linkedin.com/in/alejandra-borunda-2269b817/
    9. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-fuel-firms-accused-renewable-lobby-takeover-push-gas
    10. https://www.linkedin.com/in/arthur-neslen-a4937712/
    11. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gas-explosions-not-uncommon/
    12. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/multiple-fires-reported-in-lawrence-mass/135732/
    13. https://eos.org/features/the-surprising-root-of-the-massachusetts-fight-against-natural-gas
    14. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenessaduncombe/
    15. https://fineartamerica.com/featured/boston-common-autumn-trees-boston-ma-toby-mcguire.html
    16. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-57678-4
    17. https://www.edf.org/media/dozens-super-emitting-oil-and-gas-facilities-leaked-methane-pollution-permian-basin-years-end
    18. https://www.yahoo.com/news/large-permian-basin-methane-leaks-171600620.html
    19. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/06/the-us-natural-gas-industry-leaking-way-more-methane-than-ever-before.html
    20. https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthony-j-marchese-897b024/
    21. https://geology.com/articles/oil-fields-from-space/
    22. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/fracking-ban-uk-kwasi-kwarteng-climate-change-methane-shale-gas-a9575906.html
    23. https://www.linkedin.com/in/harry-cockburn-46893182/
    24. https://www.inforum.com/business/bakken-midstream-seeks-fundamental-change-for-north-dakota-natural-gas-industry
    25. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269517/The-picture-space-shows-U-S-oil-field-burning-gas-power-Chicago-AND-Washington-cheaper-selling-it.html#ixzz5GLKhkvNK
    26. https://www.linkedin.com/in/simon-tomlinson-6a926144/
    27. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/people-risk
    28. https://countercurrents.org/2021/01/the-fatal-consequences-of-high-atmospheric-methane-levels/?
    29. https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-glikson-736716111/
    30. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
    31. https://www.linkedin.com/in/suzanne-goldenberg-68944b1/
    32. https://climateinvestigations.org/top-ten-documents-every-reporter-covering-exxon-should-know/
    33. https://www.climatefiles.com/page/2/
    34. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kert-davies-5523a32/
    35. https://hub.jhu.edu/2015/10/12/fracking-pregnancy-risks/
    36. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2016/study-fracking-industry-wells-associated-with-increased-risk-of-asthma-attacks
    37. https://truthout.org/articles/where-has-the-waste-gone-fracking-results-in-illegal-dumping-of-radioactive-toxins/
    38. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/11/atmospheric-levels-of-methane-a-powerful-greenhouse-gas-are-spiking-scientists-report/
    39. https://www.unep.org/
    40. https://www.masterresource.org/droz-john-awed/21-bad-things-wind-power-3-reasons-why/
    41. https://www.linkedin.com/in/johndroz/
    42. http://wiseenergy.org/
    43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032114005395

    #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #Methane #NaturalGas #Flaring #Fracking #Bakken

  • Episode 27 – Fake and Vulgar – The Truth Paid Bare – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 9 Part 4

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    Number 3 – Misrepresentation and Inefficiency

    When wind advocates promote the glories of wind power, they use numbers based on the windmill’s nameplate rating, its maximum capacity – as in a February 20, 2015 Earth Watch article, which said, “…the total amount of wind power available… has grown to 318,137 megawatts in 2013.”

    They Don't Last Long
    They Don’t Last Long
    Susceptible to Weather Storms
    Susceptible to Weather Storms

    But because wind power is intermittent, windfarms usually generate an average output of about 33% of their capacity, which is why 318,137 megawatts is very misleading, and 95,000 would be more accurate, perhaps even generous. Thus, when they say that windmills can supply xxxxxxx homes, they are usually talking about the cumulative plate ratings on the generators – the output under ideal conditions, not the average amount of electricity they really produce.

    US EIA Table 6.07.B. Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators Primarily Using Non-Fossil Fuels

    US EIA monthly capacity factors 2011-2013
    US EIA monthly capacity factors 2011-2013

    Neither solar nor wind can deliver the 24/7 “baseload” power that is provided by nuclear plants plus hydropower, natural gas, oil and coal. Of those five, only nuclear power plants (despite Chernobyl, a plant deemed to be “illegal” everywhere else in the world), have been safely delivering carbon dioxide-free power for more than fifty years. (Wind also can’t handle cold weather.)

    Chicago Loses Wind Power During a Polar Vortex, by Chris Martin, Bloomberg, 31 January 2019

    A strong tropospheric polar vortex configuration in November 2013

    Great Britain, faced with building 12 nuclear plants or the 30,000 1-MW windmills needed to provide an equal amount of power, chose nuclear. And Japan, which closed its nuclear plants due to post-Fukushima panic, has begun to reactivate them, which will reduce the thousands of tons of CO2 they’ve been dumping into our atmosphere by burning methane [‘Natural’ Gas].

    Nuclear Power Stations in UK

    Nuclear Plants and Facilities in East Asia and Japan (Maps current as at January 2015) -Nuke Info Tokyo No. 165

    Nuclear Power Plants in Japan

    Germany, which over-reacted by closing nuclear plants in favour of wind and solar, is paying almost four times more for electricity than nuclear France. And with its industries hurting, the Merkel government has begun to rethink nuclear power. While they debate, they are creating more CO2 by burning lignite, the dirtiest member of the coal family.

    Nuclear Power Plants in Germany

    “Fake and Vulgar”, climate news from Germany
    “…Germany’s wind turbines as a whole ran at between 0 to 10% of their rated capacity 45.5% of the time…! The turbines, which the German government says will become The “workhorse” of the German power industry, ran at over 50% of their rated capacity only… 5.2% of the time.”

    Pierre L. Gosselin, 2014

    Germany 2014 Report Card Is In! Its 25,000 Wind Turbines Get An “F-“…Averaged Only 14.8% Of Rated Capacity! by Pierre L. Gosselin,  7 February 2015

    Adjusted “Unadjusted” Data: NASA Uses The “Magic Wand Of Fudging”, Produces Warming Where There Never Was, by Pierre L. Gosselin,  25 June 2019

    Weather Adjustments? Fear Driving the Wrong Solutions for our Energy Needs

    Merkel: Nuclear phase-out is wrong 10 June 2008

    Angela Merkel, Scientist and Chancellor of Germany 2005-2021

    German onshore wind power – output, business and perspectives, by Benjamin Wehrmann 12 Apr 2022

    German onshore wind power

    Germany “paid” for the top line of the following graph, but only got the dark blue spikes. The light blue area is primarily supplied by burning carbon, which worsens Climate Change. (Every megawatt of wind generation capacity requires at least another MW of natural gas or coal generation for backup.)

    German Installed Wind Power and Generation

    German Wind and Solar Installed and Generation 2017

    Size Comparison of Wind Turbines – Huge does not equal massive increases in output

    Germany Faces Huge Cost of Wind Farm Decommissioning by Franz Hubik, 15 September 2017, Handelsblatt

    Franz Hubik

    In Germany, more and more wind turbines are being dismantled. The reason: subsidies are running out, the material is worn out… dismantling is extremely complex and expensive.

    How much is wind power really costing Ontario? 31 cents per kWh, by Parker Gallant, 6 December 2016

    Parker Gallant Uncovers the Hidden Costs of Ontario’s Insane Wind Power Policy
    Wind Projects Across Canada, 23 February 2022

    Germany’s Wind & Solar Power FAIL: Top Economist Declares Energiewende “Delusional”, 27 January 2018, StopTheseThings

    Coming up next week, Episode 28 – Cow Farts

    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 28 – Cow Farts
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 26 – Tilting at Windmills
    3. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
    4. Dr. George Erickson on LinkedIn
    5. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
    6. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
    7. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
    8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
    9. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-30/when-does-the-windy-city-lose-wind-power-during-a-polar-vortex
    10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
    11. https://www.nationalworld.com/news/environment/nuclear-power-stations-plants-uk-new-built-safe-3643530
    12. https://cnic.jp/english/?p=3042
    13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
    14. https://notrickszone.com/2015/02/07/germany-2014-report-card-is-in-its-25000-wind-turbines-get-an-f-averaged-only-14-8-of-rated-capacity/
    15. https://notrickszone.com/about-pierre-gosselin/
    16. https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/25/adjusted-unadjusted-data-nasa-uses-the-magic-wand-of-fudging-produces-warming-where-there-never-was/
    17. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Merkel_Nuclear_phase_out_is_wrong_1006081.html
    18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel
    19. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/german-onshore-wind-power-output-business-and-perspectives
    20. https://parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/how-much-is-wind-power-really-costing-ontario/
    21. https://www.linkedin.com/in/parker-gallant-8919215a/
    22. https://www.netzerowatch.com/germany-faced-huge-cost-of-wind-farm-decommissioning/
    23. https://www.linkedin.com/in/fhubik/
    24. https://stopthesethings.com/2018/01/27/germanys-wind-solar-power-fail-top-economist-declares-energiewende-delusional/
    25. https://stopthesethings.com/author/stopthesethings/
    26. https://stopthesethings.com/2014/10/18/parker-gallant-uncovers-the-hidden-costs-of-ontarios-insane-wind-power-policy/

    #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #NuclearEconomics #CostofElectricity #Utilisation #EnergyProduction #Germany #Japan #UnitedKingdom #Canada

  • Episode 26 – Tilting at Windmills – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 9 Part 3

    Created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    Number 2 – Tilted Economics

    I understand why power companies cooperated with the rush to wind power. For one thing, renewables were demanded by a misinformed public led by many of the “green” organisations whose goals I support, but not their methods.

    33% efficient windmills have received subsidies of USD 56 per Megawatt hour. In comparison, 90% efficient nuclear power, which critics say is “too expensive,” receives just USD 3 per Megawatt hour.

    Big Wind’s Bogus Subsidies by Nancy Pfotenhauer, May 12, 2014

    Even the wind companies and Warren Buffett admit that without the subsidies, they’d be losers: “…on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” (2014)

    “…on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

    Warren Buffett, 2014
    Warren Buffett Chasing Public Funds

    “Most cost estimates for wind power disregard the heavy burden of these subsidies on US taxpayers. But if Americans realised the full cost of generating energy from wind power, they would be less willing to foot the bill – because it’s more than most people think.

    It’s Centralised vs Decentralised, Buffett vs Musk. Who will win?

    Renewable-Energy Subsidies and Electricity Generation by Veronique de Rugy, 21 May 2013

    “Over the past 35 years, wind energy – which supplied just 4.4% of US electricity in 2014 – has received USD 30 billion in federal subsidies and various grants. These subsidies shield people from the truth of just how much wind power actually costs and transfer money from average taxpayers to wealthy wind farm owners, many of which are units of foreign companies….”

    Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen, 28 October 2021

    Public Money Going the Wrong Way

    “The solar/nuclear subsidy ratio has been 250 to 1!” – Dr. George Erickson

    SYDNEY MORNING HERALD’S CHAOTIC COAL SOLUTION, by Rob Parker, 15 January 2018

    Frozen wind turbines, limited gas supplies and rolling blackouts: Behind Texas’ energy woes By Ralph Ellis, Alisha Ebrahimji, Kelsie Smith and Amanda Jackson, 16 February 2021

    Nothing to see here… NOT a photo of a helicopter taking ice from a wind turbine

    Testimony of Dr. James Hansen, formerly of NASA, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, March, 2014:

    “Nuclear’s production tax credit (PTC) of 1.8 cents/kWhr is not indexed for inflation. PTCs for other low carbon energies are indexed. The PTC for wind is 2.3 cents/kWhr.

    “Plants must be placed in service before January 1, 2021. Thanks to Nuclear Regulatory Comm. slowness, that practically eliminates any PTC for new nuclear power.

    “Do you know about “renewable portfolio standards”? If government cares about young people and nature, why are these not “carbon-free portfolio standards”?

    “This is a huge hidden subsidy, reaped by only renewables. There is a complex array of financial incentives for renewables. Incentives include the possibility of a 30% investment tax credit in lieu of the PTC, which provides a large “time-value-of-money” advantage over a PTC spread over 8-10 years, accelerated 5-year depreciation, state and local tax incentives, loan guarantees with federal appropriation for the “credit subsidy cost.

    “Nuclear power, in contrast, must pay the full cost of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license review, at a current rate of USD 272 per professional staff hour, with no limit on the number of review hours. The cost is at least USD 100-200 million. The NRC takes a minimum of 42 months for its review, and the uncertainty in the length of that review period is a major disincentive.”

    Dr. James Hansen testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during a hearing about the Keystone XL pipeline project, in 2014

    Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change, James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley, Guardian 3 December 2015

    Dr Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution for Science
    Professor Tom Wigley, Adelaide University

    Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm, MIT News, 29 June 2022

    Professor Kerry A. Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    “When supply is high and demand is low, spot prices generally fall — this is especially true in markets with high shares of renewable energy. What precipitates negative pricing are conditions which encourage energy producers to sell at an apparent loss, knowing that in the longer term [thanks largely to huge taxpayer subsidies] they will still profit.
    “The Texas grid is managed by the energy agency of the same name… The market functions through auctions, where energy producers place a competitively priced bid to supply some amount of energy at a particular time and particular price…
    “Various subsidies, including our U. S. federal production tax credits and state renewable energy certificates, compensate wind power producers… to such an extent that it allows wind farms to continue to make money even when selling at negative prices.”

    From Clean Technica – October, 2015

    We are all paying hidden costs to prop up these inefficient, deadly “alternatives” that depend on methane [Natural Gas] to produce 70% of their rated power, even though the methane [Natural Gas] leakage from fracking and the distribution system are erasing any benefits we hoped to get by avoiding coal. Furthermore, the price quoted for a nuclear plant includes the cost of decommissioning, but it isn’t for the thousands of windmills or solar farms that only last about 20 years.

    Fracking boom tied to methane spike in Earth’s atmosphere, by Stephen Leahy, National Geographic, 15 August 2019

    Fracking wells in the US are leaking loads of planet-warming methane, by Adam Vaughan, New Scientist, 22 April 2020

    A Methane Leak, Seen From Space, Proves to Be Far Larger Than Thought

    Methane Leaks Erase Some of the Climate Benefits of Natural Gas, by Benjamin Storrow, Scientific America, 5 may 2020

    Called Methane when it leaks and Natural Gas when it burns… Marketing…

    In fact, the deck has been stacked against nuclear power by “green” profiteers and carbon lobbyists who know they cannot compete with 90% efficient, CO2-free nuclear power. Still, despite the bureaucratic handicaps on nuclear power and the support given to renewables, nuclear power is financially competitive, as the following chart reveals.

    US Electricity Generating Costs

    Coming up next week, Episode 27 – Fake and Vulgar

    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 27 – Fake and Vulgar
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 25 – Hazards to Humans
    3. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
    4. Dr. George Erickson on LinkedIn
    5. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
    6. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
    7. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/even-warren-buffet-admits-wind-energy-is-a-bad-investment
    8. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nancy-pfotenhauer-45171925/
    9. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-10/it-s-warren-buffett-versus-big-tech-in-iowa-s-latest-wind-farm-debate
    10. https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/986642/warren-buffett-speeds-past-elon-musk-in-electric-vehicle-race-986642.html
    11. https://www.mercatus.org/publications/government-spending/renewable-energy-subsidies-and-electricity-generation
    12. https://www.linkedin.com/in/veronique-de-rugy-50204876/
    13. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/
    14. https://lifepowered.org/
    15. https://nuclearforclimate.com.au/2018/01/15/sydney-morning-heralds-chaotic-coal-solution/
    16. https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-parker-7b7b01b1/
    17. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/15/us/power-outages-texas-monday/index.html
    18. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ralph-ellis-2b99646/
    19. https://www.linkedin.com/in/aebrahimji/
    20. https://www.linkedin.com/in/kelsiesmith16/
    21. https://www.linkedin.com/in/amandajackson9/
    22. https://gizmodo.com/viral-image-claiming-to-show-a-helicopter-de-icing-texa-1846279287
    23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
    24. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-not-to-debate-nuclear-energy-and-climate-change
    25. Michael Specter
    26. https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelspecter/
    27. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
    28. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Emanuel
    29. https://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/kokey
    30. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ken-caldeira-2a45648/
    31. https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-wigley-642a11ba/
    32. https://news.mit.edu/2022/kerry-emanuel-climate-scientist-0629
    33. https://windexchange.energy.gov/projects/tax-credits
    34. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/fracking-boom-tied-to-methane-spike-in-earths-atmosphere
    35. https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenleahy/
    36. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2241347-fracking-wells-in-the-us-are-leaking-loads-of-planet-warming-methane/
    37. https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamvaughan/
    38. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/climate/methane-leak-satellite.html
    39. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-leaks-erase-some-of-the-climate-benefits-of-natural-gas/
    40. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-storrow-b341a3a1/

    #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #NuclearEconomics #CostofElectricity #ElonMusk #WarrenBuffett

  • Episode 25 – Hazards to Humans – The Blades of Death – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 9 Part 2

    Created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    It’s not just birds and bats that suffer. According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, “Just in England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011, which translates to about 1000 deaths per billion kilowatt-hours.

    Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data
    to 31 March 2022

    “Solar and Wind emit more radiation (from mining the rare earth metals), than the nuclear fuel cycle does.”

    UNSCEAR 2016 REPORT SOURCES, EFFECTS AND RISKS OF IONIZING RADIATION

    “In contrast, during 2011 nuclear energy produced 90 billion kWhrs in England with NO deaths and America produced 800 billion kWhrs via nuclear with NO deaths.”

    Why is it almost sacrilegious for the Sierra Club and its clones to rethink windmills, and why do they refuse to watch presentations that compare the records of their “green” alternative energy sources to the record of CO2-free nuclear power? Could $$$ be involved? (In 2012, TIME magazine reported that the Sierra Club secretly accepted USD 26 million from Chesapeake Energy – an oil company.)

    Answering for Taking a Driller’s Cash, New York Times, 14 February 2012

    Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry—By Bryan Walsh 2 February 2012

    Researchers at the University of Edinburgh report that 117 of world’s 200,000 windmills burn every year – far more than the 12 reported by wind farm companies. Even more throw their blades or have them torn off by climate change storms.

    Fires are major cause of wind farm failure, according to new research by Colin Smith 17 July 2014

    Why hasn’t our media featured this image of two Dutch engineers waiting to die? (It’s been available for years.) One jumped to his death. The other burned to death.

    “The accident with Daan and Arjan was already five years ago. It is sad that still no or insufficient measures have been taken to guarantee safety.”

    Mother of Arjan, 2018

    Wind turbine fire risk: Number that catch alight each year is ten times higher than the industry admits

    Why hasn’t our media published easily available images of burning windmills, windmills that have toppled over and windmills that have thrown their blades more than a third of a mile?

    Dual deaths in wind turbine fire highlight hazards East County Magazine|Miriam Raftery|October 31, 2013

    http://web.archive.org/web/20220723064924/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVHzfUWul2Y
    5 Wind Turbines Which Failed (Environmentally Friendly?)


    Bats and Turbines

    Bats and TurbinesDownload


    http://web.archive.org/web/20220713051135/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nemy4TD4I3A
    TOO MUCH WIND! 10 Wind Turbine Fails

    U. S. Insurance claims for 2018 reveal that blade damage and gearbox failures cost the industry USD 340,000 and USD 480,000 respectively. Claims associated with windmill foundations have averaged USD 1,800,000 per year, reaching USD 3,200,000 in 2018 due to extreme circumstances.

    For examples of the opposition we encounter from many “greens” please see these excellent articles:

    Saving the Environment from Environmentalism, by By Paul Lorenzini

    Response to Robert Llewellyn – Fully Charged

    Six New Papers Reveal A Hushed-Up ‘Green’ Reality: Wind Turbines Destroy Habitats

    As mentioned near the end of Chapter seven – and repeated here for emphasis – when we include the positive medical data that was accumulated over thirty years from Pripyat and the region around Chernobyl, the worldwide death print for wind is 115 times worse than the death print or nuclear power, 340 times worse for solar, 3,000 times worse for natural gas and 27,000 times worse for oil.

    Nuclear power is even safer than ‘benign” hydropower, which has a huge carbon footprint because of the energy needed to manufacture the cement in its concrete, and because reservoirs create large amounts of methane. (See Hydro’s Dirty Secret Revealed by Duncan Graham-Rowe.)

    Hydroelectric power’s dirty secret revealed by Duncan Graham-Rowe

    Furthermore, people who are forced to live close to windmills have complained of severe sleep deprivation, chronic stress, dizziness and vertigo caused by low frequency noise and inaudible noise below 20 Hz, known as infrasound.

    Health effects of wind turbine noise and road traffic noise on people living near wind turbines

    Effects of low-frequency noise from wind turbines on heart rate variability in healthy individuals

    Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines

    French couple who said windfarm affected health win legal fight

    Despite these problems, those who profit from selling, repairing and building short-lived, inefficient, wind and solar farms have no interest in replacing coal-burning power plants with highly efficient, environment- friendly, ultra-safe, Generation III+ reactors or Molten Salt Reactors that cannot melt down, cannot generate the hydrogen that exploded at Chernobyl and Fukushima – and can even consume much of our stored nuclear “waste” as fuel.

    With these facts in mind, how can “environmentalists” support wind farms that require carbon-burning backup generators, have only a 20-year lifespan, are difficult to recycle and have larger death prints than nuclear power, which operates 24/7, has a much smaller carbon footprint, a 60-year lifespan, is 90% efficient, requires very little land, and kills no birds or bats?

    Coming up next week, Episode 26 – Tilted Economics – Public Fund Pillaging

    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 26 – Tilted Economics – Public Fund Pillaging
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 24 – Blowing in the Wind – An Eagles Nightmare
    3. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
    4. Dr. George Erickson on LinkedIn
    5. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
    6. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
    7. https://scotlandagainstspin.org/2021/07/caithness-windfarm-information-forum-cwif-accident-statistics/
    8. https://scotlandagainstspin.org/turbine-accident-statistics/
    9. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2016.html
    10. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/earth/after-disclosure-of-sierra-clubs-gifts-from-gas-driller-a-roiling-debate.html
    11. https://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/
    12. https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryan-walsh-9881b0/
    13. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/153886/fires-major-cause-wind-farm-failure/
    14. https://www.linkedin.com/in/colin-smith-3ba82616/
    15. https://horrorhistory.net/2020/10/29/two-men-trapped-on-top-of-a-burning-wind-turbine-perish/
    16. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1q0sca/last_week_two_engineers_died_when_the_windmill/
    17. http://web.archive.org/web/20220723064924/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVHzfUWul2Y
    18. https://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Wind_Economics/Bats_and_Turbines.pdf
    19. http://web.archive.org/web/20220713051135/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nemy4TD4I3A
    20. https://atomicinsights.com/saving-the-environment-from-environmentalism-2/
    21. https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-lorenzini-bb4a2610/
    22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqZTsy3Dav8
    23. https://climatechangedispatch.com/wind-turbines-destroy-habitats/
    24. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/
    25. https://www.linkedin.com/in/duncan-graham-rowe-18008bb/
    26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/infrasound
    27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121013022
    28. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97107-8
    29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/
    30. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/08/french-couple-wins-legal-fight-wind-turbine-syndrome-windfarm-health
    31. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenni-radun-a535b92/
    32. https://www.linkedin.com/in/henna-maula-524253aa/
    33. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jukka-ker%C3%A4nen-368724a/
    34. https://www.linkedin.com/in/reijo-alakoivu/
    35. https://www.linkedin.com/in/valtteri-hongisto-5a33318/
    36. https://www.linkedin.com/in/chun-hsiang-chiu-208169143/
    37. https://www.linkedin.com/in/shih-chun-candice-lung-1024b9205/
    38. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jing-shiang-hwang-7aa19954/
    39. https://www.linkedin.com/in/christel-fockaert-b6829a22a/
    40. https://www.linkedin.com/in/alice-terrasse-1b12b97b/

    #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #WindTurbines

  • Episode 24 – Blowing in the Wind. An Eagles Nightmare – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 9 Part 1

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    Blowin’ Wind

    I was thrilled when the first windmills appeared on the Laurentian Divide near my hometown of Virginia, Minnesota, but a few years later, having noticed a significant amount of “down time,” I checked on wind power’s record with the help of my new associates in the Thorium Energy Alliance and discovered that the windmill industry had been selling more sizzle than steak.

    Virginia, Minnesota

    During the “green” search for energy alternatives, which was guided by an “anything but nuclear” bias, the Sierra Club and others to which I once belonged took pains to define what was “renewable” and what was not. In so doing, they deliberately (and ironically), excluded CO2-free nuclear power, even though we have enough uranium and thorium to last 100,000 years.

    Sierra Club – NOT founded on Nuclear

    Because those who profit from wind and solar said nothing about their carbon footprints, environmental damage, resource use, inefficiency, bird, bat and human deaths (death prints) and the need for huge subsidies, we drank their Kool-Aid, and now wonder why it’s making us sick. Well, here’s why, from many points of view.

    Number 1 – Safety

    Windmills kill 1 million birds and 1 million bats per year, even as insect borne diseases like Zika, dengue fever and malaria are increasing. (Bats can be killed by just getting too close to the low pressure area that accompanies each blade, which ruptures their lungs) How “green” is that?

    Energy company to pay up to $35 million after turbines killed eagles by Lindsey Bever, 9 April 2022

    150 Eagles Killed. The Money Won’t Bring Them Back

    Shouldn’t environmentalists care that, according to Save the Eagles International, “windmills kill 30 million birds and 50 million bats per year.”

    George Erickson
    Birds in Flight

    Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly – actual carcass count

    Spanish Ornithological Society

    Shouldn’t they care that Pacific Corp., which owns 13 windfarms, has sued the U. S. Interior Department to keep it from revealing how many birds and bats their windmills have killed?

    Dead Eagle Data: Buffet/Berkshire/PacifiCorp Don’t Want You to Know

    Don’t these “environmentalists” care that, according to Science magazine, a “single colony of 150 brown bats has been estimated to eat nearly 1.3 million disease-carrying insects each year”? Shouldn’t they know that, according to the US Geological Survey, bats consume harmful pests that feed on crops, providing about USD 23 billion in benefits to America’s agricultural industry every year?

    53 Billion Reasons Why Bats are Important

    United States Geological Survey
    Bats Remove Millions of Tonnes of Crop Pests Each Year

    “North America lost 3 billion birds between 1970 and 2019” [ WSJ] but no one mentions windmills for contributing to this disaster!

    Birds Are Vanishing From North America

    The number of birds in the United States and Canada has declined by 3 billion, or 29 percent, over the past half-century, scientists find.

    Carl Zimmer 19 September 2019
    Vanishing Birds

    Part 1 of Chapter 9 continues next week… Vanishing Humans…

    Coming up next week, Episode 25 – Hazards to Humans. The Blades of Death.

    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 25 – Hazards to Humans. The Blades of Death
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 23 – Can’t Afford a Model T? How About a LFTR?
    3. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
    4. Dr. George Erickson on LinkedIn
    5. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
    6. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
    7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia,_Minnesota
    8. https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/resource/burning-windmill/
    9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_Energy_Alliance
    10. https://www.sierraclub.org/about-sierra-club
    11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club
    12. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/04/09/eagle-turbine-deaths-settlement/
    13. https://www.linkedin.com/in/lindseybever/
    14. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/07/wind-energy-company-guilty-killing-eagles
    15. https://savetheeagles.wordpress.com/
    16. https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2014/11/pacificorp_sues_to_block_relea.html
    17. https://www.masterresource.org/cuisinarts-of-the-air/wind-industry-dead-eagle-problem-1/
    18. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/why-are-bats-important
    19. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/science/bird-populations-america-canada.html?
    20. https://www.linkedin.com/in/carlzimmer/
    21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Ornithological_Society
    22. https://earthsky.org/human-world/loss-of-bats-will-hurt-agriculture/
    23. https://www.science.org/content/article/three-billion-north-american-birds-have-vanished-1970-surveys-show

    #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #InvisibleFire #Eagles #Bats #Birds #SierraClub #WindTurbines

  • Episode 23 – Can’t Afford a Model T? How About a LFTR? – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 8 Part 7

    Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    The Model T Ford made motoring what it is today: affordable, reliable, ubiquitous with 20th century living. It’s this same dogmatic approach to manufactured simplification that will make Fission the energy of the 21st Century.

    Can’t afford it?

    A modern, 1 GW LWR generates 9,000,000 kWhrs per year which, at 10 cents per kWhr, creates revenue of USD 900,400,000 per year. Deduct USD 220 million for operating expenses for a profit of USD 680 million per year. California’s Diablo nuclear plant generates electricity for about 3 cents per kWhr.

    If the plant’s two reactors cost USD 7 billion, their combined profit will repay the 7 billion in 5.7 years, after which they will net USD 1.3 billion/year while employing about 1,000 well-paid workers.

    While we temporise, Russia and South Korea are building modular reactors (conventional and MSRs), for sale abroad, some of which will be mounted on barges that can be towed to coastal cities, thus making long transmission lines, with their 10% power loss, unnecessary. In 2020, the first of these barges began operation in Pevek, a town in eastern Siberia. (China makes a 1 GWe reactor for USD 3B in less than 5 years – Dr. Alex Cannara.)

    MURMANSK, RUSSIA – AUGUST 23, 2018: The Akademik Lomonosov, a barge containing two nuclear reactors, is pictured in Murmansk during its departure for Pevek, Chukotka Autonomous Area, on Russia’s Arctic coast where it will function as a nuclear power station; built at St Petersburg’s Baltic Shipyard, the Akademik Lomonosov was towed in 2018 from the Baltic Sea to an Atomflot base in Murmansk on Russia’s Barents Sea coast to be loaded with nuclear fuel. Lev Fedoseyev/TASS (Photo by Lev Fedoseyev\TASS via Getty Images)

    In 2016, Russia inaugurated a commercial Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) that extracts nearly 100% of the energy value of uranium. (LWRs utilize less than 5%.) The FBR creates close to zero waste and guarantees that we will never run out of thorium, uranium and plutonium, which yield 1.7 million times more energy per kilogram than crude oil.

    The central hall of power unit No. 4 with the BN-800 reactor. 
    Photo © Donat Sorokin/TASS

    Russia Sets New Domestic Nuclear Generation Record

    Units 3 and 4 at Tianwan Phase II in China’s Jiangsu province—two AES-91 VVER-1000 units designed by Gidropress and supplied by Rosatom—entered commercial operation in February 2018 and October 2018. In November, Rosatom said its engineering division AtomStroyExport signed four executive contracts with China National Nuclear Corp. for construction of Tianwan 7 and 8. Construction on Tianwan units 5 and 6—two 1,080 MWe ACPR1000 reactors—is slated to be completed in 2021. Courtesy: Rosatom

    Canadian Government agrees to work with United Kingdom on nuclear power

    Instead of pursuing these profitable programs, we [USA] have spent USD 400 billion on worthless F-35 jet fighters plus USD 2 billion PER WEEK in Afghanistan – AND there’s that missing USD 8.5 TRILLION that the Pentagon can’t find. [The Pentagon’s $35 Trillion Accounting Black Hole, by Michael Rainey, January 23, 2020]

    The US Air Force Quietly Admits the F-35 Is a Failure

    USD 100 million all washed up – Photos leaked of F-35 fighter jet that crashed into South China Sea

    Penta-Gone! – The Pentagon’s $35 Trillion Accounting Black Hole

    Penta-Gone! – USD 35 Trillion missing

    Meanwhile, according to the GUARDIAN, “in 2013, coal, oil and gas companies spent USD 670 billion searching for more fossil fuels, investments that could be worthless if action on global warming slashes allowed emissions.”

    Leave fossil fuels buried to prevent climate change, study urges

    California plans a USD 100 billion high speed train to serve impatient commuters between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and in 2014, Wall Street paid over USD 28 billion in bonuses to needy executives. If you include greedy sports team owners and players who, between 2000 and 2010, received 12 billion tax dollars to help pay for their arenas, the total could exceed USD 1 trillion.

    “When you’re in a hole, stop digging,”

    Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org

    With that money, we could easily build enough MSRs to end the burning of fossil fuels for generating electricity while drastically cutting carbon dioxide production.

    Russia offers nuclear desalination bundle

    According to WORLD NUCLEAR NEWS, Russia’s Rosatom Overseas intends to sell desalination facilities powered by nuclear power plants to its export markets: Dzhomart Aliyev, the head of Rosatom Overseas, says that the company sees ‘a significant potential in foreign markets,’ and is offering two LWRs producing 1200 MW each to Egypt’s Ministry of Electricity as part of a combined power and desalination plant.

    Water Desalination in Egypt

    “Desalination units can produce 170,000 cubic meters of potable water/day with 850 MWh of electricity per day. This would use only about 3% of the output of a 1200 MWe nuclear plant. In addition, two desalination units are also being considered for inclusion in Iran’s plan to expand the Bushehr power plant with Russian technology, and another agreement between Argentina and Russia also includes desalination with nuclear power.” Dzhomart Aliyev, chief executive officer of Rusatom Overseas.

    Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Iran

    In 2016, the Vice President of Rosatom reported that the company plans to build more than 90 plants in the pipeline worth some USD 110 Billion, with the aim of delivering 1000 GW by 2050.

    “By 2030 we must build 28 nuclear power units. This is nearly the same as the number of units made or commissioned over the entire Soviet period… ROSATOM, the Russian nuclear power corporation and builders of the Kundamkulam nuclear power plant in India, has orders for building many nuclear power units abroad.” (XXII Nuclear Inter Jura 2016 Proceedings of the Congress)

    Vladimir Putin, President of Russia

    Stratfor Global Intelligence reported in an October, 2015 article titled Russia: Exporting Influence, One Nuclear Reactor at a Time that “Rosatom estimated that the value of orders has reached USD 300 billion, with 30 plants in 12 countries. From South Africa to Argentina to Vietnam to… Saudi Arabia, there appears to be no region where Russia does not seek to send its nuclear exports.”

    In addition, China has purchased four, 1200 MW Russian reactors. Rosatom will also supply the fuel for a new Chinese- designed fast reactor.

    However, our [USA] nuclear industry, opposed by Climate deniers like Donald J Trump, fervent “greens” and powerful carbon companies that put profit before planet, struggles to stay alive.

    In Why Not Nuclear? Brian King described our failure to build Generation IV nuclear plants that, unlike LWRs, take advantage of high-temperature coolants such as liquid metals or liquid salts that improve efficiency.

    “Argonne National Laboratory held the major responsibility for developing nuclear power in the U.S. By 1980, there were two main goals: Develop a nuclear plant that can’t melt down, then build a reactor that can run on waste from nuclear power plants…

    “In the early 80’s Argonne opened a site for an experimental breeder reactor in Idaho. About five years later [two weeks before Chernobyl], they were ready for a demonstration. Scientists from around the globe were invited to watch what would happen if there was a loss of coolant to the reactor, a condition similar to the event at Fukushima where the cores of three reactors overheated and melted.

    “Dr. C. Till, the director of the Generation IV project, calmly watched the gauges on the panel as core temperature briefly increased, then rapidly dropped as the reactor shut down without any intervention!

    “The Argonne Generation IV project was a success, but it couldn’t get past the anti-nuke politics of the 1990’s, so it was shut down by the Clinton administration because they said we didn’t need it.

    “One can only imagine what the world would look like today, with a fleet of Generation IV nuclear plants that would run safely for centuries on all of the waste at storage sites around the globe. No heat-trapping carbon dioxide would have been created – only ever increasing amounts of clean, reliable power. So why not nuclear power?

    “Unfortunately, most environmentalists oppose nuclear power, as do many liberals. The Democratic Party is afraid of anti-nuclear sentiment… like the Nation Magazine, the Sierra Club and others. Why are all these people against such a safe and promising source of energy?

    “… nuclear power has been tarred with the same brush as nuclear weapons. Nuclear power plants can’t explode like bombs, but people still think that way….

    “There is also a matter of group prejudice, not unlike a fervently religious group or an audience at a sports event of great importance to local fans. People are afraid to go against the beliefs of their peers, no matter how unsubstantiated those beliefs may be.

    Biden launches $6 billion effort to save nuclear power plants, to help combat climate change, 22 April 2022

    ”Finally, some good news: In July, 2018, Advanced Reactor Concepts (ARC) and Canada’s New Brunswick Power agreed to build a sodium-cooled, small modular reactor (SMR) – and thereafter at other sites worldwide.

    The ARC-100 Advanced Small Modular Reactor

    ARC-100 by Arc Energy

    “The ARC-100 includes a passive, “walk away-safe” design that ensures the reactor cannot melt down – even if the plant loses all electrical power. The ARC-100 can consume the nuclear waste produced by LWRs and operate for 20 years without refuelling. Ontario approves nuclear.

    OPG paving the way for Small Modular Reactor deployment, 6 October 2020

    Small modular reactors can be easily transported (Image: IAEA)

    Small Modular Reactors

    • Their operation can be based on Gen II or Gen IV technologies.
    • Most of them generate less than 300 MW.
    • They run independent without active cooling (or offsite power)
    • They are small enough to have the entire reactor module fabricated at a central facility and then shipped by rail or by truck.
    SMRs can be partially or totally buried underground (Image: GE-Hitachi)

    TerraPower advances plans for next-gen nuclear plants, earning Bill Gates’ praise

    This cutaway graphic shows the design of the Versatile Test Reactor. (DOE Illustration)

    Starting in 2018, China will begin turning coal plants into nuclear reactors, by Graham Templeton,  23 November 2016

    Why a Greenpeace co-founder went nuclear, by Erika Lovley 4 March 2008

    Patrick Moore starting Greenpeace circa 1970
    Patrick Moore leaving Greenpeace circa 2000’s
    Patrick Moore: Why I Left Greenpeace

    Canada to boost nuclear power to help meet climate target, 15 March 2015

    South Korea reactors That “Won’t Melt Down” approved for US in contract between Doosan and NuScale Power.

    August 2020

    South Korea companies develop molten salt reactor for shipping, power generation, 24 June 2021

    Samsung Heavy Industries

    Under the agreement, the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute and Samsung Heavy Industries plan to develop molten salt reactors for marine propulsion and floating nuclear power plants, using molten fluoride salts as the primary coolant at low pressure.

    KAERI, 17 June 2021

    Poland goes nuclear with plan to build six reactors by 2040, by David Rogers, 9 November 2020

    Opole 3.3 GW Coal Fired Power Station

    Dr Richard Steeves at Rethinking Nuclear

    Evolution of More Innovative Reactor Designs

    Advanced Nuclear Reactors by Dr Richard Steeves

    Dr. Steeves drives an electric car and flies an electric airplane.

    Dr. Richard Steeves

    Nuclear Q&A prepared by The Finnish Greens for Science and Technology

    Nuclear Q&A prepared by The Finnish Greens for Science and Technology

    The Tennessee Valley Authority announces new nuclear programme

    Nuclear Power: The Road to a Carbon Free Future, IAEA 9 Jan 2020
    The Thorium Network Logo Black on White
    The Thorium Network
    Thorium Energy Alliance Logo
    Thorium Energy Alliance

    Coming up next week, Episode 24 – Blowing in the Wind

    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 24 – Blowing in the Wind
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 22 – The Pros of LFTRs. Why They Are So Cool
    3. Launching the Unintended Consequences Series
    4. Dr. George Erickson on LinkedIn
    5. Dr. George Erickson’s Website, Tundracub.com
    6. The full pdf version of Unintended Consequences
    7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T
    8. https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-cannara-6a1b7a3/
    9. https://rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/news/rosatom-world-s-only-floating-nuclear-power-plant-enters-full-commercial-exploitation/
    10. https://www-atomic–energy-ru.translate.goog/news/2016/08/10/68139?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
    11. https://www.powermag.com/russia-sets-new-domestic-nuclear-generation-record/
    12. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/320295-the-us-air-force-quietly-admits-the-f-35-is-a-failure
    13. https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2022-01-28/photos-leaked-F-35-fighter-jet-crashed-into-South-China-Sea-4448944.html
    14. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-35-trillion-accounting-black-231154593.html
    15. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worlds-fossil-fuel-reserve-must-stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says
    16. https://gofossilfree.org/
    17. https://350.org/
    18. https://www.linkedin.com/in/bill-mckibben-6174131b7/
    19. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Russia-offers-nuclear-desalination-bundle-0403151.html
    20. https://www.rusatom-overseas.com/
    21. https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/457339/Construction-of-phases-2-3-of-Bushehr-nuclear-plant-has-started
    22. http://aidn-inla.be/content/uploads/2016/12/proceedings-new-delhi-2016.pdf
    23. http://en.kremlin.ru/
    24. https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/russia-exporting-influence-one-nuclear-reactor-time
    25. https://neutronbytes.com/2019/04/06/russia-to-build-four-1200-mw-vver-at-two-sites-in-china/
    26. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-power-biden-climate-change/
    27. https://www.arcenergy.co/technology
    28. https://energyrealityproject.com/nuclear-power-climate-change-warrior-for-the-21st-century-2/
    29. https://www.opg.com/media_releases/opg-paving-the-way-for-small-modular-reactor-deployment/
    30. https://www.geekwire.com/2020/terrapower-advances-plans-next-gen-nuclear-plants-earning-bill-gates-praise/
    31. https://www.energy.gov/ne/versatile-test-reactor
    32. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/239588-starting-2018-china-will-begin-turning-coal-plants-nuclear-reactors
    33. https://twitter.com/grahamtempleton
    34. https://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/why-a-greenpeace-co-founder-went-nuclear-008835
    35. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/10/03/greenpeace-co-founder-patrick-moore-makes-case-sustainable-gmo-golden-rice/
    36. https://www.prageru.com/video/why-i-left-greenpeace
    37. https://phys.org/news/2018-03-canada-boost-nuclear-power-climate.html
    38. https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/south-korea-companies-develop-molten-salt-reactor-for-shipping-power-generation/
    39. https://www.samsungshi.com/eng/default.aspx
    40. https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/poland-goes-nuclear-plan-build-six-reactors-2040/
    41. https://emerging-europe.com/voices/the-first-polish-nuclear-plant-will-eventually-be-built/
    42. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opole_Power_Plant
    43. https://rethinkingnuclear.org/who-we-are/
    44. https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-steeves-373808a5/
    45. https://rethinkingnuclear.org/advanced-nuclear-reactors/
    46. https://rethinkingnuclear.org/articles/evolution-of-more-innovative-reactor-designs/
    47. https://www.viite.fi/2021/01/20/nuclear-qa/
    48. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/TVA-announces-new-nuclear-programme
    49. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ravKXD4iqQ
    50. https://TheThoriumNetwork.com
    51. https://ThoriumEnergyAlliance.com/

    #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #ClimateChange #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #SpentNuclearFuel #MoltenSaltReactor #LFTR #TheThoriumNetwork #Thorium #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #InvisibleFire #Russia #China #SouthKorea #Poland #USA #Iran #ModelTFord