Category: Fossil Fuels

  • The High Price of Keeping Nuclear Fission Energy Suppressed: How Fossil Fuels Bankroll Fear and Regulation

    The High Price of Keeping Nuclear Fission Energy Suppressed: How Fossil Fuels Bankroll Fear and Regulation

    Author Jeremiah Josey

    In 1969, the United States was surging ahead with nuclear fission power, flipping the switch on three new reactors a year to electrify millions of homes. Fission energy promised a cheap, reliable, and clean source of power, with a footprint as small as a few Central Parks combined. Fast forward to 2025, and fission energy, though still one of the safest and cleanest energy sources, has been largely sidelined. Why?

    The quiet, complex answer to this question lies in the billions—actually, trillions—of dollars the fossil fuel industry spends each year to keep fission energy suppressed. This strategic campaign to protect fossil fuel market share is a story woven through decades of fear-mongering, onerous regulations, and orchestrated myths largely funded by fossil fuel interests and their allies, including influential institutions such as the Rockefeller Institute.

    A Global Campaign Against Fission Power

    Fission energy’s limitations have less to do with safety or technology and more to do with economics and political influence. Fossil fuel companies, aware of nuclear power’s potential to disrupt their dominance, have poured immense resources into shaping public opinion and regulatory environments. For example, in Germany, a country known for its green-energy ambitions but also high industrial energy costs, the government publicly spent approximately 690 million euros in 2021 campaigning against cheaper French nuclear energy. The result? German industries, like its carmakers, suffered from higher energy prices, making them less competitive than their French counterparts powered predominantly by nuclear electricity.

    This is just one part of a global pattern. Various studies and reports highlight how fossil fuel subsidies, lobbying, and marketing have weakened fission power ambitions across continents. In Australia, for example, government fossil fuel subsidies reached USD 14.9 billion in 2024–25, fuelling coal, gas, and oil production, while nuclear options remain politically marginalised despite its obvious and logical potential as a clean energy pillar.

    Fossil Fuel Spending on Energy Suppression in 2025

    Globally, fossil fuel subsidies and related expenditures to bolster oil, natural gas, and coal industries continue to rise. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that in 2025, governments and private interests worldwide will spend billions annually—estimated at over USD 1 trillion—on fossil fuel support measures including subsidies, tax breaks, and lobbying efforts aimed at maintaining the status quo. They are using public funds – your tax money – to keep their merry-go-round going around.

    This vast pool of money not only props up fossil fuel extraction but also backs anti-nuclear campaigns, strict regulatory frameworks, and misinformation campaigns that cascade into project delays and cost inflation for nuclear projects. These tactics increase the construction time of nuclear plants from a few years to sometimes decades, exponentially raising capital and interest costs—effectively pricing nuclear out of competitive viability.

    The Rockefeller Institute and the Fossil Fuel Nexus

    One of the key orchestrators in this suppression strategy has been the Rockefeller Institute and its multifaceted network of foundations and organisations. Historically vested in fossil fuels—mainly oil—the Rockefeller interests have wielded significant influence to sway energy policy, often under the guise of environmental concern.

    Their involvement is evident in the proliferation of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) radiation model, which posits that any amount of radiation exposure increases cancer risk. While later findings have disproved the scientific basis of LNT, its implementation led to stringent safety regulations that made nuclear plant construction prohibitively expensive. This regulatory labyrinth was a boon to the fossil fuel sector who benefited—as they intended—from delaying nuclear advancements.

    The Economic Scale of Suppression: An Expensive Trade-off

    The economic numbers reveal a staggering cost—not just in dollars but in lost opportunity for clean and abundant power. According to U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates, each month of delay in constructing a nuclear plant can cost about USD 44 million, plus USD 20 million in lost potential revenue. Over decades, the compounded cost of these delays, driven largely by unnecessary regulation and public fear campaigns, has ballooned nuclear construction costs tenfold.

    Meanwhile, fossil fuel industries continue to thrive on government support totalling hundreds of billions a year. The contrast is stark: in Australia alone, fossil fuel subsidies outstrip disaster readiness funds by 14 times, underscoring priorities tilted heavily toward maintaining fossil fuel dominance rather than investing in clean alternatives like nuclear.

    What This Means for Clean Energy’s Future

    Despite these barriers, there’s a renewed interest and slow resurgence in Fission technology, particularly in innovative designs like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which are more cost-effective and easier by design. The U.S., Canada, and some European countries are pushing these technologies as part of their clean energy transition. Or, like Sweden, making their main game.

    Yet the fossil fuel industry’s influence remains a formidable obstacle. Continued financial prioritisation of fossil fuels over Fission hampers progress and locks in higher emissions, the deaths they cause and energy insecurity risks for decades to come.

    Global Reflection: The Need for Transparency and Realignment

    Around the world, the fossil fuel industry’s strategic spend to suppress Fission energy is a costly shadow game with massive implications for climate, economy, and energy independence. Countries like Germany demonstrate the pain of energy policy skewed by fossil fuel lobbying, while Australia’s ballooning fossil fuel subsidies show the magnitude of public money fuelling this suppression.

    In 2025, as global clean energy investments reach unprecedented levels—over USD 2.2 trillion supporting renewables—the fossil fuel industry’s spending to maintain its grip on the market emphasises how much is at stake. If society is serious about combating climate change, improving energy security, and ensuring economic competitiveness, policymakers must address this imbalance and reconsider the obstacles fossil fuel interests have placed against Nuclear Fission Power.

    The truth behind Fission power’s stagnation is not one of technology limits or safety failures but of calculated financial power plays sustained by fossil fuels and their political allies. It’s a story worth knowing—and changing.

    Appendix: Country-by-Country Fossil Fuel Spending and Its Impact on Nuclear Energy Suppression in 2025

    This appendix complements the main report’s overarching analysis by providing granular data and examples that underscore the global nature of fossil fuel spending in nuclear energy suppression.

    These country-specific figures and contexts reveal the scale and diversity of fossil fuel industry support worldwide, illustrating how this financial leverage acts as a powerful brake on the development of safe, reliable, and carbon-free nuclear energy in 2025.

    United States

    • Annual fossil fuel subsidies exceed USD 20 billion, encompassing federal and state tax breaks and direct funding.
    • Disclosed fossil fuel industry lobbying surpasses USD 125 million each year, heavily influencing regulations that significantly increase nuclear plant construction costs and timelines.
    • Undisclosed fossil fuel support for suppressive activities is estimated to exceed USD 5 billion annually.
    • Regulatory frameworks such as the Linear No-Threshold radiation exposure model, instigated by fossil fuel interests, contribute billions in additional costs and delays for nuclear projects.
    • The combined effect creates a challenging environment for nuclear energy expansion despite its safety and clean energy benefits.

    Germany

    • The German government spent approximately 690 million euros in 2021 actively campaigning against French nuclear power, motivated by economic competition concerns as lower French electricity prices put German industries, especially automotive manufacturing, at a disadvantage. Germany routinely spends more than 500 million euros each year on programs against French Fission energy.
    • Fossil fuel subsidies and supports range between USD 15-USD 20 billion annually, primarily supporting coal and gas power plants during the energy transition.
    • These substantial political and financial efforts sustain high fossil fuel dependency and suppress domestic nuclear energy initiatives.

    Australia

    • Total fossil fuel subsidies from federal and state governments amounted to USD 14.9 billion in 2024–25, marking a 3% increase from the previous year.
    • The Federal Government’s Fuel Tax Credits Scheme is a significant contributor, valued at over USD 10 billion alone.
    • State-level spending includes substantial funding for coal mines, gas power stations, and related infrastructure, with Queensland and Western Australia being notable contributors.
    • Nuclear Fission power remains politically sidelined, with fossil fuel industry influence heavily steering energy policy.

    Canada

    • Fossil fuel subsidies are estimated between USD 10-13 billion annually, mainly through tax incentives and direct spending to support oil sands and pipeline infrastructure.
    • Fossil fuel industry revenues significantly shape regional energy policies, limiting nuclear energy’s expansion potential.

    China

    • China provides over USD 30 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies, underpinning coal and natural gas as critical transition fuels despite aggressive nuclear development plans.
    • Political influence from state-owned fossil fuel enterprises delays broader nuclear adoption in some regions, balancing industrial and energy security concerns.

    India

    • Fossil fuel subsidies totalled approximately USD 40 billion in 2024, predominantly favouring coal and oil sectors.
    • Although nuclear power is considered a future energy option, the overwhelming fossil fuel dominance slows regulatory progress and investment in nuclear infrastructure.

    France

    • France represents a pro-nuclear exception with relatively low fossil fuel subsidies, below USD 5 billion annually.
    • France’s government-backed nuclear energy utilities have minimised fossil fuel influence, supporting a substantial portion of the country’s electricity without significant opposition.

    United Kingdom

    • Fossil fuel subsidies range between USD 8-10 billion annually, largely focusing on oil and gas industries in the North Sea.
    • The fossil fuel sector’s political clout contributes to regulatory challenges that inhibit the scaling up of nuclear power projects, despite official plans to expand nuclear capacity.

    References

    1. https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/how-g7-can-advance-action-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2025
    2. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/P1669-Fossil-fuel-subsidies-2025-Web.pdf
    3. https://oilchange.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
    4. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-economic-surveys-finland-2025_985d0555-en/full-report/stepping-up-the-transition-to-net-zero_902009f2.html
    5. https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-subsidies-fossil-fuels
    6. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/03_presentation%20by%20iea%20on%20energy%20investment%20trends.pdf
    7. https://www.germanwatch.org/en/91780
    8. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies
    9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11096703/

    Tags

    #CleanEnergyTransition #NuclearPowerNow #FossilFuelFree #EnergyPolicyReform #ClimateAction2025 #Nuclear #Energy

    Links

    Linkedin

    Patreon

  • Nuclear Power: The Only Logical and Reliable Natural Energy Solution Amid Renewables’ Struggles

    Author Jeremiah Josey

    As the global energy landscape is rapidly evolving, the limitations and challenges of wind and solar power have become increasingly evident. Meanwhile, nuclear energy—especially advanced technologies like Thorium-based reactors championed by TheThorium.Network—stands out as the only truly dependable, scalable, and sustainable clean energy source.

    Wind and Solar Facing Increasing Headwinds

    While wind and solar continue to expand in capacity, the reality on the ground exposes growing barriers to their sustained dominance.

    • Offshore wind projects are repeatedly stymied by regulatory and operational roadblocks. The 704 MW Revolution Wind project off Rhode Island was halted by a US federal stop work order due to unresolved compliance issues, delaying critical renewable capacity. Similarly, Equinor’s ambitious 2 GW floating offshore wind initiative in Australia was abandoned because regulatory hurdles could not be overcome.
    • Technological advances like recyclable turbine blades at the UK’s Sofia offshore wind farm represent progress but cannot mask the sector’s ongoing safety and logistical challenges. Research from Robert Gordon University highlights the high risks faced by offshore wind technicians, underscoring the human and operational costs of these installations.
    • The solar industry also contends with market saturation and excess production, particularly in China, where regulators are urging the sector to reduce overcapacity and cut back on hyper-competition to stabilize fragile market conditions. In the US, solar accounts for a large portion of new capacity additions, but its intermittent nature and supply chain imbalances raise questions about long-term reliability.
    • Microgrids, though growing rapidly due to their benefits in rural electrification and risk mitigation, remain niche solutions incapable of meeting the vast and growing global demand for continuous power.

    Nuclear Power Advancing as the Backbone of Clean Energy

    In stark contrast to the uncertainties facing renewables, nuclear power advances steadily as a reliable and practical solution for the clean energy transition:

    • Sweden’s Vattenfall is pushing forward with plans for new nuclear power plants using small modular reactors (SMRs), partnering with leading technology providers like GE Vernova and Rolls-Royce SMR. This reflects rising confidence in scalable advanced nuclear technologies as irreplaceable components of future energy systems.
    • Energy security is paramount, especially for developing nations. Iraq’s recent contract to deploy two powerships delivering dispatchable electricity exemplifies how nuclear technology can provide fast, flexible energy where it is needed most.
    • The intrinsic benefits of nuclear power—high energy density, continuous 24/7 output, minimal land use, and operational stability—make it uniquely suited to underpin future grids resilient to climate variability and demand flux.

    Why Thorium-Based Nuclear Power Is the Only Logical Path Forward

    The challenges confronting wind and solar power highlight the necessity for energy sources that guarantee steady supply without dependency on weather or daylight. Thorium-based nuclear technology, as advocated by TheThorium.Network, offers unmatched advantages:

    • Produces clean, abundant energy with vastly lower environmental impact compared to land-intensive renewables.
    • Avoids intermittency issues, eliminating the need for costly energy storage and backup systems.
    • Enhances grid stability and synergizes well with emerging grid architectures and community microgrids.
    • Supports sustainable economic development, especially in emerging and rural economies, by providing dependable power access.

    Facing Reality: The Myths of Renewables and the Promise of Nuclear

    Despite some narratives of wind and solar outproducing traditional sources in certain periods, the broader picture shows unresolved technical, regulatory, and economic hurdles hampering renewables’ ability to fully replace fossil fuels reliably. Studies demonstrate nuclear power’s superior cost-effectiveness when system integration, capacity factors, and dispatchability are fully accounted for. Moreover, innovations in thorium molten salt reactors promise safer and more economical nuclear power, free from many drawbacks of conventional uranium reactors.

    Conclusion

    The future of sustainable, reliable, and scalable energy lies not in the uncertain promises of intermittently dependent wind and solar power, but in embracing nuclear innovation—particularly thorium-based nuclear technologies that TheThorium.Network pioneers. Nuclear power’s unparalleled reliability, efficiency, and environmental credentials make it the only rational cornerstone for a secure energy future worldwide.


    Reference List

    • BKPS, a Karpowership affiliate, signs contract to deliver dispatchable electricity via two powerships to Iraq, supporting energy security.
      Source: Powerships to support energy security in Iraq
    • Construction of the 704 MW Revolution Wind offshore wind project off Rhode Island halted on August 22, 2025, after US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a stop-work order; project was 80% complete with 45 of 65 turbines installed, aiming for completion in 2026.
      Sources: Federal order halts 704 MW Revolution Wind offshore project; https://orsted.com/en/company-announcement-list/2025/08/revolution-wind-receives-offshore-stop-work-order–145387701
    • Swedish energy company Vattenfall advances plans for new nuclear power plant on the Värö Peninsula, shortlisting GE Vernova and Rolls-Royce SMR as potential small modular reactor suppliers.
      Source: Vattenfall advances plan for new nuclear power in Sweden
    • Equinor withdraws from 2 GW floating offshore wind project off New South Wales, Australia, due to unresolved regulatory challenges.
      Source: Equinor pulls out of 2 GW floating offshore wind project
    • China’s industry ministry calls on solar industry to reduce overcapacity and mitigate extreme competition for market stability.
      Source: China urges its solar industry to curb overcapacity
    • US utility-scale solar capacity grew by 12 GW in the first half of 2025, with an additional 21 GW planned for the second half; solar expected to make up 50% of new generation capacity additions this year.
      Source: 50% of new US capacity to come from solar – EIA
    • Global microgrid capacity projected to reach 1.4 GW by 2034, driven by rural electrification and utility risk mitigation efforts.
      Source: Microgrid capacity additions to reach 1.4 GW by 2034
    • Researchers at Robert Gordon University publish study aimed at improving safety for offshore wind technicians working in high-risk environments.
      Source: New study supports improved offshore safety
    • RWE and Siemens Gamesa install recyclable wind turbine blades at UK Sofia offshore wind project, marking a UK first for sustainability.
      Source: Recyclable turbine blades installed at Sofia project
    • UK-led robotics initiative to accelerate environmental approvals for offshore wind farms, aiming to speed up deployment.
      Source: UK project aims at speeding up offshore wind approvals
    • Zambia’s ZESCO and Anzana Electric Group launch $300 million electrification project to expand power access along the Lobito Corridor.
      Source: Zambia launches $300 m electrification project

    Fission Energy Trumps All
  • The $6 Trillion Lead Poisoning Scandal Big Oil Tried To Hide for Decades

    The $6 Trillion Lead Poisoning Scandal Big Oil Tried To Hide for Decades

    Author Jeremiah Josey

    Executive Summary

    For over a century, humanity has paid the ultimate price for the insatiable greed of the fossil fuel industry. The story of tetraethyl lead (TEL) added to petrol—intentionally poisoning workers, children, and millions worldwide—is a stark and brutal example of corporate cruelty disguised as “progress.” Those deaths were never part of any conversation; profit was the sole concern.

    Today, as climate change accelerates and pollution kills 8.5 million people annually (WHO, 2023), the truth remains suppressed again. Liquid Fission Thorium (LFT) energy, a proven, clean, and nearly infinite source of power, capable of obliterating oil profits overnight and saving the planet, is deliberately kept from public awareness.

    This report exposes how the same forces that poisoned our children with leaded petrol actively suppress LFT, choosing profits over life repeatedly. The pattern is clear: corporations sell death to protect fortunes, and governments, bought and compromised, enable the carnage.


    Introduction: No “Economic Realities”—Only Profit and Death

    Profits—not “economic realities” or “political complexity”—have always been the brutal truth behind industrial poisonings, colonial massacres, and environmental destruction. The oil industry’s addition of lead to petrol was a deliberate choice to enrich shareholders at the catastrophic cost of human health.

    Workers died by the dozens during TEL’s early production. Millions of children suffered irreversible brain damage worldwide. No one asked if it was right or justified—it never entered the conversation. Corporate greed alone decided that killing people was an acceptable collateral cost.

    This historical lesson is no ancient tragedy. Today, Liquid Fission Thorium (LFT) energy stands ready to revolutionise the global energy system, eliminate fossil fuels, and save millions of lives lost annually to toxic air pollution. Yet, once again, corporate interests suppress this breakthrough because the survival of big oil—and their profits—depends on it.


    Part I: The Leaded Petrol Poisoning—A Century of Corporate Murder for Profit

    TEL: The Deadly Additive Created to Expand Oil Profits

    In the 1920s, General Motors and DuPont’s engineer Thomas Midgley Jr. synthesised TEL, a compound that allowed car engines to run faster and cheaper but was a potent neurotoxin. The Ethyl Corporation, formed to market TEL, unleashed it worldwide despite knowing its deadly effects.

    The goal was not worker safety or public health. It was profit maximisation through controlling a key additive that oil refiners could exploit.

    Workers Murdered and Poisoned, Covered Up to Protect Profits

    At the Bayway refinery in 1924, five workers died from lead poisoning. Ethyl Corporation responded with lies, denial, and intimidation. No accountability. No remorse. Deaths continued unabated. Even Thomas Midgley Jr. dies a horrible death due to lead poisoning.

    Oil and chemical companies financed falsified “safety” studies, suppressed whistleblowers, and bribed politicians to ensure TEL stayed in fuel for nearly 100 years.

    Millions died prematurely from cardiovascular and neurological diseases directly linked to lead exposure. The lives lost were a “cost of doing business”—never a matter of ethics or public debate.


    Part II: How Lead Devastates the Human Body—Irreversible Damage for Profit

    Lead is a ruthless poison that permanently damages the developing brain and multiple organ systems:

    • Mimics vital metals like calcium, zinc, and iron, disrupting cellular signalling and enzyme functions (Needleman, 2004).
    • Blocks haem synthesis enzymes, causing anaemia and oxidative cellular damage (Grandjean & Landrigan, 2014).
    • Induces oxidative stress destroying DNA, proteins, and lipids (Cousins et al., 2009).
    • Accumulates in bones for decades, releasing lead back into the body long after exposure ends (Landrigan et al., 2020).

    There is no safe exposure level. Lead destroys brains, bodies, and lives—pure and simple.


    Part III: Global Toll of Leaded Petrol—Millions Dead, Trillions Lost

    • Leaded petrol poisoning caused over 5 million premature deaths annually for decades, predominantly through cardiovascular, neurological, and kidney diseases (The Lancet Public Health, 2023).
    • Childhood brain damage from lead reduced IQ by 2-5 points on average worldwide, increasing behavioural disorders and societal costs (Grandjean & Landrigan, 2014).
    • The economic loss in productivity and healthcare exceeded 6 trillion USD per year for almost 100 years, overwhelmingly borne by the poorest countries forced to drag out lead use for economic gain of rich corporations (WHO, 2023).

    Part IV: The Shameful Timeline—The Last Countries to Poison Their Citizens

    The global phase-out of leaded petrol spanned decades, with many poor countries forced to continue using it to “burn stockpiles” and protect corporate profits:

    These deliberate delays were driven by corporate greed. Governments were bribed or intimidated. The smell of leaded petrol was kept in the air and children’s blood because flush profits mattered more than saving lives.


    Part V: The Suppression of Liquid Fission Thorium (LFT)—The Clean Energy Solution That Would Obliterate Fossil Fuel Profits Overnight

    LFT Is the Perfect Answer — But It Must Be Hidden

    Liquid Fission Thorium (LFT) energy provides near-limitless clean power, zero carbon emissions, and eliminates toxic air pollution that causes millions of deaths annually.

    Scientifically proven and technologically feasible, LFT reactors:

    • Produce far more energy than traditional uranium reactors with vastly reduced nuclear waste.
    • Operate safely, sustainably, and can power entire economies without fossil fuels.

    Were LFT deployed worldwide today, the oil industry would collapse in months, wiping out trillions in profits. This existential threat to fossil fuel monopolies explains why LFT remains systematically suppressed.


    History Repeating: From Lead Poisoning to Energy Suppression

    Just as corporations shoved lead into gasoline to fatten profits—recklessly poisoning workers and the public—they now engineer political and media campaigns to keep LFT out of public consciousness. The same lobbyists bribe politicians, fund misinformation, and block research funding.

    This suppression kills millions every year via continued global warming, toxic air pollution, and preventable diseases.


    Conclusion: Profits Over People – The Deadly Heart of the Fossil Fuel Industry

    The leaded petrol disaster was not an accident or oversight. It was cold-blooded corporate murder aided by complicit governments willing to sell out human health for campaign contributions and economic favours.

    Today, the suppression of Liquid Fission Thorium energy is the latest chapter in this ongoing story—a story of deliberate poisoning and deception so fossil fuel profits can continue to soar.

    The solutions exist. The lives that could be saved number in the millions every year. It is now a choice unequivocally made by those in power: keep poisoning or save humanity.

    At TheThorium.Network, we expose this truth without compromise because corporate avarice must no longer decide who lives and who dies.

    If you require a deeper technical overview of Liquid Fission Thorium technology, impact analyses, or historical industry interference case studies, TheThorium.Network stands ready to provide.


    References

    • Calabrese, E. J. (2013). Hormesis and the dose–response revolution. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 53, 175–197.
    • Cousins, C. R., et al. (2009). Lead toxicity mechanisms and prevention. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 28(1), 27–34.
    • Dyni, J. R. (2006). The History of Leaded Gasoline and Its Health Impacts. US Geological Survey Report.
    • Feinendegen, L. E. (2005). Evidence for beneficial low-level radiation effects and radiation hormesis. British Journal of Radiology, 78(925), 3–7.
    • Grandjean, P., & Landrigan, P. J. (2014). Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology, 13(3), 330–338.
    • Landrigan, P. J., et al. (2020). The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet, 391(10119), 462–512.
    • Needleman, H. (2004). Lead poisoning. Annual Review of Medicine, 55, 209–222.
    • NBC News Investigative Report (2023). The Poisoned Gas: How leaded gasoline blunted the IQ of half a generation.
    • The Lancet Public Health (2023). Lead exposure and health impact article.
    • World Health Organization (2023). Lead Poisoning and Health Fact Sheet.
    • Wikipedia contributors. “Tetraethyllead.” Wikipedia.
    • Quartz Africa (2021). “Leaded gasoline is now banned everywhere on Earth.”
    • Our World in Data (2021). Leaded Gasoline Phase-Out.

    Postscript

    The estimated global economic loss of approximately 6 trillion USD annually attributable to lead exposure—particularly from leaded petrol—results from extensive interdisciplinary research combining toxicology, epidemiology, labour economics, and demographic modelling.

    This figure predominantly arises from the calculation of lost lifetime economic productivity (LEP) due to lead-induced cognitive impairment in children. Scientific consensus establishes that childhood lead exposure lowers intelligence quotient (IQ) by an average of 2 to 5 points depending on exposure levels (Needleman, 2004; Grandjean & Landrigan, 2014). This IQ decrement is not trivial; it significantly hampers educational achievement, workforce participation, and lifetime earnings.

    Researchers globally estimate the economic impact by first modelling population blood lead levels through biomonitoring data and environmental measurements. Using dose-response relationships from toxicological studies, they calculate the average IQ loss per birth cohort in each country (Attina & Trasande, 2013). Labour economics research then translates these IQ losses into expected reductions in lifetime income, based on well-established correlations between cognitive ability and earnings (Tsai & Hatfield, 2011).

    To derive the aggregate global economic burden, individual country losses are scaled by population size and adjusted for income variations via purchasing power parity or GDP per capita (World Bank data). The resulting sums represent the worldwide loss in lifetime productivity.

    Importantly, lost IQ and associated productivity declines are only part of the picture. Lead exposure also elevates risks for cardiovascular disease, stroke, kidney failure, and behavioural disorders, all of which increase healthcare costs, reduce work capacity, and impose broader social costs including criminal justice expenditures (Landrigan et al., 2020; The Lancet Public Health, 2023). These additional direct and indirect costs are integrated into economic models to capture the full extent of lead’s burden on societies.

    Premature mortality attributable to lead exposure further amplifies economic loss through lost years of economic contribution.

    Multiple meta-analyses and comprehensive studies, including those published in Environmental Health Perspectives (Attina & Trasande, 2013), The Lancet Public Health (2023), and reports from the World Health Organization (WHO, 2023), consistently estimate the total economic losses globally approaching 6 trillion USD each year, equating to roughly 7% of global GDP.

    This economic toll disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries, where lead exposure remains highest and health and educational infrastructure are limited, exacerbating intergenerational poverty and health inequities.

    While precise quantifications vary with modelling assumptions and evolving data, the convergence of independent analyses underscores lead poisoning’s status as one of the world’s most damaging and preventable public health crises with catastrophic economic implications.

    In summary, the 6 trillion USD figure encapsulates the lifetime lost economic productivity, increased health and social service costs, and premature mortality caused by lead exposure worldwide. It starkly reveals the massive price humanity continues to pay for lead pollution sustained by decades of profit-driven negligence.


    References

    • Attina TM, Trasande L. (2013). Economic costs of childhood lead exposure in low- and middle-income countries. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(9), 1097–1102.
    • Tsai SY, Hatfield J. (2011). Removing lead from gasoline worldwide: a step towards improving health and the environment. Environmental Health, 10(44).
    • World Bank. World Development Indicators, GDP per capita and Purchasing Power Parity Data.

    #CleanEnergy #BigOilExposed #LeadPoisoning #ClimateAction #SustainableEnergy #EnvironmentalJustice

    Social

  • 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

  • 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 on wind farms
    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.

    buffett and musk on renewables
    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

    federal subsidies 2003 2017
    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

    frozen wind turbine
    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.”

    james hansen testifies before the senate foreign relations committee during a hearing about the keystone xl pipeline project in 2014
    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 EmanuelKen Caldeira and Tom Wigley, Guardian 3 December 2015

    ken caldeira
    Dr Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution for Science
    tom wigley adelaide university
    Professor Tom Wigley, Adelaide University

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

    emanuel kerry photo
    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

    satellite gas leak ohio
    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

    natural gas leaks
    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.

    energy generation costs usa
    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. http://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 16 – Green is Clean Air and Clean Water for All – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 7 Part 2

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

    The trail of destruction continues from Episode 15.

    Later in 2010, an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in Michigan, eventually “spilling” more than a million gallons of tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River. When monitors at the Alberta office reported that the line pressure had fallen to zero, control room staff dismissed the warning as a false alarm and cranked up the pressure twice, which worsened the disaster. In 2018, Enbridge’s “cleanup” was still incomplete.

    • Fire at BP Deepwater Horizon 2010
    • Bird in Oil Alaska 1989
    • 800 Mile Oil Spill Alaska 1989
    • San Bruno Gas Pipeline Explosion 2008
    • Aliso Canyon Methane Leak 2014
    • Alberta Waste Oil Spill 2014
    • Oil Train Derailment in New Brunswick, Canada 2014
    • Alabama Oil Train Fire 2013
    • Mayflower, Arkansas Exxon Oil Spill 2016
    • Lac Megantic Quebec Oil Train Crash 2013
    • Enbridge Tar Sands Oil Pipeline Spill Kalamazoo 2010
    • Ramsey Natural Gas Processing Plant in Orla, Texas 2015

    In 2013, a spectacular train wreck dumped 2 million gallons of North Dakota crude oil into Lac Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 residents and incinerating the centre of the town – but that’s just another page in the endless petroleum tale that includes Exxon’s disastrous, 2016 “spill” in Mayflower, Arkansas, that received scant notice from the press.

    And in November 2013, a train loaded with 2.7 million gallons of crude oil went incendiary in Alabama, followed in December by a North Dakota conflagration.

    2014 began with a fiery derailment in New Brunswick, Canada, and in October 2014, 625,000 liters of oil and toxic mine-water were “spilled” in Alberta.

    July, August and September brought Alberta’s autumn, 2014 total to 90 pipeline “spills.”   2015 brought four, fiery oil train wrecks just by March, and 2016 delivered two Alabama pipeline explosions – one close to Birmingham.

    George Erickson

    July, August and September brought Alberta’s autumn, 2014 total to 90 pipeline “spills.”   2015 brought four, fiery oil train wrecks just by March, and 2016 delivered two Alabama pipeline explosions – one close to Birmingham.

    In late 2015, California’s horrific, Aliso Canyon methane “leak” (think “geyser”) erupted, spewing forth 100,000 tons of natural gas, the equivalent of approximately 3 billion gallons of gasoline or adding 500,000 cars to our roads for a year.

    The Southern California Gas Company finally managed to throttle the geyser in February, 2016. Incidentally, Aliso’s 100,000 tons of “leakage” is just 25% of California’s allowed leakage, which is an indication of the political power of the natural gas industry. (Five months later, a new headline appeared: “Massive Fracking Explosion in New Mexico”)

    The Aliso “leak” caused the loss of 70 billion cubic feet (BCF) of gas that California utilities count on to create electricity for the hot summer months. As a consequence, the California Independent Service Operator, which manages California’s grid, estimated that due to Aliso, 21 million customers should expect to be without power for 14 days during the summer.

    Methane leaks offset much of the climate change benefits of natural gas, study says

    2 oil pumps and gas flaring
    Flaring Methane

    According to Reuters, (June 2016), “SoCalGas uses Aliso Canyon to provide gas to power generators that cannot be met with pipeline flows alone on about 10 days per month during the summer, according to state agencies.”

    However, during the summer, SoCalGas also strives to fill Aliso Canyon to prepare for the winter heating season. State regulators, however, subsequently ordered the company to reduce the amount of gas in Aliso to just 15 BCF and use that fuel to reduce the risk of power interruptions in the hot summer months of 2016. Fortunately, State regulators have also said that they won’t allow SoCalGas to inject fuel into the facility until the company has inspected all of its 114 storage facilities.

    The Aliso disaster wiped out all of the state’s Green House Gas (GHG) reductions from its wind and solar systems – and led to a USD 1.8 billion judgement against SoCalGas in September, 2021. In 2016, California officials also reported leakage at a San Joachim County storage facility that was “similar to, or slightly above, background levels at other natural gas storage facilities.”

    Alexander Cannara – Energy Basics @ TEAC3

    Dr. Alex Cannara, a California resident writes,

    “Combustion sources [unlike nuclear power], aren’t burdened with their true costs. Natural gas, for example, is not cheaper than nuclear or anything else. In 2016, our allowed leakage wipes wind/solar out by 4 times. In other words, ‘renewables’ in a gas state like California wipe out their benefits every 3 months because they depend on gas for most of their nameplate ratings. The Aliso storage was largely used to compensate for ‘renewables’ inevitable shortfall.

    “The most important combustion cost is the unlimited downside risk of its emissions for the entire planet, but in February 2016, our CEC approved 600MW of added gas burning in the San Diego region simply because the San Onofre nuclear plant wasn’t running, due to possibly corrupt actions by SoCla Gas, SCE, Sempra Energy and Edison Intl.

    “Such practices were prevented for 75 years by the 1935 PUHCA, but the Bush administration repealed it in 2005 after decades of carbon combustion-interest lobbying. Some states – not California – passed legislation to correct for the 2005 PUHCA repeal.”

    There’s more: In August, 2016, the Pennsylvania EPA admitted that oil and gas production in the state emitted as much methane as Aliso Canyon. The Aliso “leak” was deemed a disaster, but the hundreds of equally damaging Pennsylvania “leaks” were considered business as usual.

    pittsburg pennsylvania
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    Finally, also in August, 2016, a thirty-inch pipeline exploded in southeast New Mexico, killing five adults and five children while leaving two other adults in critical condition in a Lubbock, Texas hospital.

    All of this could have been avoided if, instead of pursuing intermittent, short-lived, carbon-dependent windmills and solar panels (Chapters 9 and 10), we had expanded safe, CO2-free Nuclear Power.

    Dr. Wade Allison, in Nuclear is For Life, wrote: “Critics of civilian nuclear power use what they fear might happen due to a nuclear failure – but never has – but ignore other accidents that have been far worse:
    – The 1975 dam failure in China that killed 170,000;
    – The 1984 chemical plant disaster in Bhopal, India where 3,899 died and 558,000 were injured;
    – The 1889, Johnstown. PA flood that drowned 2,200;
    – The 1917 explosion of a cargo ship in Halifax, N. S. where 2,000 died and 9,000 were injured;
    – Turkey’s 2014 coal mine accident that took 300 lives;
    – The 2015 warehouse explosion in China that cost 173 lives. “

    The list seems endless, but no one advocates destroying dams or closing chemical plants.

    The way the world has reacted to the Fukushima accident has been the real disaster with huge consequences to the environment, but the accident itself was not.”

    See more from Dr Alison here.

    Wade Allison
    Wade Allison
    nuclear power machinery
    Rediscovering the Promise of Nuclear Power by Wade Allison

    “In California, defective, Japanese-built steam generators at the San Onofre plant could have been replaced for about USD 600 million, but the plant is being decommissioned at a cost of USD 4.5 billion because of Fukushima and anti-nuclear zealotry. The plant could be replaced with two, CO2-free AP-1000 reactors for USD 14 Billion.” Mike Conley

    In this foolish way, California lost the CO2-free electricity generated by San Onofre – 9% of California’s needs – which was replaced by carbon burning power plants and/or carbon-reliant wind and solar.

    Nuclear plants are required to set aside part of their profits to pay the cost of decommissioning, but no such requirement is made of wind and solar farms. Neither are carbon companies required to pre-fund the removal of miles of pipelines, the cleanup of refinery sites, or the sealing of their abandoned wells.

    Gas Industry Plans to Sink Nuclear Power

    markay pennsylvania
    Inside the Gas Industry’s Plan to Sink Nuclear Power, Lachlan Markay 14 April 2019

    I repeat, NO ONE has died from radiation created by commercial nuclear power production in Western Europe, Asia or the Southern and Western hemispheres, but up to 5,000,000 people die prematurely every year from the burning of coal, gas, wood and oil.

    The 2008 UNSCEAR update on their Chernobyl Report changed the “4000” future deaths from cancer to undetectable future deaths. With that reduction, the deaths per TWh drop accordingly.

    A 2019 study lowered the nuclear rate even further from 0.0013 to 0.0007/TWh.

    The original version of this chart, which rated nuclear power at 0.04 deaths per Terawatt hour, included thousands of LNT-predicted Chernobyl deaths that never happened.

    As a consequence, this image, which reflects reality instead of LNT [Linear No Threshold] errors, reveals that nuclear power is far safer than initially thought, and that nuclear is actually 115 times safer than wind – not 4,340 times safer than solar – not 10, 3,000 times safer than natural gas, 27,000 times safer than oil – and coal is out of sight.

    nuclear is the safest 1
    “Renewables” vs Nuclear Power by George Erickson 21 Sept 2017

    While we are at it, let’s explore resources necessary to build equivalent power facilities and the fuel required.

    tonnage to build 10000 twh
    Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Department of Energy
    Power StationFuel QuantityFuel Quantity (kg)CO2 Production (Tons)
    Solid Fission (U235)7 Pounds3.2Zero
    Coal Burning9,000 tons9,000,00026,000
    Natural Gas Burning240,000,000 cu ft4,621,30915,210
    How Much Does it Take to Move that Much Materials?
    • Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 1 of 3
    • Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 2 of 3
    • Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 3 of 3
    cartoon co2 production

    Coming up next week, Episode 17 – All At Sea – The Best Technology. Not Used. Why?


    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 17 – All At Sea – The Best Technology. Not Used. Why?
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 15 – Clean Air and Water? Not with Fossil Fuels Around
    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/2013_Mayflower_oil_spill
    8. https://www.ecowatch.com/massive-fracking-explosion-in-new-mexico-1919567359.html
    9. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/methane-leaks-offset-much-of-the-benefits-of-natural-gas-new-study-says/2018/06/21/e381654a-7590-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html
    10. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-heatwave-idUSKCN0Z60DO
    11. https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/resource/dr-alex-cannara-energy-basics/
    12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUVq81kBKyk
    13. https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-cannara-6a1b7a3/
    14. http://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Air/BAQ/BusinessTopics/Emission/Pages/Marcellus-Inventory.aspx
    15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh
    16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Allison
    17. https://www.linkedin.com/in/wade-allison-08929816/
    18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285420212_Nuclear_is_for_Life_A_Cultural_Revolution
    19. https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Life-Wade-Allison-author/dp/0956275648
    20. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nuclear-power-climate-change-misconceptions-by-wade-allison-2018-06
    21. https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-conley-5529b3/
    22. https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-gas-industrys-plan-to-sink-nuclear-power
    23. https://www.linkedin.com/in/lachlanmarkay/
    24. https://duluthreader.com/articles/2017/09/21/109245-renewables-vs-nuclear-power
    25. https://www.energy.gov/quadrennial-technology-review-2015

    #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #ClimateChange #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #FossilFuels #NuclearSafety #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #Thorium

  • Episode 15 – Clean Air and Water? Not with Fossil Fuels Around – Death by Fossil – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 7 Part 1

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

    What’s the Fossil Fuel Record? Millions of Air Pollution Deaths each year

    Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for more than 8 million people worldwide in 2018

    Loretta J. Mickley | Harvard
    February 9, 2021
    loretta j. mickley harvard close
    Loretta J. Mickley, Senior Research Fellow in Chemistry-Climate Interactions, Harvard

    Because the carbon industries are heavily subsidised, one might expect them to have exemplary safety and social records, but one would be wrong!

    According to the Guardian, 6 Oct 2021 “The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by USD 5.9tn in 2020″ Or USD 11 million a minute every day. This is according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund. The IMF has noted before that existing fossil fuel subsidies overwhelmingly go to the rich, with the wealthiest 20% of people getting six times as much as the poorest 20% in low and middle-income countries.

    IMF Logo Photo

    IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by USD 5.9tn in 2020, or USD11 per minute.

    Guardian, 6 Oct 2021

    The ash derived from burning coal averages 80,000 pounds per American lifetime. Compare that to two pounds of nuclear “waste” for the same amount of electricity. The world’s 1,200 largest coal-fired plants cause 30,000 premature U.S. deaths every year plus hundreds of thousands of cases of lung and heart diseases.

    In 2006, the Sago coal mine disaster killed 12. A few years later, a West Virginia coal mine explosion killed 29. In May 2014, 240 miners died in a Turkish coal mine.

    ash from coal fired power station
    Normal Operations – Ash from Coal Fired Power Station – Tennessee Valley Authority

    Generating the 20% of U.S. electricity with nuclear power saves our atmosphere from being polluted with 177 million tons of greenhouse gases every year, but despite the increasing consequences of Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, the burning of carbon to make electricity is still rising.

    Scientific American, 13 Dec 2007: “Coal-fired plants expel mercury, arsenic, uranium, radon, cyanide and harmful particulates while exposing us to 100 times more radiation than nuclear plants that create no CO2. In fact, coal ash is more radioactive than any emission from any operating nuclear plant.”

    How Coal Kills 17 Feb 2015, EarthTalk (Doug Moss & Roddy Scheer), February 17, 2015

    us heath burden deaths from energy production
    The Human Cost of Energy
    Fossil fuels exact the biggest toll in terms of lives lost
    By 
    Mark Fischetti on September 1, 2011

    In one year, a CO2-free, 1,000 MW nuclear plant creates about 500 cu ft of spent fuel that can be recycled to retrieve useful U-238, reducing its bulk by about 90%. (An average U. S. bathroom is about that size.) In that same year, a 1,000 MW coal plant creates 65,000 tons of CO2 plus enough toxic ash to cover an entire football field to a height of at least 200 feet.

    Burning fossil fuels releases significant quantities of carbon dioxide, aggravating climate change. Although it gets less attention these days, combustion also emits volumes of pollutants, which can cause a variety of illnesses.
    Mark Fischetti


    U.S. Health Burden Caused by Particulate Pollution from Fossil-Fuelled Power Plants

    IllnessMean Number of Cases
    Asthma (hospital admissions)3,020
    Pneumonia  (hospital admissions)4,040
    Asthma (emergency room visits)7,160
    Cardiovascular ills (hospital admissions)9,720
    Chronic bronchitis18,600
    Premature deaths30,100
    Acute bronchitis59,000
    Asthma attacks603,000
    Lower respiratory ills630,000
    Upper respiratory ills679,000
    Lost workdays5.13 million
    Minor restricted-activity days26.3 million
    The Health Care Burden of Fossil Fuels

    Every year, we store 140 million tons of coal ash in unlined or poorly lined landfills and tailing ponds. In 2008, five million tons of toxic ash burst through a Tennessee berm (see below), destroying homes and fouling lakes and rivers.

    houses under ash sludge 2008
    Coal Ash Spill Revives Issue of Its Hazards 2008

    Coal-fired power plants leak more toxic pollution into America’s waters than any other industry. (A June, 2013 test found that arsenic levels leaking from unlined coal ash ponds were 300 times the safety level for drinking water.)

    And in 2014, North Carolina’s Duke Energy’s plant (now bankrupt) “spilled” 9,000 tons of toxic coal ash sludge into the Dan River. Why do they always say “spilled” – never “gushed?”

    duke ash spill dan river 2014
    Duke Ash Spill Dan River 2014

    Coal companies like to promote their supposedly “clean coal,” which really means “not quite so filthy,” but despite making an attempt at carbon capture and storage (CCS) at a new power plant in Saskatchewan, the plant has been a failure. (Burning fossil fuels causes 4.5 million early deaths per year.)

    CO2 Sequestration Critique by The Juice Media 2 Sept 2021

    CO2 removal devices use natural gas or electricity, which is usually generated by burning carbon. The moral hazard of removing CO2 from the air is that it justifies burning fossil fuels.

    Technology to Make Clean Energy from Coal is Stumbling in Practice

    carbon capture system at saskpower boundary dam powerstation
    Carbon Capture System at Saskpower Boundary Dam Powerstation


    An electrical plant in Saskatchewan was the great hope for industries that burn coal.

    In the first large-scale project of its kind, the plant was equipped with a technology that promised to pluck carbon out of the utility’s exhaust and bury it, transforming coal into a cleaner power source. In the months after opening, the utility and the government declared the project an unqualified success, but the USD 1.1 billion project is now looking like a dream.

    Known as SaskPower’s Boundary Dam 3, the project has been plagued by shutdowns, has fallen way short of its emissions targets, and faces an unresolved problem with its core technology. The costs, too, have soared, requiring tens of millions of dollars in new equipment and repairs.

    “At the outset, its economics were dubious,” said Cathy Sproule, a member of the legislature who released confidential internal documents about the project. “Now they’re a disaster….”

    New York Times by Ian Austen, 29 March 2016, Ottawa

    Even modern, 75% efficient coal-burners with thirty-year lifespans can’t compete with nuclear plants that have lifespans of 60 years and provide CO2-free power at 90% efficiency, and the new plants are even safer. In addition, our coal reserves will last 100 years at best. And as we “decarbonize”, we will require increasing amounts of electricity, and the only source of economical CO2-free, 24/7 power must be our new, super-safe, highly efficient nuclear reactors that cannot melt down.

    Note: The word “efficiency,” AKA “capacity factor,” in this book means the amount of electricity created over an extended period by wind, solar, etc. compared to their maximum power rating. Unfortunately, the maximum power rating is often used to sell the project. For nuclear reactors, this figure is at least 90%, but it is 33% for windmills and just 19 -22% for pv solar – and solar panel efficiency degrades by 1% per year during their short, 20 year lifespan. (Thermal efficiency is a separate matter.)

    When a gas pipeline exploded in 2010 at San Bruno, California, 8 people died, 35 homes were levelled and dozens more were damaged. In 2016, a federal government report stated that natural gas explosions cause heavy property damage, often with deaths, about 180 times per year that’s every other day.

    bp deepwater horizon explosion and fire 8 june 2015
    GULF OF MEXICO – APRIL 21: In this handout image provided by the U.S. Coast Guard, fire boat response crews battle the blazing remnants of the off shore oil rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on April 21, 2010 near New Orleans, Louisiana. An estimated leak of 1,000 barrels of oil a day are still leaking into the gulf. Multiple Coast Guard helicopters, planes and cutters responded to rescue the Deepwater Horizon’s 126 person crew. (Photo by U.S. Coast Guard via Getty Images)

    In 2010, British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico “spilled” 200 million gallons of oil and killed 11 workers and 800,000 birds. Prior to that, an explosion at a Texas BP refinery killed fifteen workers. And BP, which was also involved in the Exxon Valdez “spill” in Alaska’s Prince William Sound, is just one of the many oil companies that we subsidise with USD 2.4 billion every year.

    william ophuls

    “‘Evolution is driven by the tendency of all organisms to expand their habitat and exploit the available resources… Just as bacteria in a Petri dish grow until they have consumed all of the nutrients, and then die in a toxic soup of their own waste.”

    William Ophuls

    Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power, New Scientist, 23 March 2011, Phil Mckenna

    new scientist deaths from energy 1
    Power Risks

    Coming up next week, Episode 16 – “Green” Means Everyone Gets Clean Air and Clean Water


    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 16 – “Green” Means Everyone Gets Clean Air and Clean Water
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 14 – What’s up Doc? Tremors from Fukushima – Unintended Consequences – Chapter 6, Part 2
    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.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought
    8. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/person/loretta-mickley
    9. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004
    10. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-fuel-industry-subsidies-of-11m-dollars-a-minute-imf-finds
    11. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27406195
    12. https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2021/jun/21/tva-studies-idle-kingston-coal-plant/549068/
    13. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-coal-kills/
    14. https://earthtalk.org/
    15. https://www.linkedin.com/company/earthtalk/
    16. https://www.linkedin.com/in/roddy-scheer-2070722b/
    17. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-cost-of-energy/
    18. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-health-care-burden-of-fossil-fuels/
    19. https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-fischetti-7482609/
    20. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/us/25sludge.html
    21. https://news.stlpublicradio.org/health-science-environment/2014-12-19/first-ever-national-coal-ash-regs-disappoint-missouri-environmentalists
    22. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants
    23. https://www.southernenvironment.org/news/duke-energy-pleads-guilty-to-environmental-crimes-in-north-carolina/
    24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8
    25. https://www.thejuicemedia.com/
    26. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/energy-environment/technology-to-make-clean-energy-from-coal-is-stumbling-in-practice.html
    27. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/07/19/false-solution-500-groups-urge-us-canadian-leaders-reject-carbon-capture
    28. https://www.linkedin.com/in/catherine-sproule-a049944a/
    29. https://www.nytimes.com/by/ian-austen
    30. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-great-invisible-a-new_b_7532262
    31. https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/15265-small-modular-reactors-generating-interest-among-municipalities-in-finland.html
    32. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ian-austen-0a10a944/
    33. https://ccsknowledge.com/news/next-generation-ccs–beyond-coal
    34. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
    35. https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-ophuls-9b3171225/
    36. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ophuls
    37. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053-600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/
    38. https://www.linkedin.com/in/phil-mckenna-75930b7/
    39. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928050-200-risk-expert-why-radiation-fears-are-often-exaggerated/

    #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #FossilFuels #ParticulatePollution #AirPollution #WaterPollution

  • Episode 4 – Fossil Fuel Frolics – Unintended Consequences

    Episode 4 – Fossil Fuel Frolics – Unintended Consequences

    Post by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network

    What’s the Fossil Fuel Record? Millions of Air Pollution Deaths each year
    Because the carbon industries are heavily subsidised, one might expect them to have exemplary safety and social records, but one would be wrong!

    According to the Guardian (2021-10-21) “The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by USD 5.9tn in 2020″ Or USD 11 million a minute every day. This is according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund. The IMF has noted before that existing fossil fuel subsidies overwhelmingly go to the rich, with the wealthiest 20% of people getting six times as much as the poorest 20% in low and middle-income countries.

    IMF Logo Photo

    In 2006, the Sago coal mine disaster killed 12. A few years later, a West Virginia coal mine explosion killed 29. In May 2014, 240 miners died in a Turkish coal mine.

    The ash derived from burning coal averages 80,000 pounds per American lifetime. Compare that to two pounds of nuclear “waste” for the same amount of electricity. The world’s 1,200 largest coal-fired plants cause 30,000 premature U.S. deaths every year plus hundreds of thousands of cases of lung and heart diseases.

    ash from coal fired power station
    Normal Operations – Ash from Coal Fired Power Station – Tennessee Valley Authority

    Generating the 20% of U.S. electricity with nuclear power saves our atmosphere from being polluted with 177 million tons of greenhouse gases every year, but despite the increasing consequences of Climate Change and Ocean Acidification, the burning of carbon to make electricity is still rising.

    Scientific American, 13 Dec 2007: “Coal-fired plants expel mercury, arsenic, uranium, radon, cyanide and harmful particulates while exposing us to 100 times more radiation than nuclear plants that create no CO2. In fact, coal ash is more radioactive than any emission from any operating nuclear plant.” How Coal Kills 17 Feb 2015

    us health burden
    US Health Burden from Fossil Fuels

    In one year, a CO2-free, 1,000 MW nuclear plant creates about 500 cu ft of spent fuel that can be recycled to retrieve useful U-238, reducing its bulk by about 90%. (An average U. S. bathroom is about that size.) In that same year, a 1,000 MW coal plant creates 65,000 tons of CO2 plus enough toxic ash to cover an entire football field to a height of at least 200 feet.

    Every year, we store 140 million tons of coal ash in unlined or poorly lined landfills and tailing ponds. In 2008, five million tons of toxic ash burst through a Tennessee berm (see below), destroying homes and fouling lakes and rivers.

    houses under ash sludge 2008
    Coal Ash Spill Revives Issue of Its Hazards 2008

    Coal-fired power plants leak more toxic pollution into America’s waters than any other industry. (A June, 2013 test found that arsenic levels leaking from unlined coal ash ponds were 300 times the safety level for drinking water.)

    And in 2014, North Carolina’s Duke Energy’s plant (now bankrupt) “spilled” 9,000 tons of toxic coal ash sludge into the Dan River. Why do they always say “spilled” – never “gushed?”

    duke ash spill dan river 2014
    Duke Ash Spill Dan River 2014

    Coal companies like to promote their supposedly “clean coal,” which really means “not quite so filthy,” but despite making an attempt at carbon capture and storage (CCS) at a new power plant in Saskatchewan, the plant has been a failure. (Burning fossil fuels causes 4.5 million early deaths per year.)

    CO2 Sequestration Critique by The Juice Media 2 Sept 2021

    CO2 removal devices use natural gas or electricity, which is usually generated by burning carbon. The moral hazard of removing CO2 from the air is that it justifies burning fossil fuels.

    Technology to Make Clean Energy from Coal is Stumbling in Practice
    An electrical plant in Saskatchewan was the great hope for industries that burn coal.
    In the first large-scale project of its kind, the plant was equipped with a technology that promised to pluck carbon out of the utility’s exhaust and bury it, transforming coal into a cleaner power source. In the months after opening, the utility and the government declared the project an unqualified success, but the USD 1.1 billion project is now looking like a dream.

    Known as SaskPower’s Boundary Dam 3, the project has been plagued by shutdowns, has fallen way short of its emissions targets, and faces an unresolved problem with its core technology. The costs, too, have soared, requiring tens of millions of dollars in new equipment and repairs.

    “At the outset, its economics were dubious,” said Cathy Sproule, a member of the legislature who released confidential internal documents about the project. “Now they’re a disaster….”

    New York Times by Ian Austen, 29 March 2016, Ottawa

    Even modern, 75% efficient coal-burners with thirty-year lifespans can’t compete with nuclear plants that have lifespans of 60 years and provide CO2-free power at 90% efficiency, and the new plants are even safer. In addition, our coal reserves will last 100 years at best. And as we “decarbonize”, we will require increasing amounts of electricity, and the only source of economical CO2-free, 24/7 power must be our new, super-safe, highly efficient nuclear reactors that cannot melt down.

    Note: The word “efficiency,” AKA “capacity factor,” in this book means the amount of electricity created over an extended period by wind, solar, etc. compared to their maximum power rating. Unfortunately, the maximum power rating is often used to sell the project. For nuclear reactors, this figure is at least 90%, but it is 33% for windmills and just 19 -22% for pv solar – and solar panel efficiency degrades by 1% per year during their short, 20 year lifespan. (Thermal efficiency is a separate matter.)

    When a gas pipeline exploded in 2010 at San Bruno, California, 8 people died, 35 homes were levelled and dozens more were damaged. In 2016, a federal government report stated that natural gas explosions cause heavy property damage, often with deaths, about 180 times per year that’s every other day.

    In 2010, British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico “spilled” 200 million gallons of oil and killed 11 workers and 800,000 birds. Prior to that, an explosion at a Texas BP refinery killed fifteen workers. And BP, which was also involved in the Exxon Valdez “spill” in Alaska’s Prince William Sound, is just one of the many oil companies that we subsidise with USD 2.4 billion every year.

    william ophuls

    “‘Evolution is driven by the tendency of all organisms to expand their habitat and exploit the available resources… Just as bacteria in a Petri dish grow until they have consumed all of the nutrients, and then die in a toxic soup of their own waste.”

    William Ophuls

    Later in 2010, an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in Michigan, eventually “spilling” more than a million gallons of tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River. When monitors at the Alberta office reported that the line pressure had fallen to zero, control room staff dismissed the warning as a false alarm and cranked up the pressure twice, which worsened the disaster. In 2018, Enbridge’s “cleanup” was still incomplete.

    In 2013, a spectacular train wreck dumped 2 million gallons of North Dakota crude oil into Lac Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 residents and incinerating the centre of the town – but that’s just another page in the endless petroleum tale that includes Exxon’s disastrous, 2016 “spill” in Mayflower, Arkansas, that received scant notice from the press.

    New Scientist – Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear power

    And in November 2013, a train loaded with 2.7 million gallons of crude oil went incendiary in Alabama, followed in December by a North Dakota conflagration.

    2014 began with a fiery derailment in New Brunswick, Canada, and in October 2014, 625,000 liters of oil and toxic mine-water were “spilled” in Alberta.

    July, August and September brought Alberta’s autumn, 2014 total to 90 pipeline “spills.”   2015 brought four, fiery oil train wrecks just by March, and 2016 delivered two Alabama pipeline explosions – one close to Birmingham.

    In late 2015, California’s horrific, Aliso Canyon methane “leak” (think “geyser”) erupted, spewing forth 100,000 tons of natural gas, the equivalent of approximately 3 billion gallons of gasoline or adding 500,000 cars to our roads for a year.

    The Southern California Gas Company finally managed to throttle the geyser in February, 2016. Incidentally, Aliso’s 100,000 tons of “leakage” is just 25% of California’s allowed leakage, which is an indication of the political power of the natural gas industry. (Five months later, a new headline appeared: “Massive Fracking Explosion in New Mexico”)

    The Aliso “leak” caused the loss of 70 billion cubic feet (BCF) of gas that California utilities count on to create electricity for the hot summer months. As a consequence, the California Independent Service Operator, which manages California’s grid, estimated that due to Aliso, 21 million customers should expect to be without power for 14 days during the summer.

    Methane leaks offset much of the climate change benefits of natural gas, study says

    According to Reuters, (June 2016), “SoCalGas uses Aliso Canyon to provide gas to power generators that cannot be met with pipeline flows alone on about 10 days per month during the summer, according to state agencies.”

    However, during the summer, SoCalGas also strives to fill Aliso Canyon to prepare for the winter heating season. State regulators, however, subsequently ordered the company to reduce the amount of gas in Aliso to just 15 BCF and use that fuel to reduce the risk of power interruptions in the hot summer months of 2016. Fortunately, State regulators have also said that they won’t allow SoCalGas to inject fuel into the facility until the company has inspected all of its 114 storage facilities.

    The Aliso disaster wiped out all of the state’s Green House Gas (GHG) reductions from its wind and solar systems – and led to a USD 1.8 billion judgement against SoCalGas in September, 2021. In 2016, California officials also reported leakage at a San Joachim County storage facility that was “similar to, or slightly above, background levels at other natural gas storage facilities.”

    Dr. Alex Cannara, a California resident writes, “Combustion sources [unlike nuclear power], aren’t burdened with their true costs. Natural gas, for example, is not cheaper than nuclear or anything else. In 2016, our allowed leakage wipes wind/solar out by 4 times. In other words, ‘renewables’ in a gas state like California wipe out their benefits every 3 months because they depend on gas for most of their nameplate ratings. The Aliso storage was largely used to compensate for ‘renewables’ inevitable shortfall.“The most important combustion cost is the unlimited downside risk of its emissions for the entire planet, but in February 2016, our CEC approved 600MW of added gas burning in the San Diego region simply because the San Onofre nuclear plant wasn’t running, due to possibly corrupt actions by SoCla Gas, SCE, Sempra Energy and Edison Intl.

    “Such practices were prevented for 75 years by the 1935 PUHCA, but the Bush administration repealed it in 2005 after decades of carbon combustion-interest lobbying. Some states – not California – passed legislation to correct for the 2005 PUHCA repeal.”

    There’s more: In August, 2016, the Pennsylvania EPA admitted that oil and gas production in the state emitted as much methane as Aliso Canyon. The Aliso “leak” was deemed a disaster, but the hundreds of equally damaging Pennsylvania “leaks” were considered business as usual.

    Finally, also in August, 2016, a thirty-inch pipeline exploded in southeast New Mexico, killing five adults and five children while leaving two other adults in critical condition in a Lubbock, Texas hospital.

    All of this could have been avoided if, instead of pursuing intermittent, short-lived, carbon-dependent windmills and solar panels (Chapters 9 and 10), we had expanded safe, CO2-free Nuclear Power.

    Dr. Wade Allison, in Nuclear is For Life, wrote: “Critics of civilian nuclear power use what they fear might happen due to a nuclear failure – but never has – but ignore other accidents that have been far worse:
    – The 1975 dam failure in China that killed 170,000;
    – The 1984 chemical plant disaster in Bhopal, India where 3,899 died and 558,000 were injured;
    – The 1889, Johnstown. PA flood that drowned 2,200;
    – The 1917 explosion of a cargo ship in Halifax, N. S. where 2,000 died and 9,000 were injured;
    – Turkey’s 2014 coal mine accident that took 300 lives;
    – The 2015 warehouse explosion in China that cost 173 lives. “

    The list seems endless, but no one advocates destroying dams or closing chemical plants.

    The way the world has reacted to the Fukushima accident has been the real disaster with huge consequences to the environment, but the accident itself was not.”

    See more from Dr Alison here.

    dr wade alison
    Dr Wade Alison
    nuclear is for life by wade alison
    Nuclear is for Life by Wade Alison

    “In California, defective, Japanese-built steam generators at the San Onofre plant could have been replaced for about USD 600 million, but the plant is being decommissioned at a cost of USD 4.5 billion because of Fukushima and anti-nuclear zealotry. The plant could be replaced with two, CO2-free AP-1000 reactors for USD 14 Billion.” – Mike Conley

    In this foolish way, California lost the CO2-free electricity generated by San Onofre – 9% of California’s needs – which was replaced by carbon burning power plants and/or carbon-reliant wind and solar.

    Nuclear plants are required to set aside part of their profits to pay the cost of decommissioning, but no such requirement is made of wind and solar farms. Neither are carbon companies required to pre-fund the removal of miles of pipelines, the cleanup of refinery sites, or the sealing of their abandoned wells.

    Gas Industry Plans to Sink Nuclear Power

    I repeat, NO ONE has died from radiation created by commercial nuclear power production in Western Europe, Asia or the Southern and Western hemispheres, but more than 2,000,000 people die prematurely every year from the burning of coal, gas, wood and oil.

    nuclear the safest energy source of all

    If you REALLY care about safety, check this chart!

    A 2019 study lowered the nuclear death rate from 0.0013 to 0.0007/Twh.

    The original version of this chart, which rated nuclear power at 0.04 deaths per Terawatt hour, included thousands of LNT-predicted Chernobyl deaths that never happened.

    As a consequence, this image, which reflects reality instead of LNT [Linear No Threshold] errors, reveals that nuclear power is far safer than initially thought, and that nuclear is actually 115 times safer than wind – not 4,340 times safer than solar – not 10, 3,000 times safer than natural gas, 27,000 times safer than oil – and coal is out of sight.

    Comparing Daily Fuel requirements and CO2 production for a 1,000 MW Power Plant

    Power TrainFuel QuantityFuel Quantity (kg)CO2 Production (Tons)
    Solid Fission (U232)7 Pounds3.2Zero
    Coal burning9,000 tons9,000,00026,000
    Natural Gas Burning240,000,000 cu ft4,621,30915,210
    cartoon co2 production

    Coming up next week, Episode 5 – The Big Melt and The Acid Bath.

    Links and References

    1. Next Episode – Episode 5 – The Big Melt and The Acid Bath
    2. Previous Episode – Episode 3 – The Preface
    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.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-fuel-industry-subsidies-of-11m-dollars-a-minute-imf-finds
    8. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004
    9. https://news.stlpublicradio.org/health-science-environment/2014-12-19/first-ever-national-coal-ash-regs-disappoint-missouri-environmentalists
    10. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants
    11. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-coal-kills/
    12. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-health-care-burden-of-fossil-fuels/
    13. https://www.southernenvironment.org/news/duke-energy-pleads-guilty-to-environmental-crimes-in-north-carolina/
    14. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/us/25sludge.html
    15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8
    16. https://www.thejuicemedia.com/
    17. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/energy-environment/technology-to-make-clean-energy-from-coal-is-stumbling-in-practice.html
    18. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/07/19/false-solution-500-groups-urge-us-canadian-leaders-reject-carbon-capture
    19. https://www.nytimes.com/by/ian-austen
    20. https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/15265-small-modular-reactors-generating-interest-among-municipalities-in-finland.html
    21. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ian-austen-0a10a944/
    22. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-cost-of-energy/
    23. https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-ophuls-9b3171225/
    24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ophuls
    25. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053-600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/
    26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Mayflower_oil_spill
    27. https://www.ecowatch.com/massive-fracking-explosion-in-new-mexico-1919567359.html
    28. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/methane-leaks-offset-much-of-the-benefits-of-natural-gas-new-study-says/2018/06/21/e381654a-7590-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html
    29. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-heatwave-idUSKCN0Z60DO
    30. https://thoriumenergyalliance.com/resource/dr-alex-cannara-energy-basics/
    31. https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-cannara-6a1b7a3
    32. https://eu.argusleader.com/story/news/local/2015/12/07/ramsey-plant-fire-close-being-extinguished/76942420/
    33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Allison
    34. https://www.linkedin.com/in/wade-allison-08929816/
    35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285420212_Nuclear_is_for_Life_A_Cultural_Revolution
    36. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nuclear-power-climate-change-misconceptions-by-wade-allison-2018-06
    37. https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-conley-5529b3/
    38. https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-gas-industrys-plan-to-sink-nuclear-power

    #ClimateChange #UnintendedConsequences #GeorgeErickson #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #FossilFuels