TheThorium.Network

Tag: Jeremiah Josey

  • 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

  • Detailed Report on Germany’s Wind and Solar Energy Challenges: EROI, Energy Freedom, and Societal Impacts

    Detailed Report on Germany’s Wind and Solar Energy Challenges: EROI, Energy Freedom, and Societal Impacts

    Author Jeremiah Josey

    Executive Summary

    Germany’s wind and solar energy systems in 2025 face serious challenges due to inherently low Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROI) values, with wind at approximately 3.9 and solar at approximately 1.6. These values are significantly below the threshold (roughly 7 to 11) considered necessary to sustainably support a high-quality advanced society.

    Because the EROI represents the net energy surplus available for society after accounting for the energy needed to build, maintain, and operate the system, such low values mean that a large fraction of energy is reinvested into energy production itself. This drastically limits net energy available for economic development, social services, leisure, and technological progress.

    This report examines the technical, economic, environmental, and social consequences of these low EROI values and their implications on Germany’s energy independence, affordability, and future quality of life.

    1. Verification and Context of EROI Values for Germany’s Wind and Solar

    • Wind Energy EROI (~3.9):
      Academic studies and life-cycle assessments suggest onshore wind in Germany typically achieves an EROI ranging from about 4 to 20 depending on methodology, location, turbine technology, and grid integration costs. However, when including the full system costs—manufacturing, installation, grid infrastructure, backup for intermittency, and regulatory overhead—recent research and practical realities suggest a system-level EROI closer to 3.5–4.5 is realistic.
    • Solar Energy EROI (~1.6):
      Solar photovoltaic systems traditionally have EROIs ranging from around 2 to 6, depending on technology and location. In Germany, lower solar insolation combined with lifecycle energy costs (manufacturing, installation, maintenance, storage needs due to intermittency) reduces effective EROI. When including these factors, an EROI near 1.5–2.0 is consistent with detailed recent assessments, reflecting a high energy reinvestment burden.
    • Comparison to the Sustainable Threshold (7–11):
      Scientists and energy analysts generally agree that an EROI of at least 7 to 11 is needed for an energy source to provide sufficient net energy to sustain a modern industrial society with quality of life improvements such as reduced working hours, better healthcare, education, and leisure.

    Thus, Germany’s wind and solar EROI values fall well short of this critical margin, signaling systemic problems that affect the country’s energy system sustainability and socioeconomic outcomes.

    2. Consequences of Low EROI on Germany’s Energy System and Society

    2.1 Net Energy Deficit and Societal Burden

    • High Energy Reinvestment: Germany’s wind and solar systems require about one-quarter to two-thirds the energy they generate just to maintain themselves. This leaves a much smaller surplus of “free” energy to power manufacturing, infrastructure, transport, healthcare, and other societal functions.
    • Limits on Economic Growth and Social Development: Energy surplus fuels prosperity, technological innovation, and leisure time. Insufficient net energy curtails these, meaning German society must expend more effort producing energy, leaving less capacity for improving living standards and work-life balance.

    2.2 Energy Freedom and Security

    • Reliance on Fossil Fuels and Imports: Wind and solar intermittency combined with low EROI increases Germany’s dependence on gas, coal, and electricity imports to ensure stable supply — undermining energy independence, increasing vulnerability to geopolitical risks, and raising carbon emissions.
    • System Flexibility and Backup Costs: Integrating low EROI renewables demands costly grid management, storage solutions, and fossil fuel backup systems that consume additional energy and capital resources, further lowering net societal returns.

    2.3 Cost and Affordability

    • Rising Levelized Costs of Energy (LCOE): Germany’s complex auction design, permitting delays, and financial risks contribute to increased costs—especially offshore wind, where auction failures highlight risk aversion. Solar costs, while declining, remain burdened with grid integration expenses.
    • Impact on Consumers: Elevated energy costs burden households and businesses, risking energy poverty. Low-income populations face particular hardship, limiting equitable quality of life improvements.

    3. Technical, Environmental, and Policy Challenges

    • Intermittency and Reliability:
      Wind output declined by about 30% in early 2025 compared to 2024, driving the fossil fuel share above renewables for the first time in two years. Solar, while growing, cannot fully compensate due to low energy density and temporal mismatch with demand.
    • Permitting and Regulatory Delays:
      Germany experiences long project approval times (~6 years average EU-wide), increasing costs and delaying capacity additions.
    • Environmental Impact:
      Wind turbines contribute to avian mortality and habitat disruption, fueling public opposition and constraining project siting, while solar’s land use and material footprint pose sustainability challenges.
    • Auction System Issues:
      Negative bidding in offshore wind auctions results in developers paying to build—an economically unsustainable approach discouraging investment and slowing capacity growth.

    4. Social Implications: Work, Leisure, and Quality of Life

    • Energy Surplus and Social Welfare:
      Historically, societal progress and increased leisure have correlated with high net energy availability. Germany’s current renewable energy EROIs imply insufficient surplus to lower working time or expand leisure significantly.
    • Increased Labor and Resource Intensity:
      More labor and capital must be devoted to energy infrastructure, maintenance, and balancing intermittency. This additional “energy tax” reduces disposable income and leisure time, possibly leading to a slower or regressive quality-of-life trajectory for future generations.

    5. Summary Table: Key Challenges and Implications

    ChallengeDescription & Impact
    Low EROI of Wind (~3.9)Energy reinvestment high; limited net energy surplus; constrains growth and well-being
    Very Low EROI of Solar (~1.6)Very high energy reinvestment, increasing costs, limiting societal net energy
    Intermittency & ReliabilityCauses fossil fuel backup dependency, undermining energy independence and emissions goals
    Financial & Auction RisksNegative bidding deters investments, raising system costs and slowing expansion
    Permitting DelaysHinder rapid deployment, add uncertainty and cost
    Environmental ConcernsBird mortality, habitat loss reduce public support and feasible project sites
    Increasing Fossil Fuel UsageOffsets renewables’ benefits, increases emissions
    Higher Energy PricesRisks energy poverty, reduces disposable income and quality of life
    Limited Improvement in Leisure & Work-Life BalanceInsufficient surplus energy constrains reductions in working hours and growth of leisure time

    6. Conclusion

    Germany’s wind and solar energy systems, marked by EROI values of approximately 3.9 and 1.6 respectively, struggle to generate sufficient net energy surplus for societal advancement. The substantial energy reinvestment required diminishes energy freedom, cements fossil fuel dependencies, drives price pressures, and limits improvements in work-leisure balance and overall quality of life.

    Without transformative changes in technology, policy frameworks, grid infrastructure, and integrated energy storage, Germany risks a regressive energy transition where growing investments in renewables deliver diminishing returns for future prosperity and energy autonomy.

    7. References

    1. Data on Wind and Solar Generation in Germany (2024–2025)

    • Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE). (2025). Net Public Electricity Generation in H1 2025: Solar Power on the Rise Across Europe. Fraunhofer ISE.
      — Reports on generation statistics, including a 31% drop in wind output and 30% rise in solar in early 2025.
    • Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft (BDEW) & Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung Baden-Württemberg (ZSW). (2025). Germany Renewable Energy Statistics and Market Report H1 2025.
      — Details renewable shares (~54–61%) and fossil fuel backup reliance.

    2. EROI Studies and Life-Cycle Assessments for Wind and Solar

    • Weißbach, D., Ruprecht, G., Huke, A., Czerski, K., Gottlieb, S., & Heinz, A. (2013). Energy intensities, EROI, and sustainability. Energy, 52, 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.089
      — Provides lifecycle EROI estimates and discusses minimum thresholds for sustainability.
    • Hall, C. A. S., Lambert, J. G., & Balogh, S. (2014). EROI of different fuels and the implications for society. Energy Policy, 64, 141-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.049
      — Comprehensive review of EROI ranges, including wind and solar.
    • Kubiszewski, I., Cleveland, C. J., & Endres, P. K. (2010). Meta-analysis of net energy return for wind power systems. Renewable Energy, 35(1), 218-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.01.009
      — Reviews EROI specific to wind systems, highlighting variability.
    • Lambert, J. G., Hall, C. A. S., Balogh, S., Gupta, A., & Arnold, M. (2014). Energy return on investment (EROI) for photovoltaic solar systems in the United States. Sustainability, 6(9), 5402-5422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6095402
      — Discusses solar PV EROI ranges relevant to temperate climates like Germany.
    • Murphy, D. J., & Hall, C. A. S. (2010). Energy return on investment, peak oil, and the end of economic growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219(1), 52-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05776.x
      — Explores societal implications of declining EROI values.

    3. Economic, Market, and Policy Analyses of German Renewables

    • Ember. (2025). Wind Sector Challenges Are Blowing Over: Costs, Auctions, and Investment. Ember Energy Market Reports.
      — Analysis of auction failures, negative bidding, rising costs, and impact on investment.
    • Strategic Energy. (2025). Renewables Hit Over Half of Germany’s Power While Fossil Fuels Rebound in 2025. Strategic Energy Market Intelligence Report, Q1 2025.
      — Discusses energy mix changes, permitting delays, and market dynamics.
    • German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK). (2024). Renewable Energy Expansion and Permitting in Germany.
      — Policy framework and permitting challenges.

    4. Environmental Impact and Social Acceptance

    • European Environment Agency (EEA). (2022). Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies.
      — Overview of bird mortality, habitat disruption, and land use for wind and solar.
    • Kleine Zeitung et al. (2024). Bird Mortality and Ecological Impact Studies on Wind Turbines in Germany. Journal of Environmental Management, 300, 113633.
      — Specific regional field studies on avian impacts.

    5. Energy System Reliability and Fossil Fuel Backup

    • Agora Energiewende. (2025). The German Power Market in 2025: Challenges and Opportunities.
      — Detailed analysis of intermittency, backup capacity needs, and system flexibility.
    • Energy Monitor. (2025). Germany’s Clean Energy Output Hits Decade Low. Energy Trends Report, May 2025.
      — Reports on fossil fuel use resurgence and overall reliability issues.

    6. Societal and Economic Context of Low EROI

    • Cleveland, C. J., Kaufmann, R. K., & Stern, D. I. (1984). Energy and the U.S. Economy: A Biophysical Perspective. Science, 225(4665), 890-897. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.225.4665.890
      — Foundational work linking energy surplus and economic growth.
    • Murphy, D. J., & Grantham, J. (2017). Low EROI and the Energy Challenge: Societal Implications. International Journal of Energy Research, 41(5), 724-739. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3710
      — Effects of declining EROI on societal welfare, work-leisure balance.
  • Unlocking the Future of Clean Energy: The Rise of Liquid Fission Thorium Burners (LTFBs) and Small Modular Technology

    Unlocking the Future of Clean Energy: The Rise of Liquid Fission Thorium Burners (LTFBs) and Small Modular Technology

    Author Jeremiah Josey

    Nuclear energy is undergoing a remarkable transformation globally, fuelled by the urgent need for decarbonisation and energy security. At the heart of this revolution are Small Modular technologies—compact, scalable, and inherently safer systems designed to produce reliable, low-carbon power. Among these, the use of Thorium as a nuclear fuel is gaining renewed attention for its unique advantages and potential to reshape how we generate energy.

    Why Thorium?

    Thorium is a fertile element that, when irradiated, breeds fissile uranium-233. It is more abundant than uranium, with reserves spread worldwide, making it a sustainable and long-term energy resource. The Thorium fuel cycle offers several key benefits:

    • Reduced long-lived radioactive waste: Thorium produces significantly less high-level waste compared to traditional uranium fuel cycles, and the waste it does produce decays to safe levels in a few hundred years rather than thousands.
    • Enhanced proliferation resistance: The uranium-233 bred from Thorium is difficult if not impossible to weaponize, improving nuclear security.
    • High fuel utilization and thermal efficiency: Operating at high temperatures allows for more efficient power conversion, such as through closed-cycle gas turbines.

    Introducing Liquid Fission Thorium Burners (LTFBs)

    One of the most promising innovations harnessing Thorium is the concept of Liquid Fission Thorium Burners (LTFBs). These systems use a liquid fuel form—molten salts containing Thorium and fissile material—that circulates continuously through the system. This liquid fuel approach offers transformative advantages:

    • Continuous fuel reprocessing: Unlike solid fuel, liquid fuel can be chemically processed on the fly to remove fission products and optimise fuel composition, enabling near-complete utilisation of Thorium.
    • Inherent safety: The liquid fuel’s high boiling point and low pressure operation reduce the risk of meltdown. If the system overheats, the fuel can be drained into safe storage tanks, automatically shutting down the reaction.
    • Higher operating temperatures: The molten salt medium allows operation at temperatures around 700°C or higher, improving thermal efficiency and reducing cooling requirements.

    A well-known example of an LTFB concept is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Burner (a variant of the LFTR design), which uses a two-fluid system—one fluid containing fissile uranium and the other containing fertile Thorium. Neutrons from fission in the uranium fluid convert Thorium in the blanket fluid into new fissile uranium-233, which is then cycled back to sustain the reaction.

    Global Momentum for Thorium and Small Modular Technologies

    Several countries and companies are leading the charge in developing LTFBs and related small modular systems fuelled by Thorium:

    • India continues to advance its Thorium program with the Advanced Heavy Water Burner designed to utilise Thorium-uranium fuel cycles.
    • China is pioneering molten salt LTFB prototypes, including a 2 MW thermal unit with plans for scale-up to commercial sizes.
    • Denmark’s Copenhagen Atomics is developing compact molten salt burners with ambitions for mass manufacturing by the 2030s.
    • Startups in the US and Europe such as Moltex and Terrestrial Energy are innovating molten salt small modular designs adaptable to Thorium fuel.

    Why Small Modular?

    Small Modular technologies offer several advantages that complement the use of Thorium:

    • Modular factory fabrication reduces construction time and costs.
    • Passive safety systems enhance operational safety without complex active controls.
    • Smaller footprint makes them suitable for remote or smaller grids.
    • Scalability allows incremental deployment aligned with demand growth.

    Challenges and the Road Ahead

    Despite the promise, deploying LTFBs and Thorium-based small modular systems faces hurdles:

    • Fuel cycle complexity: Starting the reaction requires an initial fissile load such as uranium-235 or plutonium.
    • Regulatory frameworks: Most current nuclear regulations are designed around uranium solid-fuel systems, requiring adaptation for liquid-fuelled Thorium systems.
    • Industrial experience: Operational data for Thorium-fuelled molten salt systems is still limited compared to conventional reactors.

    However, with growing government support, international collaboration, and private sector innovation, these challenges are being actively addressed.

    Wrapping Up

    Liquid Fission Thorium Burners represent a paradigm shift in nuclear energy—combining the abundance and safety benefits of Thorium with the flexibility and scalability of small modular technology. Over the next five years, we expect to see the first grid-connected small modular systems and pilot LTFBs come online, marking a new chapter in sustainable, low-carbon energy production.

    To dive deeper into the global status and exciting developments in Thorium and small modular technologies, go here to learn more:
    https://www.patreon.com/posts/global-status-of-129764734

  • Reassessing Fukushima: A Disaster of Perception, Not Technology

    Reassessing Fukushima: A Disaster of Perception, Not Technology

    Author Jeremiah Josey

    Let’s recap one of the greatest industrial public relations flops of all time: the Fukushima incident. As a testament to Fission’s inherent safety, no one died from the full meltdown of Unit 1, nor from the partial meltdowns of Units 2 and 3. Unit 4 was already offline for cleaning at the time. Units 5 and 6 remained undamaged and continuing to produce electricity for three more years until public fear and pressure forced TEPCO to shut them down as well – for no technical reasons. While two unfortunate workers did die, it was due to an explosion and drowning, and not radiation exposure.

    Fukushima Daiichi Control Room
    Fukushima Daiichi Control Room

    In stark contrast, over 2,300 people died directly from the panicked evacuation of areas where no discernible or dangerous increase in radiation levels was found. Even today, visitors to the area are required to dress more cautiously than they would for the COVID virus – a documented even less risky set of circumstances. It’s also worth noting that three other nuclear power stations in the region were affected by the same tsunami that hit Fukushima, yet all successfully shut down automatically when the earthquake struck and can restart without issue.

    Fukushima Hydrogen Explosion
    Fukushima Hydrogen Explosion

    Reports indicate that “the primary contamination spread northwest from the plant, with soil samples showing levels of caesium-137 exceeding 3 MBq/m² in some areas up to 35 km away from the reactor.”

    This contamination led to evacuations of approximately 15,000 residents in affected areas—scary stuff indeed.

    But what does these scary sounding numbers really mean? Let’s consider bananas and Iran.

    Daiichi Internal Design
    Daiichi Internal Design

    The caesium levels mentioned correspond to an radiation exposure of only about 0.3 mSv per year. In comparison, The Fukushima region has a natural background radiation level of 5 mSv per year. For context, places like Ramsar in Iran experience natural background levels of 260 mSv per year – and is considered a healthy dose by locals there, with reported lower rates of long term chronic illness than the general, non-irradiated population. To put it another way, the “dangerous release” from Fukushima is akin to consuming ten bananas per day. A banana contains high levels of radioactive potassium, which builds your muscles similarly to caesium.

    Daiichi Cooling Tower Wave Damage
    Daiichi Cooling Tower Wave Damage

    This also means that the death rate from evacuations was over 15%. You had a 1-in-6 chance of being killed by being moved “for your safety,” while facing a zero percent chance of harm from radiation concerns. And no, if you stayed you wouldn’t have received a dosage of any concern.

    Tsunami Breaching Sea Wall
    Tsunami Breaching Sea Wall

    Almost 20,000 people died due to the tsunami itself—a tragic natural disaster. Even more tragic is that more than 10% of those fatalities were attributed to forced, unnecessary evacuations around the Daiichi power station.

    Tsunami Impact on Daiichi
    Tsunami Impact on Daiichi

    It’s tragic that nuclear fission energy has suffered such a public relations disaster that people are terrified by news reports while slicing up their radioactive banana for breakfast. Presently, about 1 trillion yen (approximately USD 7.3 billion) is being spent on cleaning up Units 1, 2, and 3—not a small sum. But why so much? All in the name of “safety.”

    Devastation in Fukushima after Tsunami
    Devastation in Fukushima after Tsunami

    Now lets talk water. Also a non issue – unless your income comes from it.

    Lake Barrett—renowned for his role in the Three Mile Island disaster cleanup and currently employed for public relations purposes by TEPCO—famously stated during an interview with Mike O’Brien on August 16, 2023: “Now, it depends on how low is low [radiation in water released from the plant]. To be drinkable, it’s going to be many decades—100 years or so. But that’s not really plausible at this stage.”

    The World Health Organisation’s limit for radiation in drinking water is set at 10,000 Bq per litre; TEPCO’s discharge limit is only 299 Bq/litre. Even Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and other officials have publicly consumed this water.

    So why did Lake misrepresent the water issue so badly? Employed by the very company to overt the public relations debacle happening around him. Was it for his own benefit? Perhaps. His income from TEPCO is estimated to be around USD 600k per year. Thus if there’s no radiation problem, there’s no income. And that is the heart of the issue: individuals within the nuclear safety industry often amplify fear and misconceptions to maintain their livelihoods.

    The Fukushima Daiichi incident starkly illustrates how decades of fear-mongering against nuclear fission energy culminated in a human disaster. It wasn’t a technical one. This was not an unprecedented failure of technology but rather a “normal” unfortunate industrial accident—one among many that must occur in humanity’s relentless pursuit of knowledge and progress. We only learn from our mistakes. The real tragedy lies not in exaggerated radiation levels but in panic-driven decisions that resulted in over 2,300 deaths from evacuation—deaths that were entirely preventable.

    As we reflect on Fukushima Daiichi, it is crucial to recognize that misinformation and fear often pose greater dangers than the technologies themselves. Moving forward, we must foster a more rational and informed dialogue about nuclear energy—acknowledging its potential while addressing genuine safety concerns. Only by doing so can we ensure that lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi lead us toward a more balanced understanding of risk and safety in our quest for energy solutions.

    Vacuum Cleaning Machine Fukushima
    Vacuum Cleaning Machine Fukushima

    Post Piece: Strategies to Avoid Fukushima-Type Response Failures

    • Adopt a decentralised emergency response approach that empowers local authorities and allows for tailored, quick reactions to local conditions.
    • Establish reliable communication systems that provide real-time data on plant conditions and environmental monitoring to help decision-makers assess risks accurately.
    • Conduct frequent joint training exercises involving all stakeholders—nuclear plant operators, local emergency services, and government officials—to ensure coordinated responses.
    • Create flexible evacuation plans that can be adjusted based on real-time data about radiation levels and wind directions, with pre-determined safe zones that can be activated quickly.
    • Invest in resilient infrastructure capable of withstanding natural disasters, including backup power systems for nuclear plants that remain operational even during extensive outages.
    • Implement educational programs to inform the public about nuclear safety, radiation risks, and emergency procedures to reduce fear and misinformation.
    • Convene independent review committees after any significant incident to analyse response effectiveness and identify areas for improvement—fostering continuous learning.
    Nuclear Trust Levels in Japan
    Nuclear Trust Levels in Japan

    By incorporating these strategies into emergency response planning, nuclear facilities—and indeed any industrial facility—can enhance their preparedness and minimise potential Fukushima-type response failures in the future.

    These recommendations emphasise decentralisation, communication, training, flexibility, infrastructure resilience, public education, and continuous improvement—all crucial elements in developing a comprehensive and effective emergency response framework.

    References

    [1] https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR857.html
    [2] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident
    [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707945/
    [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7843374/
    [5] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7896
    [6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X23001189
    [7] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421512006453
    [8] https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1313825110

    See more of such information on our LinkTree: Linktr.ee/TheThoriumNetwork

    Subscribe to our newsletter Newsletter Sign up and stay updated with our activities.

    #LiquidFission #GotThorium #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U

  • “Courage, Curiosity and Perseverance” – A masterclass by Dr. Hans Borgensberger

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

    Diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease(PD) aged 77, Dr. Hans G. Borgensberger became part of the million or so people in the US living with what is the second most common neurodegenerative disease after Alzheimer’s disease. Like the close to 90,000 who are newly diagnosed every year, this could have spelled limitations and a decline in physical ability as was the case with the legendary Mohammed Ali.

    screenshot 2024 07 10 203722
    Mohammed Ali
    dr. hans borgensberger 1
    Dr. Hans Borgensberger

    But Dr. Borgensberger, with a distinguished career in nuclear physics, wasn’t one to back down from a challenge.

    Reading through his own record of the steps he took to orient his journey with PD towards a specific trajectory, it is quickly apparent that his is a lot more than a narration of a medical journey debunking what was supposed to be established consensus on PD. It is an unexpected source of inspiration for the many young scientists graduating out of the safety offered by classrooms and labs and venturing forth exposed to dizzying world academia or the even more precarious one of industry. It is particularly inspirational for those of us from developing countries who have made the trip back at home after decades abroad and now keen to apply what we’ve learned all these years to solve the problems we see around us.

    whatsapp image 2024 07 14 at 08.39.43 d8eafb2b 1
    Dr. Hans Borgensberger

    Dr. Borgensberger’s approach is a masterclass in perseverance. “Perseverance” is a word that has always sent me on a tangent of nostalgia. “Perseverance Shall win through” is the motto at Maseno School, one of the first academic institutions to be set up in Kenya by European missionaries in the previous century. All Maseno boys through-out the ages, I included, would recite the words every Monday morning during the Start of the Week assembly. The motto is a rallying call that all the notable names in governance, academia and sports in East Africa that passed through Maseno School’s gates made. This includes the Late Barrack Obama Snr whose son was once the president of the United States of America.

    screenshot 2024 07 10 203952 1

    Dr. Borgensberger describes how he defied the boundaries set for those with his condition, taking up and thriving in new physical activities like fencing and skiing – activities that most wouldn’t dare attempt with PD. This adventurous and questioning spirit was once considered a very valuable asset in the early days of nuclear science and engineering. There were entire plethora of attempts at what back then were definitely exotic designs aimed at harnessing fission. Just as Dr. Borgensberger has dared to explore unconventional but safe ways to improve his condition, researchers back then did not hesitate to push the boundaries by looking into advanced reactor designs and alternative fuels. It was a golden age that youngsters like myself hope will comeback as anthropogenic climate change bears its sharp teeth.

    There is a lot more to Dr. Borgensberger’s story than just his physical feats. That he was able to maintain his genuine curiosity at such an advanced age is equally inspiring. Most of us allow the curiosity that guided us in our early years to be attenuated by the vicissitudes of everyday living as soon as we have bills to pay. Though I am certain there are many who will rank Dr. Borgensberger’s fascination with Quantum entangled particles and his theorizing a connection to his own improvement as science fiction, it is all still quite remarkable.

    The thirst for knowledge, understanding and the willingness to question established ideas which imbues Dr. Borgensberger journey, has always been the cornerstone of scientific progress. With academia steadily degenerating into a “who has published more papers” contest, his is a reminder that breakthroughs and deep understanding of the universe around us has often come from those who dare to look beyond the norm. In nuclear science and engineering safety will always be the guiding principle, but as Dr. Borgensberger’s has shown, that should not come at the cost of trying out new ideas and approaches that, of course, must be rigorously tested and validated. The ongoing debate between the champions of the Linear No-Threshold model of the effects of radiation at low doses and the proponents of the Sigmoid No-Threshold model of the same is an excellent place to do exactly that.

    fig 3 linear non threshold lnt model and uncertainties in extrapolation of

    Dr. Borgensberger’s narration of the many remarkable people he worked with at varying stages of their careers is also a testament to the power that teamwork has in scientific endeavors. This cannot be reiterated enough in places like Kenya, for example, where rather than fostering teamwork and camaraderie among our young scientists, professional bodies have over the years encouraged pointless competition whose effects are apparent everywhere you look. Regulatory bodies, like the Engineers Board of Kenya (EBK), have mutated into gatekeeping panels of egotistical senior citizens who probably need time machines to travel to the present.

    There is a clear and frankly speaking shocking chasm that has emerged where instead of having a spectrum, we have a polarised practice that has so called “Baby boomers” at one end and my generation of newly minted researchers and engineers at the other. The vacuum in between is partly a consequence of EBK allowing itself to ossify by being dismissive of the reinvigoration that comes with the introduction of youthful energy into any context . The proof of this is the current bizarre state of affairs where it is possible for someone like I for example to graduate with advanced degrees in fields like nuclear and quantum engineering from universities all ranked in the top 100 globally, and still find that neither the courses I have taken nor the universities are accredited by the locals. We can learn a lot from the camaraderie between Dr. Borgensberger and his buddies. When colleagues, regardless of seniority and status collaborate with each other it is only a matter of time before a spark ignites a groundbreaking discovery.

    Dr. Hans G. Borgensberger’s story may not directly offer a direct blueprint for the development of safer nuclear reactors. But the spirit he embodies – that of determination, curiosity, and a willingness to explore the unconventional, all within the framework of sound verifiable science – is an inspiration for all of us in the new generation keen to take the button. It’s this kind of inquisitive and persistent mindset that can lead to the next big breakthrough in the nuclear field, paving the way for a safer, brighter and more prosperous future for all.

    Content by Omondi Agar

    Thanks to Jeremiah Josey and Dusya Lyubovskaya for making this one happen.

    Links & References

    1. https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/parkinsons-disease/parkinsons-disease-causes-symptoms-and-treatments
    2. https://www.facebook.com/p/The-Maseno-School-Kenya-Est-1906-100057558785727/

    #Perseverance #Borgensberger #Parkinsons #FissionEnergy #NuclearEnergy #TheThoriumNetwork #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #GetYourRadiation2Day #WindTurbines #Solar #RareEarthWastes

  • Ode to the Late Dr. George Erickson

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

    When I encountered the book Unintended Consequences1 by the recently departed Dr. George Erickson, I had long since abandoned a belief that I had held to be the gospel truth. Growing up in Nairobi, Kenya and seeing how stochastic everyday life was, I was conditioned to invest my faith and emotions in other stuff that I hoped would be a bit more consistent and impeccable than the seemingly random occurrences that seem dictate life in a country like Kenya; one that was perched atop a solid foundation. As a young impressionable kid just beginning the long trudge towards an education, the answer back then was “Science” – or rather what I thought was “science.” It had, after all, been presented to me as an impartial evidence-based approach that our species had settled upon as the tool to probe and extract information from the universe around us. I embraced it all with relish.

    A series of events culminated in me ending up a student at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), an environment where “science” was not just being consumed, but also being “made.” One of the things that come with travelling in pursuit of education is that you pick up certain cultural subtleties on top of the technical knowledge that sends us there in the first place. Most of what you pick tends to be benign; how to not leave the lab before the professor does and such. Others tend to leave an indelible mark on you. In my case, this was the realization that rather than being impartial, science was yet another human activity done by humans, and left unchecked, it had the potential to reflect everything it means to be human; the strengths and indeed more worrying, our flaws.

    The first alarm bell sounded when I learned that Korean society had “optimized and localized” regulations governing radiation exposure. This struck me as rather bizarre since it implied that scientific “fact” was parochial in nature; that scientific facts could shift depending on who was interpreting them and from where. A bit of a tangent, trying to quell the unease led me to the heated yet messy debate on dose limits that had apparently been raging on for decades within the nuclear industry. I couldn’t fathom why an issue that ought to have been straightforward saw different national entities looking at the same data and coming to wildly differing conclusions. A very gentle scratch of the surface trying to figure things out led me to the infamous Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) model that even to this day refuses to go away regardless of how much updated data, common sense and logic are thrown at it.

    screenshot 2024 05 22 140932

    A must-read on the topic was obviously “Unintended Consequences” by the late Dr. George Erickson who deserves recognition for his passionate advocacy of not just nuclear power, but also particularly Liquid fission thorium-based reactors that showed a lot of promise in the golden era of nuclear engineering when innovative designs seemed popping out of thin air.

    Read together with “Why Nuclear has been a Flop”2 by Jack Devanney of  Thorcon International, the two are primers on how not to handle new cutting-edge technology like nuclear and reveal how it was possible for scientific mischief by a handful of individuals could wipe out the 500,000:1 advantage that nuclear power was projected to have compared to other technologies.

    It is always fun to read a book. It is even more intriguing to read about the author. A man of varied accomplishments – dentist, bush pilot, and author – Dr Erickson made the decision to dedicate his life to promoting safe, clean energy solutions in a way that, as I looked up his work, resonates very deeply with me. Reading “Unintended Consequences” posthumously I found him answering questions I had long before I was even aware of them. He challenged the prevailing ideas about the excesses that have followed the adoption of Hermann Muller’s LNT model and laid bare the dire consequences that have followed. From the crippling energy poverty that continues to afflict the vast majority of the people on this planet to the very real threat of runaway climate change extinguishing the flames of our civilization, Dr Erickson doesn’t mince his words.

    photo 2024 05 17 06 53 47
    Dr. George Erickson, RIP

    Dr. Erickson was a proponent of a scientific approach to safety. Like the other visionaries of his time, he championed the use of thorium as a superior alternative to traditional finite and clunky uranium.  He argued for its efficiency, environmental benefits, and reduced proliferation risks. He was a voice of reason in the often-charged debate where catchphrases are brandished as counterarguments against the use of nuclear to rescue our civilization from the brink of runaway climate change. His writing style and wordplay do an excellent job of bridging the gap between scientific and public discourse.

    Though I only discovered his work posthumously, the more I read about the man, the more I appreciate his indelible mark on nuclear discourse. It is a legacy that relatively young fellas like testing the waters as we try to build careers, can learn a lot from.

    The best way to ensure that the Late Dr George Erickson’s legacy lives on is to do what he dedicated a significant portion of his life to; keep asking the questions that need answers. Few things would better celebrate his memory than continuing the pursuit of a fact-based approach to addressing the questions that will come as the effects of climate change start to bite. Only then will we stand a chance at addressing what Jack Devanney aptly refers to as “The Gordian knot of our time.”

    May the light that Dr George Erickson has cast on this issue and others, keep guiding those of us keen to take up the mantle of spreading the gospel of nuclear power to every corner of our planet.

    273199617 1898120090395137 1900938669767605216 n

    By Omondi Agar

    Thanks to Jeremiah Josey and Dusya Lyubovskaya for setting this up.

    Links and References

    1. https://thethoriumnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/unintended-consequences.pdf
    2. https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nuclear-Power-Been-Flop/dp/1098308964

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

  • Public Statement Regarding Recent Public Allegations and the Collaboration with The Venus Project

    Public Statement Regarding Recent Public Allegations and the Collaboration with The Venus Project

    Authored by Jeremiah Josey together with legal counsel and the team at The Thorium Network

    Date: 9 January 2024

    The Thorium Network hereby issues this statement to address recent allegations circulating in the public domain and to provide clarity regarding our collaboration with The Venus Project. Our commitment to transparency and factual communication remains paramount.

    Background

    The Thorium Network has maintained a productive collaboration with The Venus Project to promote sustainable technologies and advanced energy solutions. This partnership aligns with our shared vision of fostering innovation for a better future. We recognise the importance of this collaboration in advancing research and awareness around Thorium energy.

    As part of the work planned with The Venus Project, The Thorium Network engaged expert advisers under formal, binding agreements. Notably, The Thorium Network contracted with Dr. Simon Michaux pursuant to a substantial, binding consultancy agreement to support the technical workstreams associated with The Venus Project initiative. Dr. Michaux’s role was contractual and authorised by The Thorium Network for the specific purposes of that collaboration.

    Response to Recent Allegations

    We are aware of certain allegations that have been made recently about our operations and the nature of the collaboration. We categorically deny any misinformation or actions that might compromise our integrity or the principles on which our organisation stands. We take these allegations seriously and are conducting an internal review to ensure complete accountability.

    Rebutting Ukraine

    Some recent online commentary originates from a former would-be collaborator of The Venus Project whose proposals were not accepted by Jacque Fresco nor the project team following his passing. This individual has published material that combines personal opinion, selective citation of public records, and asserted inferences, which we characterise as unfounded “mud slinging.” The Thorium Network will not respond to every online claim made. Instead, we will address public assertions through verifiable documentation and measured communications targeted appropriately to our stakeholders and the press.

    Clarification on Collaboration Details

    Our partnership with The Venus Project is based on mutual respect, shared goals, and transparent cooperation. This collaboration is focused on educational outreach and technology development, guided by ethical standards and best practices in research. All activities conducted under this partnership adhere strictly to legal and regulatory requirements.

    Confidential Report and Request for Access

    For serious investors, partners, or stakeholders seeking further clarity on the complexities surrounding these matters, a comprehensive confidential report is available upon request. This report contains detailed information intended to provide context beyond what can be publicly disclosed. Access to this report will be granted only under strict confidentiality agreements to ensure protection of sensitive legal, intellectual property, and proprietary information.

    Stakeholders interested in requesting access to this confidential report are encouraged to contact us directly. We are committed to facilitating informed dialogue while safeguarding the integrity of all involved parties.

    Commitment to Transparency

    The Thorium Network remains dedicated to providing accurate information to our stakeholders and the public. We welcome dialogue and inquiries to promote a greater understanding of our mission and collaborative efforts. We are committed to resolving any concerns swiftly and responsibly.

    Conclusion

    We appreciate the continued support from our community and partners as we work together to advance sustainable energy solutions. The Thorium Network will continue to operate with openness, accountability, and dedication to innovation.

    Sincerely,
    Jeremiah Emanuel Josey
    Chairman, The Thorium Network and associated entities

    Social Media Posts

    1) The Thorium Network

    2) MECi Group

    Public Statements regarding this topic

    1) The Thorium Network

    2) MECI Group

    Private and Confidential Reports on TVP and Yevhen Sliuzko

    1) TTN: Private and Confidential Report on TVP and Yevhen Sliuzko

    2) MECI: Private and Confidential Report on TVP and Yevhen Sliuzko

    The Venus Project

    The Venue Project link: TVP

    TTN on TVP Website
    TTN on the TVP Website
  • A Passion for Rare Earth Elements and Thorium? Want to break a Global Monopoly? We Are Doing It.

    A Passion for Rare Earth Elements and Thorium? Want to break a Global Monopoly? We Are Doing It.

    Author Jeremiah Josey

    Plasma Assisted Digestion(TM) - Digestion Stage, post plasma
    Plasma Assisted Digestion(TM) – Digestion Stage, post plasma

    2023 marks a huge milestone for The Thorium Network and our division the International Plasma Research InstituteTM, or IPRITM. We successfully serviced a number of clients and cracked their inert materials using Plasma Assisted DigestionTM or PADTM for short.

    We did this at indicative costs and time much less than industry standards. Indeed, one client gave us material they are unable to recover anything from. We obtained almost 80% of the precious Rare Earths from the material. That’s case study 3 below.

    Here are the summaries of three case studies from some of our work in 2023:

    IPRI PAD(TM) Cracking Case Study 1
    IPRI PAD(TM) Cracking Case Study 1
    IPRI PAD(TM) Cracking Case Study 2
    IPRI PAD(TM) Cracking Case Study 2
    ipri padtm cracking case study 3
    IPRI PAD(TM) Cracking Case Study 3

    Why Plasma to make Rare Earths and Thorium

    Our plasma team is the best in the world, covering the United Kingdom, South America, the Middle East and the USA.

    Using a proprietary configuration of gases, geometry and plasma, at IPRITM we are able to change the structure of a mineral matrix such that we crack a normally locked, tight crystal mineral lattice, such as monazite or apatite. This makes them quite accessible using mild liquid separation technologies.

    The benefit are:

    • Removal of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMS) early from the process. This makes at-mine pre-processing possible before sending off for concentration.
    • Selective separation of element species using different wet conditions by adjusting temperature, pH and time.
    • Separation of low value rare earths, such as cerium, from high value rare earths in minutes.

    We are excited by the potential to apply PADTM to other inert mineral structures to explore their viability also.

    Here are some research papers from Necsa on Plasma technology that prove the technology.

    Necsa Manufacture of PDZ with Plasma July 2012Download

    Necsa Plasma Project Summary October 2015Download

    Separation of Rare Earth Elements

    Typical separation of rare earth elements is a capital intensive and expensive operation. With our partners we have PertraXTM. At a fraction of the cost of tradition solvent extraction technologies PertraXTM is able to safely separate rare earths with the smallest of environmental footprints with only a fraction of the hardware and consumables traditionally used. It’s a revolution in rare earth production.

    PertraXTM is also part of our activities at IPRITM.

    Plasma at Work with Zircon

    The Determination of Percentage Dissociation of Zircon with PlasmaDownload

    Expanding Operations in 2023

    During 2023, the esteemed and highly experienced scientist Dr. Necdet Aslan joined us at IPRI.tech. Dr. Aslan is Türkiye’s expert in plasma physics and technology and professor at Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Türkiye.

    As we move into the future we are excited by the prospects we have to expand our activities. Reach out to us here if you would like to join our illustrious team.

    About The Thorium Network

    Our objective at The Thorium Network is to Accelerate the Worldwide Adoption of Liquid Fission Thorium Energy. We do that through three main activities:

    1) We strive for easy access to Thorium as a fission fuel and focus on Liquid Fission – its technical superiority is unrivalled. The track and trace of nuclear fuels provides a solution for countries to go nuclear faster. Less headaches. This is done in full compliance with international guidelines and country regulations;

    2) Raising public awareness to the benefits of Fission. As well as being an innovator of supply chain logistics we are also a public relations group as as advocate Fission Energy;

    3) Driving licensing and installation of Fission machines across the world, using our network and access within the industry. For this we include all advanced fission technology, as well of course, Liquid Fission Thorium Burners (LFTBs).

    Social Media

    Follow us at on our social media:

    References and Links

    1. The website of IPRI.tech
    2. First PADTM and IPRITM announcement https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7021353696244420608
    3. https://smi.uq.edu.au/jkmrc-research
    4. https://www.linkedin.com/in/necdetaslan/
    5. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7135939867191988225

    Tags

    #GotThorium #Fission4All #RadiationIsGood4U #NuclearEnergy #Plasma #MineralsProcessing #IPRI #PAD #PertraX