2017 - Its Getting Better! (...So Get Over It )

By just about any metric you want to measure it by, the prospects for humanity both now and in the future are improving and at an increasing rate.

But what about the population bomb? Global warming? ISIL? Pollution and all the other terrors and demons waiting for us all?

Well here's some facts rather than the self serving doom-laden propaganda that gets disseminated by the likes of Greenpeace, FOE and WWF.

Global life expectancy is now....70. Whereas most people think it is stuck at about 40.

How many kids do families typically have in (say) Bangladesh? 4? 6? 8?

No. It's now actually 2.5.

In fact the world went through "peak child" around 2000. Peak child means that the population of 16-24 year old is now stationary at about 2 Billion.

The world population is though still going up. That is because due to better health care, plentiful energy and a better diet people are living longer. But because the 18 - 24 year old are stationary at 2 Billion it means that the peak of the world population is in sight.

The world population will stabilize at about 11 billion within the next 70 years.

What about disasters? Remember the hysteria over Fukushima? Remember the smirking doomsters predicting death tolls of  hundreds of thousands? Possibly millions?

Yet in fact, NOBODY died from the Fukushima melt-downs - except for those poor souls were scared half to death by scientifically illiterate fear-mongers who had them forcibly evacuated.

Global Warming? True - we should not be complacent but even hurricanes are now at an all time low. The North Pole ice cap is still there, no doubt much to the chagrin of Al Gore. Sea levels are yet to show an increase.

Pollution? We are getting a grip. The incredible stupidity of promoting diesel cars has hit the buffers and just about everybody realizes how polluting coal is. Though bizarrely the grip is loosening in those countries piously parading their "Greenery". Germany continues to build new coal plant
while closing nuclear. But even then, nuclear is taking off in style all around the world. The West are the laggards, which is dissapointing.(A bit like having your football team in the relegation zone).

On the down side we continue to squander resources on junk energy like wind and solar. They have their niches but that's all. But people are getting wise to the snake oil salesmen who promise the world and provide little. Lets hope a few more of them get a good financial kicking in 2017.

Bigotry and pedantic religious dogma have also taken a beating. Mainly because world literacy now stands at well over 80%.

Education and better health care now mean that women are steadily overcoming the dogma and prejudices that have shackled them in the past. The education genie is out of the bottle. Much as the likes of ISIL and their ilk would want to put it back in - it ain't going to fit. Women are taking their rightful place at the centre of human progress.

Even Donald Trump and Brexit show how advanced nations are throwing off self serving elitist cliques. Now we just need to ensure we don't build new ones!

No doubt this is all disappointing stuff for the doom mongers - those who love to see the glass half empty - and full of poison. For them realism is now the enemy,

Today realism shows us things really are getting better.

True there are lots of things that still need fixing. Lots of wrongs that need righting.

But hey its the new year - let's be optimistic and crack on. Let the doom mongers stew.

Happy New Year!

Robespierre, Hansen and Denialism

Once upon a time there was an organisation called “The Committee of Public Safety”. It was a bit like Orwell's later inventions of “The Ministry of Truth” and the “Ministry of Peace”. They were all the antithesis of what their name suggested.

The leader of the “The Committee of Public Safety” was a guy called Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre rose to power during the French Revolution. During one year from 1793 though to 1794, the “Committee For Public Safety” executed/murdered somewhere between 40,000 and 200,000 people. (History Today Article Here)

Today the victims of the “Committee for Public Safety” are usually superficially presented as Toffs or Aristocrats. In fact the vast majority were just common folk who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Appalling as that is, it is very important to understand that Robespierre was not corrupt.

Robespierre neither sought money or privilege. Though he was driven by his revolutionary zeal to seek power he was to all affects and purposes, an honest man. (just like Hitler)

Robespierre was dedicated to his cause. In a bizarre way he was dedicated to the “Public Good”.

Nobody can challenge Robespierre's good intentions. Though we may all well remember what paves the Road to Hell.

Robespierre's good intentions did not prevent him from denouncing honest citizens or even his fellow revolutionaries when it suited his ends. 

During a period know as “The Terror” Robespierre sent close friends and political allies to the guillotine as well as thousands upon thousands of hapless citizens who were really only guilty of bad timing and political unfashionability. (Wikipedia on "The Terror" Here)

Today in France, Robespierre is a synonym for a disgusting, bigoted, paranoid spasm in French history. As well as a blinkered paranoid and failed doctrine.

In modern France, no statues exist to Robespierre. Nor should they.

So how does this relate to Jim Hansen or Global Warming or even Denialism?

I expect you know that Dr J. Hansen is a Scientist of major repute. I won't bother going into his achievements here (just Google the Guy) but I suppose I should 'fess up that generally speaking (with a few caveats) I adhere to his analysis and listen carefully to what he has to say.

Today in a Robspierre-like tirade in the Guardian, Hansen, along with 3 other heavy duty scientists are preposterously accused of being Deniers. (See Guardian Article Here)

Of course the term “Denier” is remisciscent of other labels pumped out by bigots. "Witch", "Heretic", “Jew”, “Sympathiser”, “Collaborator” all come to mind. In Robespierre-speak the de-rigeur term was “Anti-Revolutionary Traitor “.

Today we have not one Robspierre but many. Each one using their spiteful categorizations to inhibit discussion and debate. The latest tirade in the Guardian is but one of many.  "The Terror" of Robspierre's time is today mirrored in the intellectual terrorism of political correctness that seeks to deny a voice to our finest scientists.

Today highly experienced and world leading scientists (like Hansen, Wigley,Emanuel and Caldeira) suggest we should pragmatically pursue Nuclear Power to fight Global Warming and Atmospheric Pollution. In the eyes of the Guardian, that is their crime.

To label this illustrious group (or anyone) as “Deniers” because they support a viable way of avoiding a potential calamity is just a descent into the modern day version of “The Terror”.

Today in the likes of WWF or Greenpeace and especially the Guardian newspaper, Citizen Robespierre would be quite at home.

Nuclear Power, Hinkley C and Sizewell B.

Today Europe is struggling to build two EPR reactors. To be fair, they are getting there. But progress has been slow and costly.

Today a third EPR reactor is planned for Hinkley Point in Somerset. To ensure Chinese and French backers stay with the project the government has given a £2 Billion guarantee against cancellation as well as guaranteeing a strike price of over £90 MWh

The mooted price for this one reactor is over £20 billion. Even at this eye watering price the government is desperate to see Hinkley C progress because it is the only viable 24/7 emissions free power generation available.

Even if they have to pay this ransom it is still cheaper than onshore wind and hugely cheaper than offshore wind, both of which need fossil fuel backup anyway. So the government has little choice but to pay.

But there is something wrong here.

The last UK nuclear power plant was commissioned only 20 years ago. Sizewell B cost £2 billion or about £4 billion in todays money.

Sizewell B came in under budget. The grid connection (planned in 1987) was for Christmas 1994. It actually happened barely one month late. The build took a mere 7 years. At the time it was lauded as a shining example of how to build large infrastructure projects. (See Independent article here)

But even so, Sizewell B is essentially a prototype. No commercial Light Water Reactor had been built in the UK before. So building to timescale and to budget is even more remarkable.

Eight "Sizewell B's" were planned. If they had been built the power supply outlook in the UK today would be entirely different. But due to extreme political fear mongering, opportunism and anti nuclear hysteria the other seven were canned.

The UK ended up relying on Gas backed up by the likes of DRAX and Longannet both burning vast quantities of imported coal for the next 20 years. The number of subsequent deaths and shortened lives from air pollution must be in the order of  50,000. I'll work it out properly in a future post.

(If you doubt this ball park figure of 50,000 dead read these two papers  by some of the worlds leading scientists and figure it out yourself. Karecha & Hansen and Markyanda & Wilson)

So I have to ask: Why is it that in a time scale of twenty years we have gone from  producing a nuclear power plant to budget and on time to a bloated massively expensive and chaotic shambles?

Don't forget the Sizewell B plant is an early example of Generation III reactor (See IMechE article here). As near as dammit Sizewell B it is as good as an EPR and at one fifth the price

I reckon we need to take a pause.

Instead of building horrendously complex and expensive EPR's maybe we should go back to the original plan and build a few more "Sizewell B" type PWR's. After all we still have the prototype - and it has been working for 20 years!

Then we can invest the money saved from not building the ludicrously expensive EPR's in Generation 4 nuclear prototyping and research.

This way within 10 years we can have a reliable cheap carbon free power supply from a proven designs and maybe working PRISM and/or LFTR prototype reactors coming
on line.

Well, its just an idea......

-------------------------------------------

Post posting note:

Thanks to @Davey1233 on twitter there are a few corrections I should add which, while not detracting from the achievement of Sizewell B do restore some of my faith in the EPR.

He correctly points out that Hinkley will be around 3 times the output capacity of Sizewell B and the true "todays" figure for Sizewell should be more like £5 billion not 4. Consequently comparing output power like for like the cost difference shrinks from a ratio of 1:5 to about 1:1.25

So maybe Hinkley C is not quite such a rip off - although I would still suggest the builders are being more than amply rewarded and have managed to secure this lucrative deal simply because the government is over a barrel.

In reality these decisions regarding the construction of nuclear power stations in the UK should have been taken 10 - 20 years ago. Instead the governments of the time simply kow-towed to the ignorance and hysteria of the Green lobby.

We desperately need nuclear power. Without it we could well end up slipping back into dependency on coal - just like they have in Germany. That is in nobodys interest.

Plutonium: Problem or Solution?

Did you know that the worlds stockpile of Plutonium stands at around 500 Tonnes? (incidentally the UK owns about 20% of that) Wikipedia Link Here

Theoretically, a technically competent country could build around 250,000 fission nuclear bombs out of that 500 Tonnes. Each bomb would be around 10KT – about the size that destroyed Hiroshima.

Of course, a technically competent country would actually be capable of using the Plutonium for detonators inside much larger fusion weapons (Hydrogen Bombs).

A less technically competent nation would have more difficulties and may only be capable of producing around 100,000 fission nuclear bombs from the 500 Tonnes.

Weapon building information here

By any reasonable evaluation the bomb potential from 500 Tonnes of Plutonium on a global scale is effectively limitless.

Clearly safe control and disposal of Plutonium (other than by building bombs out of it) would be a good idea.

So how about burying it?

Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years. So in 24,000 years time todays stockpile of 500 Tonnes would only build a mere 125,000 bombs. Or for a less technically competent nation a mere 50,000.

So burying it is hardly a solution.

There are a number of cunning plans to “poison” the Plutonium to make it extremely difficult to separate. But you can always guarantee that somewhere, somehow, there will another cunning plan which could be used to purify it.

Even if you successfully poison it what do you do with it then?

There is only one way that I know of that can reduce the Plutonium stockpile - short of blowing people up with it.

That is by using it as fuel in an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). The by-product of using the Plutonium is a huge supply of electricity. So you dispose of the Plutonium and produce a massive benefit to society at the same time.

Another and less productive use of IFR reactors is to poison the Plutonium in a short time scale, but using it for power production would seem a better idea.

An IFR not only solves the Proliferation issue it also solves the issues surrounding air pollution and carbon emissions from burning coal. An IFR in power mode can consume almost all of its fuel and it produces very small amounts of short lived radioactive waste. It is the ultimate win-win solution to an otherwise intractable problem.

IFR technology is by the way, old proven technology, even though the anti-nuclear lobby will try and bluster you otherwise.

The technology dates back at least four decades. The USA had a working IFR in the 1980's. It was cancelled as a political sop to the anti-nuclear movement. The American IFR was a victim of broad brush ignorance. It remains a victim to this day. (Wikipedia - Argonne Reactor Here)

Ironically the project was killed off just two weeks after a test proved the IFR would safely shut itself down after suffering a total loss of cooling and control. That is why it is often referred to as an intrinsically safe design.

Even the UK had a similar (though not quite the same) project based a Dunraey in Scotland in 1970's While the Dunraey reactors had a number of design issues they did show the feasibility of the IFR concept was sound. (Wikipedia Dunraey Reactor Here)

Today Russia operates two commercial IFR's. India is building one and I believe China has just commissioned its first. So this is no pie in the sky unproven dream world technology. (World Nuc. News - Existing & Future IFR's Here)

GE-Hitachi have a design for a 600MW reactor based on the original USA design from the 1980's. It is the current front runner in the UK to deal with the Plutonium issue. It is called the PRISM reactor. 

(The Engineer - The Prism Reactor)

But there is a problem.

The problem is with people who would rather bury their heads in the sand than seek a solution to the Plutonium stockpile problem.

Feckless politicians are likely to sit on their hands rather than risk the wrath of Green groups. Even though these anti nuclear groups have no solution to the plutonium stockpile themselves.

If you have a magic solution to the Plutonium stockpile other than by using PRISM reactors please tell me – I'd love to know what it is.

But without a magic solution (or PRISM reactors) the Plutonium stockpile is not going anywhere soon. As far as I can see the only way to put the Plutonium Genie back in the bottle is to constructively use it for the benefit of mankind in PRISM reactors.

So what is your solution? What do you do with 500 tonnes of Plutonium?

If you have some magic plan other than PRISM what is it?

Tell me.

------------------------

(Post posting note! It has been correctly pointed out on twitter that PRISM reactors are not the only constructive nuclear technology that can use the Plutonium. There are other promising avenues of development, such as Molten Salt Reactors and Sub Critical reactors to name just two. I had no intention of dissing these promising avenues of development but at the moment in the UK the front runner (by a long margin) is the PRISM reactor.

Death by Energiewende

A while back (in this post - Here) I worked out roughly how many people would be killed from air pollution by the insane German retreat from nuclear power and the consequent retrenchment into a choking mix of lignite and hard coal. The deaths, limited as it was to the partial shut-down so far actioned, came out at a staggering 1150 per year and that is ignoring the tens of thousands of seriously ill and the legion of minor debilitating ailments.

Even though my humble calculations used unimpeachable peer reviewed data from world leading academics, my post drew a fair amount of flak from assorted greens. Their continuous denial (especially relating to the use of lignite as a nuclear substitute) was absolute. Nuclear was the enemy. The use of coal/lignite as a substitute was not their problem. In fact they opposed the use of coal/lignite as well. (sigh). Clearly realism was not their top priority

Well, denial is a difficult thing to overcome. But luckily this excellent post by the Breakthrough Institute (Here) gave me an idea.

Even if we ignore the coal and lignite, perhaps we can figure out the casualty figures from the renewable sources themselves. Here, for brevity, I'll stick to the main killer among the renewable technologies. That technology is Biomass. The ugliness of the fanatical exploitation of German agriculture to service this new god is well described in the Breakthrough post above.

Using figures from Here and Here it would appear that currently Germany sources around 600 PetaJoules (or around 167 TWhr)  from biomass annually.

So how many people will this kill every year? Luckily we have a highly regarded and scrupulously peer reviewed paper by Markandya & Wilkinson to help us out (Paper is Here ) In this paper we find this table.

Using the above table we find that this 167 TW/hrs of energy derived from biomass will kill (4.63 x 167) about 750 people EVERY year. The serious illness (hospitalised) count comes in at over 7000/yr and minor though debilitating illness is a staggering 38,000.

The Green cults running this insanity want to (at least) double this usage, and so double the death toll. But remember this is simply the biomass. These figures appalling as they are, get buried in the noise when you start looking at lignite/coal.

Now let us substitute 600PJ of nuclear instead of the biomass. According to Markandya & Wilkinson this 167 TW/hrs of nuclear will kill 8 people and lead to 36 serious illnesses. 

So the terrified Germans with their Energiewende and nuclear close-down, are killing nearly 100 people from biomass for every potential death from nuclear. But at least this way they can balm their medieval paranoia over nuclear.

Of course it is actually much, much worse than this, because to replace nuclear you REALLY do use coal/lignite as a substitute. Biomass is (and always will be) a bit part player.

Thousands will die needlessly EVERY year in Germany because of the mythical fears and hysteria promoted by the Greens so they can do away with nuclear.

The Energiewende and the Greens' denial of deaths from coal/lignite and biomass, coupled with their hysterical non-scientific opposition to nuclear will see thousands of ordinary Germans sent to early graves. Every year. Year in. Year out.

Yet it is unlikely that any death certificates will bear the real cause of death. I imagine signing off someones life with "Death by Energiewende" would be strictly verboten.

Prof David MacKay on the Laws of Physics

Prof David Mackay FRS is Regius Professor of Engineering in the Department of Engineering at the University of Cambridge and chief scientific adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.

He is also the author of  the famous (and free) "Sustainable Energy (Without the Hot Air)" . The whole book (12Megs) is available HERE

But he has also recorded a number of lectures on the viability and practicality of renewables, particularly he has focussed on the land areas needed to meet specific goals. These are goals that meet specific energy requirements. Here he is talking about systems that are other than window dressing or merely fashion statement technology.

My favourite quote is:- "I'm not anti renewables but I am pro arithmetic"

The recording is 18 minutes but is well worth a watch (unless you are a green dreamer that is)

Wind Power. The Scale of the Problem

Take one AP1000 nuclear power plant, output around 1150MW  (If you don't like nuclear substitute  a similar sized gas/coal plant if you like) Now lets compare that graphically with how many turbines and how much space is needed......

Excellent Animation. H/T to designer Gabrielle Hollis

Fukushima – the Hidden Epidemic

I hope to show in this post how the events at Fukushima and the subsequent actions of the Japanese government effectively signed the death warrant for thousands of Japanese people and consigned many more to ill health and premature death. I will also show that sadly, this is a continuing and on-going problem with no end in sight.

A great deal of lurid speculation has surrounded the melt downs at Fukushima. But surprisingly, (it is now two years since the Tsunami) there has been no indication of any actual loss of life from radiation from any reputable body.

But significant loss of life there has been. Without a doubt.

The press and media have distracted people from this silent epidemic by their lurid (often fictional, usually ignorant)  sensationalist news reports. The result is that most people are now focussing on the wrong issue.

To get a handle on this epidemic we  need to consider events that took place all across Japan immediately after the Tsunami. Particularly we need to see what happened to Japanese power generation.

After the melt downs,  the Japanese government ordered the shutdown of all nuclear plant in Japan. Today, two years on, only two reactors are in operation. As Japan relied on nuclear power for close on to 30% of its electricity, these shut downs left a very large hole in Japan's generation capability. A hole that had to be filled by other generating capacity.

Here is a a set of tables up to end 2011 of  Japanese fossil energy usage for electrical generation

From this you can see Natural Gas generation rose by 58 TWh, coal by 57 TWh, and Oil by 9 TWh through 2011.  It would seem reasonable to assume the split remained much the same through 2012, if not somewhat higher in total

Now we come to some highly regarded published and peer reviewed papers

The first paper (published in Environmental Science and Technology paper available HERE) is by Hansen and Kheracha (if you don't know who Dr Jim Hansen is then you must have been asleep for the last ten years)

They reference a second paper (published in The Lancet medical journal - paper available HERE) by Markandya and Wilkinson. Both papers revolve around this table showing the number of deaths caused by electrical generation. While this table refers to Europe, I would argue is equally valid for Japan.

The extra Coal based electrical generation, (displacing Nuclear) kills through air pollution, 24 people per TWh of generation. Over the two year period that comes to (24 x 57 x 2) = 2736 deaths, 25,000 serious illnesses and untold minor ailments.

Extra Natural Gas based electrical generation has caused (3 x 58 x 2) = 348 extra deaths, 3400 serious illnesses and  again thousands of minor illnesses

Oil based electrical generation statistically kills 19.2 people per TWh. So the additional oil based generation has caused the deaths of ( 19 x 9 x 2) = 342 extra deaths, 2900 serious illnesses and another legion of minor illnesses.

Assuming Nuclear would have originally handled all this (i.e. 57 + 58 + 9 = 124 TWh),  then the statistical deaths from nuclear would have amounted to (0.052 x 124 x 2) = 12 deaths and 54 serious illnesses.

So there we have our hidden plague. Death brought about NOT BY nuclear power, but brought about by NOT HAVING nuclear power. An epidemic killing almost 3500 people in two years ( that is nearly 33 a week) and leaving many times that number ill and incapacitated.

Of course, this slaughter can be stopped within a few days. But that requires political courage and an honesty beyond that seen so far in Japanese politics.

Basically somebody has to stand up, explain the statistical risks to the Japanese people from nuclear power. Then detail the continuing carnage from the fossil fuel replacement.

Then they need to turn the nuclear plant back on.

(my figures are highly conservative. The most likely death toll from this silent plague is considerably higher)

Dr Jim Hansen on Nuclear and Renewables

Dr Jim Hansen , the well known and world renowned climate scientist has upset a lot of the Green lobby with his positive views on Nuclear power. In this really interesting interview he explains his position and also described the inadequacy of renewables (hydro apart).

Denmark vs France. Place your Bets.

So, my grubby little Englanders,

We have a contest. Who is your money on?.......

For those who track along with AGW -  who cuts the most Carbon?
For those who don't track with AGW - who cuts the most Pollution?

We must not forget that our Power production options are not just related to Carbon Dioxide emissions. It is also about air pollution as well. (Ask anyone enduring the raging Indonesian smoke haze if you doubt me)

Come on. Place your bets.

Is it Nuclear France? or "Renewables" Denmark?

Sit back and watch the video......

(h/t to Brave New Climate)

Fracking saves Thousands of Lives in USA

A few days ago I posted about how Dr Jim Hansen and his colleague Pushker A. Kharecha have produced a ground breaking paper showing how nuclear power has literally saved millions of lives. (Post HERE) (Paper HERE)

I became aware from their research that while nuclear is clearly a life saver, the replacement of coal generation with Gas will also save many lives. Due to the adoption of fracking in the USA, literally thousands of lives have been saved. Also a huge amount of illness, both serious and minor has been prevented.

As part of their research Hansen and Kharecha refenced a peer reviewed paper published in the "The Lancet" (The Lancet is a Medical journal of unquestionable integrity)

The paper "Electricity generation and health" by Anil Markandya & Paul Wilkinson.( Copy Of Paper HERE) gives us figures for the number of deaths from different electrical generation fuels.

Here is the crucial table.

Notice that the table indicates that the death toll from using coal powered generation is around ten times that of gas. So for every TW/hr of power generation transferred from coal to gas will save the lives of about 22 people.

Now look at these Annual Energy generation figures from the EIA in the USA. (Link HERE)

Total USA energy generation has only increased by about 4% from 2003 to 2012.

But notice how gas use (due to Fracking) has doubled from 2003 to 2012. Due to this increase in gas usage, coal use has fallen by 30%.

Nothing else is responsible for this. Nuclear is stationary and will remain so until new plant is built. Renewables are shown as minor bit part players, virtually irrelevant to the total output.

So in 2012, Fracking caused a reduction in coal generation of around 600 TW/hr.

This equates (for 2012 alone) to a reduction in the death toll of around 13200 people.

If you look at the table you will also see that Fracking have caused truly massive falls in serious and minor illness associated with coal powered electrical generation.

Couple that to a 60% GHG emission reduction for those 600 TW/hr and you find the USA is the only country in the world to significantly reduce its GHG emissions. All due to Fracking.

Clearly, while nuclear generation is still the most healthy option, Gas (from Fracking or otherwise) comes a close second. Wind and Solar, even after close on to 20 years of huge subsidies in the USA are still incapable of making a significant impact on electrical generation.

Next (or maybe next) I will explore how many Germans are going to be killed by the replacement of the safe and reliable nuclear  with dirty lignite burning coal stations.

Safe In their Hands

Now then, my grubby little Englanders, I want to ask you a few pertinent questions.

• Would you (with your family) get into a plane where the pilot was confident but lacked any formal training?
• Would you let a person install a gas boiler in your house when you knew that the installer only had the vaguest notion of what they were doing?
• How about putting your kids onto a school bus where the driver could recite the highway code but had never actually driven a bus before?

Well how about this then. 

Lets look at Energy Policy. You know that boring old subject about keeping the lights on, people in jobs, old folk NOT freezing to death etc. etc.

Particularly let us look at those who have (or aspire to hold) the title of "Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change",

Milliband, Huhne and Davey all studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics.

Sadly it looks like they wouldn't know a Joule from a Seivert.

I should point out there is a rumour that Huhne might now be able to change a light bulb (on a good day). They teach you a lot of new skills in prison these days.

Meanwhile the current Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Caroline Flint, has a BA in American Literature and History combined with Film Studies.

So while she probably could recite the script from the Chine Syndrome she might confuse Spinning Reserve with some sort of pool of political propaganda.

There is not a one engineer on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee.

But there is some good news.

Luckily there is John Robertson MP. He did a technical apprenticeship for Post Office Telephones and is the sole technically qualified person on the committee. However poor old John tends to be a lone voice as the only informed advocate of nuclear power.

Seriously I'm not making this up.

One of the most urgent and life changing aspects of our society (aka Energy policy) is being decided by a bunch of over confident (dare I say arrogant) buffoons who know little or nothing about the subject they are in charge of.

God help us all.

(Hat tip to commentator "phasing" on this Telegraph Article )

Pandora's Promise

"What if what you have been thinking all this time - is wrong?"

This film was made by Robert Stone. He is a multi-award-winning, Oscar-nominated and Emmy-nominated documentary filmmaker. (Biography HERE ) His film, Pandoras Promise has received enormous accolades. In preview showings it has caused a storm. Indulge me. Watch the trailer.

The film relates to a journey of discovery  made  by Stone and a number of very prominent and very famous environmentalists. That the journey they question their preconceptions about nuclear power.

It is, I am told not only an eye opener but is a powerful moving and ground breaking expose against the ignorance and pseudo science that surrounds the environmental lobby today.

If you want to read a fistful of reviews go to the bottom of This Link - The unofficial guide to Pandoras Promise They are quite enlightening.

General USA Release June 12th 2013. Due for UK release later in the year ( I'll let you know when I find out)

Hansen and Nuclear Power

I expect you have heard of Jim Hansen. Until recently he was head of the NASA Goddard Research Institute. It is fair to say he is the leading proponent of of the concept of AGW (Anthropological Global Warming).

Here is a blindingly brief resume of Jim Hansen the scientist (abbreviated from HERE)

Education
BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963
MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965
Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966
Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967

Primary leading roles
Director: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Adjunct Professor: Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University
Manager: GISS Planetary and Climate Programs

Then there are over thirty awards (yes - over thirty!). The particular award which emphasises the track of this post is a 2008 award - Rachel Carson Award for Integrity in Science.

Whether you agree with AGW or not you have to admit Hansen is a highly gifted scientist. I hope you agree that whether you like his scientific stance or not he is undoubtedly someone whose opinions and scientific theories should be thoroughly listened to.

The likes of Green Peace and FOE love Hansen's pro AGW stance because it unintentionally plays perfectly to their luddite anti-technological bigotry.

But things get very tricky when it comes to Hansens forceful support for Nuclear Power. We then see the bizarre and laughable descent into the usual spiteful character assassination and pseudo science that so infects the likes of Green Peace and FOE.

Here's a few quotes from recent Hansen interview (fully in context)
[quote]
it is very unfortunate that a number of nations have indicated that they’re going to phase out nuclear power… The truth is, what we should do is use the more advanced nuclear power. Even the old nuclear power is much safer than the alternatives.
[unquote]

[quote]
The bottom line seems to be that it is not feasible in the foreseeable future to phase out coal unless nuclear power is included in the energy mix.
[unquote]

[quote]
"I think that next-generation, safe nuclear power is an option which we need to develop. 
[unquote]

But for our nuclear denier's there is worse to come.

Hansen being a bright bloke, thought he would calculate just how many people have been SAVED by nuclear power. Read about it (Scientific American - HERE) and (Daily Kos - HERE).

Here's a graph from the paper:

Here's a small section from the paper's abstract:

[quote]
Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning.
[unquote]


Oh BOY - Did that cause the Green luddites to throw their toys out of the pram. See this pathetic diatribe (GreenLeft - HERE)

To the Green luddites Hansen is now a bit of a Janus. On one hand he is a champion of the planet, a hero and an environmental leader. But on the other hand he is a charlatan and incompetent who falsely promotes the demon of nuclear Power. He has even been called a shill (really!)

You have to laugh. Not one of these buffoons shooting at Hansen can hold a candle to his scientific rigour. I would really REALLY be interested (and probably amused) to see them try and disprove his findings using science rather than innuendo and character assasination.

But I won't be holding my breath while I wait.

The Ghost of Winfrith

Today it is hard to believe that just outside Winfrith, a small village in Dorset, there used to be one of the most dynamic and technologically advanced locations in the world. All there is now is a fading building, some rusty sidings and a halting and occasional de-commissioning exercise.

The decommisioning is run by RSRL, or to give it it's full name - Research Sites Restoration Ltd - See Here. The old Winfrith site is set among trees and is well back from the road. Today most drive past without even noticing it.

Winfrith was a nuclear  research facility but it never held a large reactor. The largest was a mere tiddler with a maximum power rating of 63 MW.

Even though this was designed specifically for research purposes it still provided a useful, regular and reliable output to the grid of 50MW.

While it was in operation, Winfrith was serviced by many small companies all based in the surrounding area. These companies were in turn serviced by other small companies providing everything from stainless steel to sandwiches.

Today the remains of the once dynamic industrial site between Winfrith and Wool, now renamed Dorset Green, is a mere shadow of its former self. Most of the jobs, along with the carbon free power generation from the Winfrith reactor are long gone.

It is interesting to compare the effectiveness of the 60 year old Winfrith research reactor to recent plans for so called "renewable" energy in Dorset.

Last year the Dorset Energy Group were bragging about a "reasonable scenario" of building 180 2MW turbines in Dorset. Frustratingly for the zealots in the DEG this number has evidently now been trimmed down, or at least obfuscated so not to frighten the locals.

Let's say the 100 turbines would now be their dream target.

We know that in 2010 the wind turbine capacity factor for the South West was a measly 17.7% (the lowest in the country). But let us round it up and say that these turbines would be over 10% better than their peers elsewhere in the South West.

That gives us a capacity factor of about 20%.

So the output of these 100 turbines would actually amount to 100 x 0.2 x 2 = 40MW.

These turbines would bring very few jobs and no technologically based business park. Virtually nothing would be added to the local economy. The only real local gains would be made by the already rich land owners who, to be fair, would make a killing.

These 100 turbines would utterly ruin the ancient county of Dorset. Every village would be blighted. Every viewpoint would be polluted.

All for 40MW.

Reduce the number of turbines and you also reduce the already ridiculously poor power output. So they get even more ineffective. Though collectively somewhat less ugly.

Now compare that to the old Winfrith site that provided many good jobs and singlehandedly provided the power equivalent to 120 huge wind turbines. Remember also that the tiny Winfrith reactor also provided consistent on-demand output unlike the intermittent and unpredictable wind turbine output.

Most of the people who designed Winfrith have not only retired but many have now died of old age. Yet 60 odd years ago they produced plentiful carbon free electricity that was, at the time, generated by the very leading edge of technology.

If you really wanted to reduce carbon emissions from coal and gas plant then even the old Winfrith research reactor would be a step forward from the wind turbine fiasco.

But today far more effective nuclear technology is available. Exciting new developments with MSR or LFTR technology promise massively plentiful yet utterly safe and secure power generation.

The next generation nuclear reactors will be developed by dynamic establishments - like Winfrith used to be.

Unfortunately Winfrith will no longer be one of them.

Lagging the Roof with Davey

At last! A morsel of common sense from the great and good.  ( See Guardian HERE ). Insulating houses and so REDUCING energy demand is fundamentally a very sound idea.

Household insulation should be at the very front of the government policy and if anything should get a subsidy it should be insulation.

But regrettably our esteemed leaders are still proud wind turbine fashionistas, even though it is these very wind turbines that will undo the good work done by the insulation and force many more thousands into fuel poverty.

Ed Davey, the new Huhne clone has announced that insulation can save as much as 2 Nuclear power stations. (see the above link)

Now I imagine that means a total power of about 2 GW (i.e. two Sizewell B's).

So let us do a comparison with an "average" on-shore wind turbine which is 2MW but has a capacity factor of 25% or less (in the South West - much less).

A little maths tells us that instead of supplanting 2 nuclear power station that produce reliable "dispatchable" power we could .......

dispense with  4000 unreliable, intermittent and massively subsidised wind turbines instead.

(yes that is not a misprint - FOUR THOUSAND - every land based bird mincer in the country plus some more..)

let's see.....

Close down 2  effective nuclear power plants?

Or 4000 ineffective wind turbines?

I know which I would choose.

Not only would we be free of these hopeless white elephants, but the money we would save on NOT paying the ROC subsidy would pay for the whole of the subsidised household insulation - for every home in the country.

The final icing on the cake would be the 250,000 households that would NOT be pushed into fuel poverty simply to line the pockets of the wind turbine carpet baggers.

Keeping the lights on with Nuclear

You may have noticed that I am an unashamed supporter of nuclear power generation.

I do however, believe nuclear materials needs to be treated with respect. But that is true of 100's of other materials we also need for our daily needs. We need to keep things in proportion.

Nuclear energy has the potential to transform power generation around the world. It is the only viable generation source that can displace coal and even gas. It is safe and secure and remarkably resilient to even massively catastrophic events - like the recent Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami (including the clapped out 50 year Fukishima plant).

Compare Fukishima to the Banquao disaster, (Wikipedia page here) where a hydroelectric plant failed in China in 1975 resulting in at least 200,000 deaths. Nobody believes we should shut down our hydroelectric plants even after the catastrophe at Banquao. Neither should we shut down our nuclear plants because of the failure of one 50 year old, obsolete plant under ultra extreme conditions.

Particularly we should shun the insane German decision to shut down nuclear and build polluting coal plant to replace it.

But what about the risks of Nuclear? If it is so safe why did they evacuate Fukishima? Why was Three Mile island treated so seriously although nobody died?

Once, a long time ago in I heard a analogy regarding nuclear safety and the extreme precautions that are taken.

The analogy revolves around the question: "Why, if nuclear power was so safe, do we have to take so many precautions?"

Here is the analogy:

A man had two children. His children were frightened of the dark. The children believed there were ghosts and goulies waiting in the dark. Unfathomable horrors waiting for them.

Consequently, to allay their fears, their father left on the hall light. He knew there were no ghosts. But he also knew that without the light, his children would be frightened.

He took the precaution.

Much of the  rigorous safety precautions surrounding nuclear and the extreme low dosimetry involved are the equivalent of putting the hall light on.

The irony of the fathers compassionate decision was that by lighting up the hall he would reinforce the fears of his children that there actually were ghosts and ghoulies waiting in the dark.

After all why would he put the light on unless there really were bad things waiting in the dark?

Why should they believe their fathers protestations that there were no ghosts? After all he is the one that puts the hall light on.

One day the father and his children would have to confront the issue, or continue wasting resources on the unneccessary light.

For us today the stakes are much higher than a single light bulb.

But perhaps it is time the nuclear industry stopped pandering to the childish fears about nuclear power that infect our society.

Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University makes a compelling case far a more mature approach to nuclear risk in his book Radiation and Reason. It is available at Amazon (here) I also have a number of other links related to this book/reviews/websites  On This Post Here

Perhaps it is also time we treated the ridiculous and immoral scare-mongering claims made by the anti-nuclear lobby (See this Post), with the contempt and derision they deserve.

Fukishima Cold Shutdown

After the Japanese Tsunami (25,000 dead) the world has focussed its post Tsunami reporting on a series of meltdowns at the Fukishima nuclear plant.

There are those who have eagerly claimed that Fukishima would result in hundreds of thousands of radiation based deaths. The highest prediction Billothewisp has so far come across is 1.4 million.

But no one has actually died of a radiation induced illness at Fukishima. Nor are there likely to be any fatalities, especially as Fukishima reached cold shutdown a couple of weeks ago.
( See This IAEA pdf )

But was Fukishima just a lucky break for the nuclear industry?

Just like at Windscale 1957? At Windscale a Plutonium fire burned for days spewing radioactive waste over the nearby village. The subsequent enquiry declared that thirty three people were "statistically" killed though nobody actually knows who they were.

Another lucky break for the nuclear industry?.

Or like the 1979 Three Mile Island partial meltdown. Lots of panic. Lots of lurid predictions but no deaths.

Was this just another lucky break for the nuclear industry?

Even the ultimate catastrophe at Chernobyl. You know - explosion, no containment vessel, burned for days, dumped its plutonium into a nearby forest, nobody doing anything effective for a considerable period, clouds of radiation over Europe,  no issue of Iodine tablets until weeks later.

The wild predictions of millions of deaths from Chernobyl remain just that - wild predictions. Truly it was socially dislocating industrial distaster. But hardly a catastrophe. Look at the Japanese Tsunami for a real catastrophe.

So was even Chernobyl just another lucky break for the nuclear industry?

Are you like me starting the get the feeling that there is something very wrong here.

Either the lurid predictions of millions of deaths are true and these deaths are being hidden from us by some fantastic dark international conspiracy, or there is something very seriously wrong with the way some people are assessing radiation risk.

After reading a book by Prof. Wade Allison of Oxford University, I am very strongly of the opinion that the latter is the case.

The book is called Radiation and Reason. ( Amazon Link Here )

There is also a website unsurprisingly called http://www.radiationandreason.com/

Here is a Link  to Prof Allison's bio on that site. Here is his Bio on Wikipedia.

The guy is a Fellow of Keble College and a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford. Don't be put off. The book is highly readable.

I think many will find Allisons book an eye opener.

European Electricity Prices Compared

Here is a price comparison table from The European Energy Portal.

We can do a little analysis of relative electricity prices in Europe.

Highest prices are in  Denmark closely followed by Germany. France is the lowest in Western Europe and Bulgaria is the lowest overall.

• The Danish pay well over twice the price for their electricity compared to the French.
• The Germans pay 190% more for electricity than the French, i.e. nearly double.
• The Italians pay 49% more for their electricity than the French
• The Spanish pay 43% more for their electricity than the French. Half as much again.
• The British pay 12% more than the French.

It is interesting to correlate these price differences to installed generation capacity.

• The Danes are the world leaders per head of population in installed wind power. They also have, by far the most expensive electricity in Europe.
• Germany has the largest European installation of wind power. It is number two is this highest priced electricity in Europe
• Spain is close on Germany's heels for installed capacity. Their prices though are a little more reasonable, they are tenth in the price league table.
• Italy comes a poor third on total installed wind capacity but like the Spanish, they cough up half as much again as the French.

What does this tell us?

Well, I think that the overriding fact is that French Nuclear power (80% of French Electricity generation is nuclear) provides by far, the cheapest electricity in Europe.

Interestingly, the French have the fourth largest number of wind turbines in Europe but like Italy (No 3) and the UK (No 5) this number is about one quarter of that in Germany and Spain.

Compared to Denmark, France (like Italy and the UK) has less than one tenth of the installed number of turbines per head of population.

It would militate that when installed wind power capacity gets above a certain percentage, the price to the consumer sky-rockets. It also shows that wind power is the inflationary driver behind electricity price hikes all across Europe. Generally the more turbines per head of population, the higher your electricity bills are. French prices are driven low by nuclear. If they dispensed with their windmills then their prices would probably be even less.

But the above table contains another really disgraceful truth.

Compare the prices for all of the above nations for a low level user (left column) and a high level user (right column).

You will find that in most countries, including Denmark, Germany, Spain, France and the UK, the high level user gets a discount. In Western Europe, only Italy and the Netherlands charge more for profligate useage.

Surely, if we are trying to cut down on energy useage, we should stop having the smaller users subsidising the higher users.

In other words, why do we have pensioners and the thrifty, subsiding the extravagance of the well-off or careless?

Is that not basic common sense that we should reward energy thift, no punish it?
---------
[Note: 27/03/2014]
 Sadly, sometime in the last few months the European Energy Portal appears to have removed the comparison tables on national electricity and gas prices. It now only publishes comparison tables on petrol/diesel/lpg. I would suspect that the freely available data has been censored as it seriously undermined EU policy. As this post is now 3 years old I hope to update it in the near future when I identify another straight-forward source of pricing information. (red rags bulls and all that)
Regards Billo
[End Note]

New Nuclear Sites Confirmed

The government has confirmed the sites for eight new nuclear reactors.

And about time too. See Fuels & Power article Here

All the political dithering and posturing over the last ten years (yes ten) has seriously compromised our ability to produce the base load electricity we will so desperately need now.

All over the country old and obsolete plant is being forced into ever longer service because there is nothing to replace it.

Inevitably old plant is less safe than new plant. For exactly the same reasons that a new Ford Mondeo is massively safer than a 1960's Ford Prefect.

But because of the political dithering and toadying to narrow minded environmental bigotry, we now can ill afford to close any of the old plant whether it is coal, gas, oil or nuclear.

Inefficient as it may be, the 50-60 year old plant has to soldier on.

Why can we not close it down anyway?

Because without it, the country's electricity supply simply could not cope.

If ten years ago we had embarked on a steady and measured programme of renewing our nuclear stock and replacing old coal plants with Generation IV nuclear plant, today we would perhaps (like the French) have the lowest electricity prices in Europe, and also the lowest electricity generation CO2 emissions.

Along with that we would have no dirty coal plant and our dependancy on foreign gas would be diminished. As we currently have "in stock" about 60 - 80 years worth of nuclear fuel just sitting on the shelf, we would also be self sufficient in energy.

But it is no use crying over spilt milk.

What we need to do now is to get those in high office to understand the need for much more new Generation IV nuclear plant. France has 58 nuclear reactors with another 3 in various stages of build.

The French have shown that Nuclear works and is highly cost effective. Their huge success lays bare the lies and propaganda about "subsidised nuclear".

If nuclear is so "subsidised" how come the French (80 % nuclear) have the cheapest electricity in Europe?

How come in windmill ridden  Denmark electricity bills are among the highest?

We don't just need eight new Generation IV reactors, we need to start with at least twice that number.

But that is just a start.

I suppose a confirmation about eight new reactors is better than yet more dithering.

But it is still a long way from what we really need.