Tuesday, 5 November 2013

An Energy-Rich Future for Every Individual, Even When the Population is 9½ Billion!

Tom Blees is presenting the IFR case to this Climate CoLab Conference: 
Crowds and Climate - MIT Climate CoLab Conference

Here's his Video Presentation: Integral Fast Reactors - Electric Power Sector

Tom is President of The Science Council for Global Initiatives (SGCI)
Science Council for Global Initiatives 

and Author of Prescription for the Planet
429 Page - Free Download


62 years ago, it all began - The first Atomic Electricity generated at the Argonne National Laboratory.

What would now be the state of atmospheric and oceanic chemistries had this technology taken its rightful place in providing the world's electricity and other energy forms?

Weak-kneed politicians and ranting members of the anti-nuke lobby have a lot of explaining to do to today's young people, when current IFR technology, in the form of the PRISM reactor, starts to roll!

EBR-II demonstrated the inherent safety of this Argonne concept, with a control room full of atomic energy scientists and technologists. 

They put their money where their mouths were - they bet on their scientific understanding - and the reactor shut down according to the laws of physics - without human intervention - under conditions of the total loss of power and safety systems (as Fukushima)!

EBR-II and hence IFR technology is orders of magnitude safer than the technology of the LWRs (Light Water Reactors) planned for the UK's 'New Nuclear'.

"...The IFR project developed the technology for a complete system; the reactor, the entire fuel cycle, and the waste management technologies were all included in the development program. The reactor concept had important features and characteristics that were completely new and fuel cycle and waste management technologies that were entirely new developments..."

Monday, 7 October 2013

Bob Geldof to head up 'Atomic-Aid' Event!

Bob Geldof was so incensed by being called a 'Silly Old Git', by a 75 year old nuclear (breeder reactor) campaigner, that he has vowed do a crash course in nuclear engineering and put his heart and soul into the promotion of breeder reactors.

He accepts unequivocally, that breeder reactor technology is capable of solving all of the worst problems facing humanity. His prognosis of wipe-out of the human race by 2030, is now confined to the dustbin of history. He accepts that his powers of communication, in the promotion of breeder reactor technology, will do a thousand times more good for the poverty 
stricken and under privileged than he did with all of his Live-Aid endeavours. 

He's already been on the phone to Jagger and Bowie and they've said it won't be 'Dancin' in the Street' this time - it will be - [Atomic] Power to All Our Friends.

And then - prismsuk woke up!

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

"...rain or shine, 24 hours a day, a steady stream of power..."

Pandora's Promise - Should be over here for UK consumption soon.

Radiophobia and Health Effects
Straight from the 'Radiophobia' webpage of Wikipedia:
The term "radiophobia" is also sometimes used in the arguments against proponents of the conservative LNT concept (Linear no-threshold response model for ionizing radiation) of radiation security proposed by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in 1949. The "no-threshold" position effectively assumes, from data extrapolated from the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that even negligible doses of radiation increase ones risk of cancer linearly as the exposure increases from a value of 0 up to high dose rates. 

This is a controversial model as the LNT model therefore 
suggests that radiation exposure from naturally 
occurring background radiation, the radiation exposure 
from flying at high altitudes in airplanes, the act of 
laying next to loved ones for extended periods - due to 
radioactive Potassium-40 naturally found in bones, and 
radioactive all increase ones chance of cancer.

Moreover, the lack of strong evidence supporting the LNT model, a model created from extrapolation from atomic bomb exposure, and not hard experimental evidence at low doses, has made the model controversial. As no irrefutable link between radiation induced negative health effects from low doses, in both human and other mammal exposure experiments, has been found.
On the contrary, many very low dose radiation exposure experiments find positive (hormetic) health effects at low doses of radiation, therefore the conservative LNT model when applied to low dose exposure remains controversial within the scientific community.[18]
After the Fukushima disaster, German state newspaper outlet Der Spiegel reported that Japanese residents are suffering from radiophobia.[19

Sunday, 23 June 2013

Remember when we used to have a car 10 years ago? Ah, those were the days.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) - Well they should know, shouldn't they?

From Page Number 17 - V Conclusion

"...our prediction of small further increases in world oil production comes at the expense of a near doubling, permanently, of real oil prices over the coming decade. This is uncharted territory for the world economy, which has never experienced such prices for more than a few months. Our current model of the effect of such prices on GDP is based on historical data, and indicates perceptible but small and transitory output effects. But we suspect that there must be a pain barrier, a level of oil prices above which the effects on GDP becomes nonlinear, convex. [in other words - GDP crashes]. We also suspect that the assumption that technology is independent of the availability of fossil fuels may be inappropriate, so that a lack of availability of oil may have aspects of a negative technology shock. In that case the macroeconomic effects of binding resource constraints [availability of resources - resilience of the environment] could be much larger, more persistent, and they would extend well beyond the oil sector. Studying these issues further will be a priority of our future research."

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA): "...some things have gone wrong..."

How are thing's going at the NDA? Today's News & Star  reports what the boss, John Clarke, has to tell us: Will the Americans continue to run Sellafield?

It's naughty taking things out of context, but the tenor of the piece can be gleaned from a few extracts:

"...its boss said that all options – including cancelling the remainder of the contract with Nuclear Management Partners – remained open..." 

"...real disappointments” with the way Sellafield has been run by the consortium..."

"...he expected “to be further along than we are” but insisted the past four and a half years were not a total waste of taxpayers’ money..."

"...the NDA was criticised by MPs for continuing to shower millions in fees on the American-led consortium that manages Sellafield Limited..."

""...“We have been disappointed by some lack of progress and some things that have gone wrong.”...""

"...Its biggest challenge is dealing with the UK’s legacy of nuclear waste, which experts say will cost an estimated £67.5 billion to deal with..."

"...The consortium – .... – last year earned £54m in performance-related fees, but some of their profits will go to settle a £700,000 fine..."

"...Sellafield Ltd admitted breaching health and safety law.... Sellafield Ltd must also pay £72,635 in costs..." 

Under "Have your say" I did offer the following comment, but I think the News& Star will probably not print it They did print it:

Just do one thing right, Mr Clarke - make the no-brainer decision to accept GE Hitachi's ZERO-COST offer to use one of their PRISM reactors to burn our plutonium stockpile.

It's costing us poor tax-payers £80 million a year to store and protect this stuff. GE Hitachi offer payments by results - if they don't succeed in burning the plutonium, we don't pay anything! Stop messing about and get the decision made!

There's a gold star in it for you, from Mr Davey. Once into the process, this reactor renders the plutonium useless as a bomb making material and continues to generate enough electricity, from the fuel created, for 750,000 people for 50 or 60 years - emission-free!

On it's own it's a decent contribution to Mr Davey's carbon targets. A fleet of them, configured as breeder reactors could burn our legacy waste as fuel - as your legacy waste problems reduce, we get clean, cheap electricity.

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

"...This [PRISM] can be part of how your nation becomes a nuclear leader again..."

This is the by far the most comprehensive report on PRISM technology and PRISM's UK prospects: Prism project: A proposal for the UK's problem plutonium

After decades of debate, a new reactor could help solve the UK’s plutonium problem

Of all the issues facing the UK’s nuclear sector, the problem of plutonium is perhaps the trickiest. But a solution that could feed into a perceived need for the country to resume a position of developing and building new reactor technologies in the future is currently before the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Thursday, 23 May 2013

Any Day Now!

On Monday 13 May 2013, GE Spokesman Christopher White said UK authorities will decide in the next couple of weeks which of three proposals they consider to be credible.  GE is competing against two other companies with different plant designs. 

It's mentioned in an article covering a radio interview with Tom Blees, under the title: UK considers GE's PRISM nuclear reactor design

It's under 4 minutes long and well worth a listen. For anyone who hasn't got a lot of time to think about what the  prospects for the UK's energy security are, it may just give you cause for a bit more optimism: WHQR News Business Brief Interviews Tom Blees.

Saturday, 4 May 2013

Pandora's Promise - Official Trailer [HD] - In Theaters This June

Richard Rhodes: Pulitzer Prize Winner and author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb has, for too long, "...avoided looking at the whole picture..."

Stewart Brand: His book Whole Earth Discipline begins with "We are as gods and HAVE to get good at it".

Mark Shellenberger: "modernist" or "eco-pragmatist". Named a Time Magazine 'Heroes of the Environment (2008)'. 

Mark Lynas: Contributor to Channel 4's What the Green Movement Got Wrong" . He suggested that opposition by environmentalists, such as himself, to the development of nuclear energy had speeded up climate change.

"...can you be an environmentalist and not be pro-nuclear?.."

Friday, 26 April 2013

UKIP gets my vote, for Energy Policy alone! What does Nigel Farage think?

I don't know - he hasn't replied yet! 

This is what I emailed him nearly a week ago - Nigel, where are you?

No single issue is more important to the well being and life style of my grandchildren than energy security.

Your energy policy is good enough for you to get my vote, in respect of your emphasis on nuclear power and your mention of thorium as a fuel. 

However, you are probably not aware that we have an imminent, unique opportunity to start along the road towards 500 years of energy security from the UK's most precious energy resource.

Any day now, the NDA could choose, or not, to use a GE Hitachi PRISM reactor to burn our plutonium stockpile. It will eradicate this proliferation problem, now costing us £80 million a year, by rendering the plutonium useless as a bomb making material in 5 years. And, it's payment by results - no satisfactory outcome - no cost to the UK taxpayer. Is this a no-brainer decision: Yes! Is supporting this a vote-winner: Yes! Is this something you would be prepared to pursue?

A further little taster about this first PRISM reactor - from the fuel produced by the plutonium burn-up, it will continue generating enough electricity to supply the needs of 750,000 people for a further 50 or 60 years.

PRISM is a Gen IV Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) and compared to the proposed 'New Nuclear' Gen III Light Water Reactors (LWRs), it is as advanced as an MP3 player over an old spool-to-spool tape recorder.

SFRs can be configured as a breeder reactor and this is where the 500 years of energy security comes into play. A fleet of breeder reactors can burn what the ill-informed and duplicitous call 'nuclear waste'. The UK has enough of this in existence to supply all of our energy needs for 500 years. The minuscule waste-stream produced, decays to background radiation levels in only 300 years - cheaply and safely stored.

PRISM reactors are inherently safe - they shut down according to the laws of physics, without human intervention, in the worst of accident conditions, such as the absence of  all electrical power and loss of safety devices.

They also operate at atmospheric pressure, so the UK has the nuclear expertise and manufacturing capacity to factory produce them in their entirety. It could mean manufacturing jobs, prosperity and growth we have not witnessed in 3 generations.

I am a retired manufacturing engineer and host the blog: PRISMs to Power the UK. You're not up against strong competition on the energy front: http://prismsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/parliamentarian-buffoon-or-jester-who.html

I hope you take the time to absorb this basic information and would be very interested in your opinion on the points I have raised. I sincerely believe it would do you and your party nothing but good to promote breeder reactors as a solution to the UK's energy security problems.

Monday, 22 April 2013

Electricity Generated from Fossil Fuels Kills Millions - Who Cares?

Macabre Indifference: Gruesome and horrifying lack of concern. 

Accurate, justified description of the vast majority of energy users. We really don't give a you-know-what where the energy comes from, as long as it's there 24/7, on demand.

So - will a peer-reviewed paper, claiming nuclear power has saved  1,840,000 deaths elicit more than a mass shrug of the shoulders and a concealed "So What"? I doubt it!

"...Their numbers come from calculating how many people would have likely died due to air pollution over the years, but didn't, because electricity was created by non-air polluting nuclear power plants instead..."

"...Kharecha and Hansen argue that burning coal over the years that nuclear power has been used as a viable energy source, (since 1971) instead of building nuclear plants would have led to deaths from lung related ailments from both the mining of coal, and burning it to create electricity. They have then used the number of deaths in the past from such ailments to project numbers in the future. They say that if the world would convert to all nuclear power by the middle of this century, 420,000 to 7 million deaths could be prevented. The numbers vary so much because they would depend on which energy source  would replace. Their overall point is that nuclear energy is much safer than coal—when looking at raw death numbers—and therefore should be seen as a replacement source for electricity generation, rather than as menace that should be abolished..."

Thursday, 18 April 2013

Get ready to start giving up something if you want your oil energy - it may be your job!

We don't have it bad at all. If you had to pick anywhere in the world to earn your corn and live and save from the proceeds, most people would probably pick one of the EU-27 countries, the USA or Japan.

Good standards of living, decent travel, communications and utilities infrastructures. Good health facilities, finance and service industries readily available.  Everything you could need for a sweet way of life, for you and your family. And, all being well, it's just going to carry on nicely for your children, their children and their children's children and their - - - - cue Eric Idle:

But the EU-27, The USA and Japan have peaked - in oil energy terms - in 2004.But what does that mean?

It means we're not willing to pay as much for oil as the rest of the world and so our demand has declined as the rest of the world's demand moves relentlessly upwards.


If we want more energy from oil - and we all know that mainly means our cars and transport - we're going to have to pay more for it - AND FORGO SOMETHING ELSE!

Our Standard of Living is heading DOWN - Their's is Heading UP

"...We in...the Euro-zone, [the United States] and Japan are already past peak oil demand. Oil demand has to do with how much oil we can afford. Many of the developed nations are not able to outbid the developing nations when it comes to the world’s limited oil supply. A chart of oil consumption shows that oil consumption peaked for the combination of the United States, EU-27, and Japan in 2005..." 

"...Peak demand is very much related to jobs. Peak oil demand occurs when a country is not competitive in the world market-place, and because of this, loses industry and jobs. One reason this happens is because the country’s energy cost structure is not competitive in the world market-place. With the run-up in oil prices starting about 2003, oil is by far the most expensive of the traditional energy sources we have available today. Countries that use a large percentage of oil in their energy mix can be expected to have a hard time competing, because of oil’s higher cost..."

Friday, 12 April 2013

What a Forlorn Loser of a Billionaire!

What chance have I got, when there are clueless, defeatist billionaires 'trying to buy time for the world to wake up' and uttering stuff like:
 "... but if we mean to burn all the coal and any appreciable percentage of the tar sands, or even third-derivative, energy-intensive oil and gas, with 'fracking' for shale gas on the boundary, then we're cooked, we're done for" 
and: ""the absolute minimum hope of survival is a gracefully declining population""

This is a comment I made which theguardian is unlikely to print:

Talk about 'can't see the wood for the trees'. What an idiot! All of that personal wealth and control over £10s of billions and he's pratting about with AGW and 'saving the environment'. Why?

It's clean, safe and secure energy Mr Grantham. Nothing else will matter to a nation, when there are 10 billion of us, in just a few decades. The ¾ of the population, who currently use ¼ of the energy produced, will be fighting tooth and nail to reach our standard of living. We will be battling to hang on to our way of life.

I hope, for his grandchildren’s sake, this is metaphoric fighting talk because by 2050 we will need 3 or 4 times more energy than we use now, in the face of declining and evermore expensive fossil fuels and other resources.

One and only one technology has any chance of providing an energy-rich future to every individual on the planet, for all of time; it is that of the breeder reactor.

The UK is uniquely placed at the moment, because we have an imminent decision, likely to go the way of such a reactor, for burning our plutonium stockpile. We could lead the world into the inevitable era of the breeder reactor.

Get thinking clearly, Mr Grantham. Strive for peace and stability in a world where it is technically feasible for everyone to benefit from an energy source, free of greenhouse gas emissions and affordable by all.

People like you can make a difference to the speed of introduction of breeder reactor technology and it needs to be happening now.

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

What's £80 million a year? Not much else to spend our hard-earned taxes on, is there?

"...The UK is currently home to 112 tonnes of what is the most toxic substance ever created and most of it is held in a modern grey building to one side of the site.

Such is the sensitivity surrounding the building and its contents that only a handful of staff, with the necessary security clearance, are allowed inside.

Estimates suggest that the taxpayer currently spends £80m a year to store it safely and stop it falling into the wrong hands..."

Well, the IMechE are pointing - yet again - to a no-brainer solution!

From the Conclusion:
"...but the sodium-cooled fast reactor route is sufficiently attractive to merit significant immediate UK support..."

They Mean - The GE Hitachi offer, to burn the UK's Plutonium Stockpile with the PRISM Reactor!

You've heard all of this before, Mr Davey! When is the (£80m a year) penny going to drop?

Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Parliamentarian: A buffoon or jester who entertains by jokes, antics, and tricks in a circus, play, the Houses of Parliament, or other presentation.

Could any highly paid, professional body of people come up with such a pathetically comical statement as this, and not be compared with clowns:

"...it is worrying that DECC does not have any contingency plans in place for the event that little or no new nuclear is forthcoming. Crossing one’s fingers is not an adequate or responsible approach when the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and energy security are at stake. For a department whose principal priorities are to ensure energy security and carbon reductions, DECC appears to be overly reliant on aspiration and hope. While we share the Minister’s hope that new build will be delivered as planned, we nevertheless recommend that DECC begins exploring contingency options as a matter of urgency..." 

The above statement comes from Para 5 of 'Recommendations' of this Report, 
from the Energy and Climate Change Committee: 


Climate Change Commitments - A Joke! What difference would it make to the outcome, if the UK did not generate another single kilogram of carbon dioxide? - Not one Jot! But what a good way to collect votes, if you give every interested party a bit of what they want. It may mean another 4 or 5 years in a job.

I Repeat

Saturday, 23 February 2013

"...don't say No Nuclear Power, say Better Nuclear Power..."

The interview with Robert Stone starts at 27:10.

28:40 Robert Stone: "...the core reason why people are against nuclear energy is because they conflate it with nuclear weapons..."

29:54 Ondi Timoner: "...nuclear....this big scary thing....it may actually be the only thing that saves us from climate change..."

31:01 Robert Stone: "...I have no problem with wind power. I have no problem with solar power....you just can't power the world as it is now, with those; they just can't scale..."

31:14 Robert Stone: "...by 2050 we're going to need 3 times the energy that we have now - 3 times..."

31:58 Robert Stone: "....an enlightenment environmentalism....we're here, there's gonna be 10 billion of us....we're not gonna be retreating....the reality is we're gonna keep encroaching....how do we make that encroachment as environmentally benign as possible..."


38:59 Ondi Timoner: "...there are not that many great films that could spark a movement. this is one of those films..."

Thursday, 7 February 2013

Do you have a Morbid Fear of Invisible Radiation - Part II

Surely, even the rabid anti-nuke lobby would not attempt to claim that a United Nations Committee is in the pocket of the 'Energy Giants', would they? That's one fantasy too far.

I should now be able to respond to their claims, usually built on the 'science' of one individual - from studies bereft of control groups - that you can trust this UN report and henceforth, have no fear of low-level radiation!

In all future discourse, I feel sure they will now then drop the usual hyperbolic death figures from low-level radiation and point readers at this report.

Maybe Not - Business as usual I would guess!

Tuesday, 5 February 2013

4% Wind Energy Penetration - That's the Limit for the People in the Know!

From the first couple of paragraphs of the Executive Summary:

Executive Summary
Environmentalists advocate wind power as one of the main alternatives to fossil fuels, claiming that  it is both cost effective and low in carbon emissions. This study seeks to evaluate these claims. Existing estimates of the life-cycle emissions from wind turbines range from 5 to 100 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. This very wide range is explained by differences in what was included in each analysis, and the proportion of electricity generated by wind. The low CO2 emissions estimates are only possible at low levels of installed wind capacity, and even then they typically ignore the large proportion of associated emissions that come from the need for backup power sources (“spinning reserves”).

Wind blows at speeds that vary considerably, leading to wide variations in power output at different times and in different locations. To address this variability, power supply companies must install backup capacity, which kicks in when demand exceeds supply from the wind turbines; failure to do so will adversely affect grid reliability. The need for this backup capacity significantly increases the cost of producing power from wind. Since backup power in most cases comes from fossil fuel generators, this effectively limits the carbon-reducing potential of new wind capacity.

The Limits of Wind Power

Sunday, 3 February 2013

Wind Electricity is 1½ Times More Expensive than Nuclear!

Don't you just love it, when something you instinctively know turns out to be true?

Hot off the Press!

This is the real cost of wind energy, with some of the intermittency and grid connectivity costs added in. This is not the percentages and totals figures the wind lobby throws at us and our gullible MPs - it's what has to come out of our hard-earned taxes, somewhere along the line: Wind Lovers - get off the Band Wagon while you can!

Wednesday, 30 January 2013

38DEGREES - How to get PRISM under the Public's Skin?

50,000 votes is what we need - Only 49,983 to go!

You 49, 682 people out there, worrying about nuclear waste - all you have to do, from this day forward, is regard it as the most valuable energy asset this country has got at its disposal.

Turn your concern into action.
Vote for a fleet of PRISM reactors.
Give the UK 500 years of energy security.
Cut our carbon emissions to practically 0%.

Give your children and grandchildren an energy-rich future in a world which is free of dependence on fossil fuels, peaceful and stable - even when there are 10 billion of us.

Wednesday, 2 January 2013

PRISM: lighting a new era for reactor safety, energy security and used nuclear fuel management.

A Presentation by David Powell, Vice President Europe Region for GE Hitachi, at the ENC 2012 Conference 
9 - 12 December 2012 

Slide 2 of 24.
This link takes you through GE Hitachi's efforts to make the case for the use of PRISM Reactors to 'burn' our plutonium, depleted uranium and spent nuclear fuel stockpiles. We have enough of this Energy Resource  to power the UK for 500 years:  The Nuclear 'Waste' Dilemma.

Tuesday, 1 January 2013

Spinning for Yesterday's Nuclear!

11 months apart, two of the UK's top technologists are worlds apart

Lord Hutton, 30 December 2012.
"Nuclear power has always been a controversial issue. But whatever view you take about the future role of nuclear energy, successive governments have rightly tried to establish a permanent solution for the radioactive waste generated by our military and existing civil nuclear programmes.

These plans are now at a critical stage of development.

My belief is that we must not continue to pass the buck. We have a choice.
We can either continue to store this old waste above ground indefinitely and leave the final solution for future generations to resolve, or we can tackle this once and for all with a permanent geological disposal facility.

The latter course is the only responsible way to proceed".

Voice of Business: Time to solve this toughest nuclear problem


Professor David MacKay, 02 February 2012

According to figures calculated for the Guardian by the American writer and fast reactor advocate Tom Blees, this alternative approach could – given a large enough number of [PRISM] reactors – produce enough low-carbon electricity from Britain's waste stockpile to supply the UK at current rates of demand for more than 500 years.
MacKay confirmed this figure. "As an upper bound on what you could get from those resources in fast reactors I think it's a very reasonable estimate. In reality you'd get all kinds of issues so you wouldn't achieve the upper bound but I still think it's a reasonable starting point."
New generation of nuclear reactors could consume radioactive waste as fuel