From Roger Pielke Sr. – Guest Weblog By Syun Akasofu Of International Arctic Research Center At The University of Alaska Fairbanks
Dr. Syun Akasofu has provided us with a guest weblog based on a translation from Japanese of an article he wrote. I pleased to use my weblog to communicate viewpoints on climate science issues from credentialed climate scientists.
Recommendation to postpone the 2009 Copenhagen Conference:
The so-called “global warming” issue viewed in the context of politics and the economy of the world.
Syun Akasofu International Arctic Research Center
1. The US must have decided to drop the making of cars as their primary manufacturing activity and gave it to Japan. The Obama administration and the US public believe that enough has been done for the ailing car makers, and hope that they will be able to survive by making good electric (not fossil fuel powered) cars.
2. What does this mean? In the history of manufacturing, there has been a trend in which advanced countries lose their primary manufacturing capabilities one after another to developing countries. The textile industry in the UK was taken over by the US, then by Japan, then by China and others. The iron manufacturing industry in the UK was taken over by the US, then by Japan, and then China and other ‘catching-up’ countries. The car manufacturing industry in the UK was taken over by the US (mainly by GM), then Japan (Toyota and Honda), and some day perhaps China. This historical trend cannot be stopped. (The US tried to take over the world’s financing activities from the UK, which had lost interest in manufacturing altogether, but failed miserably in the recent days and caused the current economic recession.)
3. Then, the question is what kind of primary manufacturing industry is the US going to choose to work on in the future? It is likely that the Obama administration has chosen the construction of atomic power plants as the next great US manufacturing effort.
4. The reasons for choosing atomic power plants are obvious. First of all, the US has to secure future electric power because electricity is needed for everything, including future electric cars. The US wants to get away from its reliance on oil (and the unstable oil-producing countries), which will undoubtedly either diminish or become very expensive within the next 50 years. Reducing oil imports will reduce the great deficit. It should be noted that the primary purpose of changing from carbon power to atomic power is not necessarily to reduce the release of CO2 and global warming. It is an excuse. This will become clearer as we look into the related issues.
5. How is global warming related to atomic power? In order to understand this question, it is important to learn how the global warming issue was born. In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher, then the British Prime Minister, came to the conclusion that the UK needed atomic power energy for their future, but she faced strong objections by her people. It was also about the time when the first crude computer simulation of the greenhouse effect of CO2 was made, and it predicted a great disaster and catastrophe due to the expected temperature rise, unless the release of CO2 could be greatly reduced.
Margaret Thatcher must have taken this result into account in promoting atomic power, asking her people to choose either atomic power or global disaster/catastrophe, which would require a great sacrifice in their standard of living in order to avoid it. Without her strong endorsement, the IPCC would not have been established. She also established the Hadley Climate Research Center for further study of the effects of CO2. Until that time, climatology was a rather quiet science (not something dealt with in newspaper headlines), but Thatcher put a great spotlight on it for her political purposes. Therefore, although the CO2 hypothesis is appropriate as a hypothesis in science, the IPCC was related to atomic power from its birth and its destiny was to predict a great disaster/catastrophe. This, in spite of the criticism that the IPCC is predicting the end of the world, although we are not doing very well at even predicting the next day’s weather or the severity of the next winter. Science was used for political purposes. At the same time, the world news media was looking for something exciting to report on because the Cold War was ending. Global warming and reporting on imaginary disasters/catastrophes caused by CO2 has become one of their major headline topics.
6. How is the history of global warming and the IPCC related to the Obama administration’s interest in atomic power plants, making the construction of atomic power plants as the new primary manufacturing industry of the US? This is because if they proposed atomic power plants by singling the issue out, they will face fierce opposition of the people. Since the Three Mile Island plant accident, there has been no atomic plant built on US soil. Therefore, the Obama administration, like Thatcher, will ask the people to choose between atomic power plants (maintaining or improving their present standard of living) or a great disaster/catastrophe caused by CO2 (actually, reducing drastically the present living standard, including not being able to drive (electric) cars).
7. For these reasons, from the perspective of the Obama administration, the greater the disaster/catastrophe predicted due to CO2, the better it is for the purpose of promoting atomic energy. As a first step toward the goal of switching to atomic power, the Obama administration states that atomic energy is “green” (meaning no air pollution), that atomic energy is “non-carbon”, and even that CO2 is “unhealthy”. Note also that Obama uses the words “climate change”, not “global warming.”
The physics of CO2, absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation is clear. On the other hand, geophysicists must find how much heating CO2 will cause when a given amount of it is released into the complex earth system. Thus, in this situation it is meaningless and useless for the real science of global warming/climate to face off against the political decisions and propaganda for the planning of atomic power plants.
8. One problem in this particular discipline of science is that scientists who base their research on computer simulations have become too arrogant, saying that they can predict the temperature in 2100, although too much is still unknown about the earth system. Ignoring natural causes of climate change and even unknown aspects of cloud physics, they rely on computer work in predicting the temperature rise in 2100. However, a computer is like a robot. It can perform only what it is instructed to do by the programs produced by the human brain. If a computer program is incorrect or inaccurate, the output will also be incorrect or inaccurate. In science, incorrect programs or hypotheses (produced by one or a group of scientists) are criticized by other scientists and can thus be improved. That is the way science should progress. However, the IPCC regards those who criticize them as “skeptics”, or “deniers”, etc., and brought this newborn and immature science to the international stage. They stated in 2007 that scientists have done all they can and that the science is settled, and the rest of the task should be in the hands of policy makers. Such a statement is very irresponsible.
9. However, even if the US decides that its next primary manufacturing industry is the construction of atomic power plants, there will be fierce competition between the US group (US, Japan, Russia) and the French group, which has more experience than the US, at last in the safety of operation. (A further problem is that Toshiba owns much of the Westinghouse stock.) There will eventually be uranium wars in the future; energy securing wars will continue forever.
10. The Obama administration is promoting wind power and solar power. However, there is no way to supply more than 10% of the US power needs (Obama says that they should try for 20%, but has he estimated the cost involved?) It is only about 2.5% at present. In any case, 80-90% of future electric power has to be found.
11. The US has to rely on coal power plants (at present 40%), until a large number of atomic power plants can be built, perhaps about 15-20 years from now. Thus, there is no way for the US to agree on any international agreement on a near-future CO2 reduction at the present time. The US has been saying that unless China and India agree to a significant reduction of the release of CO2, any agreement is useless. On the other hand, the US has made China its factory, and furthermore the US owes a great debt to China. Unless China can remain healthy, politically and financially, and with sufficient energy, the US will have a serious problem. Therefore, the US cannot force China to reduce its CO2 emission. On the other hand, in spite of the fact that China is now “richer” than the US, it continues to claim that it is still one of the developing countries and that the developed countries should reduce their release of CO2 first. The US and China must surely understand each other, so that the above statements are only rhetorical. The IPCC chairman has stated recently that India will not agree to a “cap”. Further, global capitalism is such that the rest of the world relies on the US buying power (even if they are using credit cards), so that the US economy has to be healthy. EU officials have had a large number of conferences on the reduction of CO2, but they have not reached any conclusion they can agree on.
12. For the above reasons, is it useful to have any more conferences on global warming? How many international conferences with the heads of nations have been held in the past? There has been no substantive agreement on the amount of release of CO2 by individual countries, in spite of the fact that protecting the earth from the CO2-based disaster/catastrophe should be the most solemn duty of the heads of nations (although environmental destruction caused by global capitalism is conveniently forgotten). So far, all the past conferences ended with a “fight” between rich nations and poor nations. The latter trying to snatch money from the former using the so-called “cap and trade” as an excuse, and the former trying to protect themselves from such an assault, in spite of the fact that the “cap and trade” negotiations have no effect on reducing the overall release of CO2. It is suspected that the heads of nations do not really believe in the global disaster/catastrophe scenario caused by CO2. However, they stated they believe in the IPCC, so they cannot publicly say that they do not believe in the disaster scenario, because they and their countries would be called enemies of humanity, like George W. Bush.
13. It has been said that the only thing they agreed on at the past conferences is to decide on the time and place for the next meeting. Such conferences are useless, although they are better than a world war. It is suggested that they should postpone future meetings until the science of global warming will advance farther. It is not too late, as the proponents of global warming advocate, since there has been no predicted disaster/catastrophe after the release of CO2 increased rapidly in 1946. In the tropics and middle latitude, there has been no discernible disaster/catastrophe so far. This is why the world media flocks to the Arctic and reports on erroneous global warming effects. None of the phenomena and changes they reported are related even remotely to the CO2 effects. A good example is glacier calving at the terminus. Nevertheless, the world media reports that the changes are caused by the CO2 effect.
14. In Japan, they are overjoyed by the statements of President Obama, saying that he is quite serious about “global warming” (actually, he says “climate change” instead of global arming). They interpret his statements as a sign that the US has finally become serious about the release of CO2, and that Obama is different from George W. Bush.
15. It is very unfortunate that science is being used for political purposes. Global warming is an imaginary product used for promoting the atomic power industry. When the truth will eventually become apparent, the credibility of science will be seriously damaged, since so many scientists (not only climatologists, but also many scientists in general) blindly trusted the IPCC and accused their opponents as “skeptics” and “deniers”, etc.
16. Actually, judging by what has been described earlier, the IPCC is NOT a scientific research organization, although they skillfully mobilized 2500 “world experts in climatology”; they were used by the IPCC, some probably unwittingly. The IPCC skillfully created the impression of “consensus” among 2500 scientists. Their contribution, a large volume of publications, is conveniently used for the IPCC publication, “Summary for Policy Makers”, as an apparent back-up document, although the IPCC charter clearly states that they are not supposed to make recommendations to policy makers.
The IPCC has tried to emphasize that global warming began unexpectedly and abruptly after 1900 because of the enhanced release of CO2. However, global warming began as early as 1800-1850s at the same rate as the present (0.5°C/100 years), namely about 100 years earlier than the beginning of a rapid increase of CO2 release, as the earth began to recover from the Little Ice Age (1400-1800). The recovery from a cold period is warming. Actually, the warming until 2000 and the present cooling trend can reasonably be explained as natural changes. The IPCC has ignored natural changes as at least a partial cause of global warming, in order to promote their CO2 hypothesis.
17. The IPCC tried to ignore the fact that the earth experienced the Little Ice Age by using the co-called “hockey stick” figure, because it is not convenient to know that the global warming began in 1800-1850, and not as they claim in the 20th century. The recovery from the Little Ice Age (a cold period) is warming. How many of the 2500 scientists trust the hockey stick figure? Perhaps only very few. Is this then the “consensus” of 2,500 experts in climatology? Unfortunately, the IPCC and the world media have presented this hypothesis as a fact.
18. There is another reason for proposing the postponement of future global warming conferences. After 1998 or 2000, global temperature has stopped rising and shows a sign of cooling, in spite of the fact that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still rapidly rising. This is an observed fact. Therefore, their temperature prediction for the year 2100 has already failed during the first 10 years. However, IPCC scientists have not recognized it, saying that it is just a temporal change; but 10 years of consistent change is considered climate change.
19. The world political leaders should be able to decide to postpone future conferences until scientists could find the causes for the present halting of global warming. Temporary or not, there must be unknown forces and causes to suppress the CO2 effect or even overcome it.
20. We should bring back the science of climate change to a basic science, avoiding interferences by policy makers and the world mass media. Only then can this particular science proceed in a scientifically healthy way. Only then can we discuss any global warming hypothesis as proponents and opponents (instead of as “believers” and “skeptics” or “deniers” in the religious sense), regardless of one side being in the majority or minority. In science, unlike in politics, a minority can be right.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
..oh…and I’d just like to say when I talked about this very subject, AGW in the UK being part of an attempt to get nuclear back on the agenda, about a year ago on this site, I was scorned by numerous posters.
So its nice to see myself validated.
I shall now go and have a nice cup of tea to celebrate…
Nogw (06:16:01) :
“Things happen in nature spontaneously, not because of the wishes of man, no matter how feverish. Nothing can be done or changed by decree or by any government bill, so the market will decide, be it the market where climate “scientists” are sold and bought, which will dry up, or the fossil fuels market , where reserves keeps increasing”.
Nogw, I only agree with your remark about increasing reserves of fossil fuels.
To prevent the effects of the proposed Government Bills, the people have to fight.
If they don’t, the bills become law and fossil fuels will become very expensive.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/BP-announces-giant-oil-find-apf-2273328778.html?x=0&.v=1
meemoe_uk (00:32:08) :
Don’t agree with his reason. The main political motivation for AGW is to get poor countries to hand over their mineral rich land to the world bank in exchange for debt relief. The principle presented to the media ( in the poor countries ) is that people aren’t responsible enough to look after the land.
George Hunt had the pattern correct back in 1987 when he realised the newly formed world consevation bank was agreeing to take land as collateral in loan agreements to poor countries.
The 1st world public and it’s middle independant thinkers (us!), are as usual, keep subdued over a debate which doesn’t involve or interfere with the main plan.
That said, AGW is now used as an excuse in such a broad range of legislations that perhaps it’s no longer plasible to pinpoint and label a particular policy as it’s main goal.
Grab and control as much of every industry in the world. Money changers.
Since we began this story with Thatcher’s role, it’s important to remember that Europe’s Greens were supported by the Soviets and other Communist countries. AGW is not about capitalists seizing land in third-world countries, it’s about Neo-Marxists and Progressive-Fascists seizing control of the world’s economy.
They want you to remain poor, uneducated and “pure.” They want to keep the third world as it is and they want people to barely survive on subsistence farming, which is, after, all much closer to nature. They would be happier if the rest of us lowered our standards over living.
TonyB 05: 26:51.
Thanks for that link, Tony. I’ve only read a little so far – I’ll look at the rest later – but I get the idea. I’d still be a lot happier if it were a non-British bunch of numpties that had dreamed this whole AGW thing up, though; then I could laugh at the dopey foreigners! Oh well, at least we beat the Aussies at cricket this year.
Timetochooseagain:
Sorry, but you are mistaken when you assert:
“Actually, Thatcher acted not so much out of a desire to get nuclear power as to crush the coal miner’s union, which is understandable, as they had the entire country in a vice grip at the time.”
The policy was in agreement with destroying the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) by demolishing the UK’s coal industry, and desire for that destruction by her political party (the Conservative Party) was useful to her gaining support of her political party for the policy. But that desire was not the reason for the policy, and her government would have caused that destruction (by means of the ‘Ridley Plan’) with or without the policy.
Tony B:
You say:
“John Daly gave a more objective view of the process.
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Basically Mrs Thatcher wanted to make a name for herself, and as she was the only world leader to have a Bsc in chemistry was well placed to dazzle them with the very new science of climate change. It worked and she gained (rightly) world prominence.”
Your summary is accurate but, with respect, I point out that the article you cite is in my name because it is my article. The late and very lamented John Daly published the article on his web site.
The cited article on Daly’s web site (see URL) is an updated account I made in 1999 of a report I had provided ten years before. I was commissioned to conduct the study by the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) that was struggling with the ‘acid rain’ scare in 1988. BACM commissioned me to determine if there were other potential environmental scares that BACM needed to know about.
I interviewed several people to determine if there were any such scares and to determine the nature of them. On the basis of the information thus gleaned I produced influence diagrams for micro-dust, mercury emissions and anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW). The AGW influence diagrams are in the cited article at the URL.
On the basis of the influence diagrams I concluded that AGW would become so severe a scare that it would displace the ‘acid rain’ scare and all the other potential scares I had discovered.
Importantly, I concluded that AGW would supplant the ‘acid rain’ scare whether or not AGW had any supporting scientific evidence. This is because the positive feedback loops in Figure 2 of the article would remain if there were complete absence of any mention of any science (i.e. remove everything connected by the green arrows in Figure 2 and the system would still operate). Also, I concluded that AGW would grow to become an international concern because of the economic competitive advantages it would provide to all nations except the USA (i.e. the world’s most powerful economy): this is also mentioned in the article at the URL.
But in 1988 AGW was so trivial an issue that BACM had not heard of it until I provided my report. And BACM considered my report’s findings to be so “extremely unlikely” that they rejected them. Specifically, BACM considered my findings were “implausible” because BACM could not accept my conclusions that (AGW) would supplant the ‘acid rain’ scare and become an international concern whether or not AGW had any supporting scientific evidence.
Others can judge whether or not subsequent events have shown the study and its findings to have been “extremely unlikely” and “implausible”.
Richard
Sep 01, 2009
Addressing the real problem: climate of poverty
By Willie Soon and David Legates
http://www.icecap.us
I could not agree more.
pkatt (01:54:49) :
Nice! You find the best stuff Anthony:) I agree with most of it too, not so much on uranium wars tho. It would be nice if we could recycle some of the pre existing waste we already have tho.
The French still do that.We just hide it..
to those who would yell Chernobyl!Chernobyl was a poorly excecuted design, if it had a containment vessel to begin with,and some sort of competent operation, it probably wouldn’t have happened in the horrific way it did..
Here in my opinion , is the next big development:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Obama will have a “plan” for nuclear power, or anything else, when he reads it on his teleprompter. What we really need to know is: Who’s running this show?
I don’t see the nuclear program in Obama’s “vision” – as murky as it is – for providing for US electricity demands. All that is being played, or hyped, is solar and wind, neither of which can viably meet increasing demand, much less meet base load requirements. I think that ascribes improbable farsightedness in our very myopic political playground.
What I do see is play at addressing “green” demands, and they themselves are pretty hard to pin down. He has yet to define what “green” really means in terms of industry. Changes in behavior, by taxation and social engineering (already underway) are the main venues for reducing demand.
We’ll get CO2 regulations by hook or crook, as Dr Akasofu correctly points out that the “science” is politicized and reasonable process is absent.
Barry has closed Yucca Mountain and chosen not to supply a loan guarantee to USEC, our only domestic uranium enricher. I don’t see any movement towards nuclear. It looks like the Dims want to ply the road already traveled by Europe.
It is a conceit of politicians to imagine that they are ‘running the country’. The people, businesses, and local governments run most of it. The politicians sit atop it all and when they stick their hands in, generally muck it up.
Contrary to Dr. Akasofu, I have seen no sign that the Obamunists have any real interest in nuclear power. As Kaboom (03:44:27) points out, if they had really wanted to stimulate the economy and promote energy independence, they’d have taken the so-called ‘stimulus’ money and put it into nuclear power. For all his faults, I think John McCain would have moved in that direction.
/Mr Lynn
I, along with several other posters, am amazed by Akasofu’s assertion that Obama has made a decision to go for Nuclear. Didn’t his administration recently announce something about pulling funding for a waste storage site in Nevada? Is this all part of a “cunning plan?”
Richard (01:09:11) :
anna v (22:50:05) – I’m sorry fusion is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future. UK were the leaders in this and they have abandoned it.
Some of us have hopes for Polywell Fusion.
And the best part about Polywell? We Will Know In Two Years
I do agree with Plasma Physicist Dr. Nicholas Krall who said, “We spent $15 billion dollars studying tokamaks and what we learned about them is that they are no damn good.”
If Obama gets the “nuclear power plant” option past his anti free-market base, he will surely follow his statist ideology and have the Department of Energy build the power plants.
As we know from undergraduate economics classes, the GDP growth factor for a dollar spent by government is between .65 and .9. Therefore, this power plant building program will decrease economic activity.
Green jobs continue to harm the economy.
We need nuclear engineers, scientists, power plant engineers, and regulatory agencies to form a convention to design “cookie-cutter” nuclear power plants that have interchangbility of parts as their primary goal. This interchangeability of parts will create operating engineers that can operate any “cookie-cutter” power plant.
I find Dr. Akasofu, whom I respect, more convincing on science than on politics.
There are a couple of factual errors in his article:
1. He writes that no nuclear power plant has been brought online in the United States since Three Mile Island’s accident in 1979. But Diablo Canyon (1985) and San Onofre (1983) — both in California, incidentally — disprove this. I suspect that there are others.
2. He gives a figure of 41 percent for how much electricity the United States derives from coal. The actual number is 45 percent. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
I second those who say how unlikely it is that Obama is a secret nuclear advocate. One person, though, who did change his stripes on this issue is Patrick Moore, who frequently makes comments such as the following:
My message and my overview resonates with people in the utility industry who are charged with the practical task of providing electricity 24-7 in a very complex grid system to many different customers. If anything ever goes wrong, they get blamed.
Yet they are being — forced is probably too strong a word — through political pressure to adopt strategies that they, themselves, do not believe are the best way to go. And renewable mandates is one of those problems …
The idea that we can replace fossil fuels and hydro and nuclear with intermittent sources of solar and wind is a complete pipe dream. It is impossible, and yet it is being promoted as the solution.
From http://wenatcheeworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080605/NEWS04/641779115/1001
Moore is a particular advocate of modern pebble-bed nuclear reactors.
Obama has no plans to increase nuclear power. He has stopped work on the nuclear waste site. Work on new nuclear power plants cannot proceed.
Wondering Aloud:
Magna is a car parts supplier. Originally Canadian based, started by Frank Stronach, an Austrian immigrant. Plants all over the world now.
http://www.magna.com/magna/en/about/
They say they have complete car mfg capabilities, but I don’t believe they own a final assembly plant. Not sure.
Look for the current US gov to push green tech and then gas. When these prove less than sufficient, and they will, than a new administration will look to nukes. Also, don’t forget the concept of “one democratic world government” whose proponents have been stealthily pushing this world catastrophe wagon.
Tiles (03:14:00) : “Are we any closer to achieving sustainable fusion power or is this goal still but a distant pipe-dream?”
Yes, we are much closer! The JET, in operation since 1983, was the first international step, and steady progress has been made since. The Japanese JT-60 achieved the highest value of fusion triple product of any device to date. US fusion installations have reached temperatures of several hundred million degrees. Achievements like this have led researchers close to the long sought after “plasma energy breakeven point.” So far, JET has generated 70% of input power.
The exciting thing is that researchers have now actually designed a new reactor – ITER – which will generate more output than input; 500MW generated for 50MW consumed. ITER is due to commence construction this year. However, don’t get too excited. It is not expected to reach conclusion until the 20’s.
He does not denies CO2 effect and the CO2 problem seems to be originated in an error, which contradicts common sense, that of the imaginary “green house effect” vs. the very low heat capacity of atmosphere.
“Absorption Peaks
Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint” frequencies of CO2.….
if normal temperature matter were really giving off a significant amount of infrared radiation, as the Stephan-Boltzmann constant indicates, a thermometer in the shade would not show a reliable temperature, because radiation would be altering its temperature.
Of course, the air is emitting black body radiation apart from sunshine. But how much? Emissions from a gas are nothing resembling emissions from the surface of a solid, because a gas does not have a surface. The extreme difference between a gas and a solid means radiation would not equilibrate at the same temperature as air temperature. But everything equilibrates extremely close to air temperature, which indicates that there is, in truth, very little radiation given off by normal temperature matter”
http://nov55.com/ntyg.html
Where are these nuclear power plans? I’d love to see that, but I’m fairly certain Obama has no nuclear plans at all.
Nice article, but the whole premise is simply not supported by anything you can point to. Bush weakly supported nuclear power and may have slowly helped grease the wheels of regulations, but that’s about all the plans I’ve seen for 30 years. We’ll be lucky to see one plant come online in 10 years.
It is likely that the Obama administration has chosen the construction of atomic power plants as the next great US manufacturing effort.
Naw, agreeing with some others above, that would make too much sense, and it would contradict both the progressive Left’s “looter” mentality and its drive to regress us back either to their version of the Garden of Eden or to “our” = their own deserved nonexistence.
Anthony,
Maybe it’s time to do some articles on nuclear power and or fusion, as I see a number of comments on this thread whith folks basically asking about it. I am the son of a nuclear engineer, so I’ve kinda kept up on some of the technology. Here’s some starting points:
About Three mile Island and Chernobyl (Neither was as bad as people make it out to be):
-www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf
-www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/cherno15_main.shtml
-www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c01.html
-www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
-www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf36.html
Fission Powerplants:
GenIII:
-www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html
-nuclear.energy.gov/np2010/neNP2010a.html
-www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert.html
-www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/docs/2006-1-3.pdf
GenIV:
-nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/documents/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf
-www.engr.utk.edu/nuclear/colloquia/slides/Gen%20IV%20U-Tenn%20Presentation.pdf
-www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.html
Fusion power (Closer than you might think)
Polywell:
-www.emc2fusion.org/
-iec.neep.wisc.edu/
-www.talk-polywell.org/bb/
-www.fusor.net/board/view.php?site=fusor&bn=fusor_theory&key=1174701490
Focus Fusion:
-lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?pr=Focus_Fusion
-focusfusion.org/
Enjoy
Doc
JamesG (05:40:47) : ” Lets see; he took over massive debts, deficits, a housing crisis, a depression, car manufacturers losing billions, bankers losing trillions, a bust paradigm of phoney Wall street wealth and two hugely expensive wars. ”
All of this written with the hand of the DEMOCRATS who have been in the majority of Congress for the last 2 1/2 years.
“Does anyone else want the job?”
This isn’t the job he wants, it’s President of the World for Life!
Syun Akasofu Of International Arctic Research Center At The University of Alaska Fairbanks should have confined his comments to the science for which he would seem to have been credentialed.
His purile take on the status of global hegemony and the motives of the powers percieved obviates any credibility he might have imbued with the minimal reference to the science he actaully did eventually get to.
A waste of time spent at WUWT, today~