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.
Flanagan wrote:
?The argument that “temperatures stopped increasing while CO2 was rising” is somewhat surprising coming from an educated guy. Especially since one simply has to take a look at the 1980-2000 period to see that such “slowing downs” appeared several times.”
But Aksofu’s full quote, in point 18, was: “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.” The prior slow downs were short-term noise.
Thanks Mike from Canmore
My point was though that Magna is not what has replaced US auto manufacturing. Rather it has been Toyota, Honda etc. I was supporting the point made by others earlier. Manufacturing jobs continue to move to where it is done more efficiently.
Speaking of Fiat though how does the market share of any or indeed all European manufacturers today compare to 35 years ago? dismal?
“Can we expect to see a CGM modeller right along an astrologer in a prime time end-of-year TV show predicting what will the weather be like next decade and who will get a divorce next year?”
And it’ll be seer reviewed!
Jeff: right, they predicted increase of global temperatures, and that’s what happened. Is it by chance? 20 years of chance?
Roger: the temperatures in the 20th century tell us that pauses were frequent in the warming. If internet had been present at those times, I can only imagine the “global warming has stopped” titles all over the blogosphere. Now, of course, we know that Ts actually increased on the long term. Which makes wiggle-analysis quite silly.
ITER has had problems, it’s behind schedule. I didn’t save a link, IIRC ITER scientists have said not to expect a viable fusion power plant to come out of the ITER research line for 100 years.
With Polywell, we’ll know within 18 months, Focus Fusion is just getting seriously started in the experimental stage, they are at least a couple of years behind Polywell. But both are comparatively cheap, the two them could be funded by rounding errors in ITER’s budget.
Nuclear “waste” (I assume you’re referring to spent nuclear fuel SNF) has always been a political problem, not a technical one. France has has been doing for decades. When Gen IV reactors are developed, SNF will be a valuable resource, it can be used to start up a Gen IV reactor, while merely fertile fuel can keep it going (thorium, un-enriched uranium, depleted uranium). So our existing stock of already mined, depleted uranium will be sufficient for a long time.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=smarter-use-of-nuclear-waste
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/sandia-designing-factory-mass.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/nuclear-fuel-transitions-higher-burnup.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/previous-dense-plasma-focus-research.html
Excellent. One of the most lucid observations of the ‘climate change phenomenon’ I have read.
Of course, being a sceptic, I do not automatically accept every word, but a clear demonstration that the science is NOT settled.
Dr. Akasofu has based his hypotheses on quick sand. Two of the American owned car produces have gone belly up, for several reasons. Among them is a union, to which the government exempted from anti-trust laws back in the 1930s. They set the work rules and pay scales. Average wages of over $80 per hour imposed by United Auto Workers Union has not been helpful. Further, the American auto industry set a car maker requirement for each company to meet an average mile per gallon requirement. If memory servers, it was around 27 miles per gallon. It was imposed to prevent more imported oil. The problem is two fold, one is geography and the other is cost. They cannot make a small car profitably. Yet, the must build them and sell them at a loss to be able to meet Federal Government requirements. They are able to make profits by selling SUVs and pickup trucks, which sell for much higher prices.
Secondly, current laws mandate all sorts of safety features, such as air bags. I recall a new BMW was given to a teenager by his parents, and proceeded in volve it in a light accident. Which, however, caused all of the air bags to deploy, with little or no damage to the rest of the car. The car was totaled. It would cost more to repair the air bags then the car was worth. The buyers have no choice.
Thirdly, a family with three small children cannot transport the family in a normal sedan, because they must be placed in a portable car seat and strapped down, in the back seat, which will only hold two such car seats.
They must drive SUVs, by law.
The Japanese and German companies are competing very well, in factories built in the South, where unions are not generally looked upon with favor. However, they are well represented in other industries and governments.
The Obama administration just increased the miles per gallon requirment to over 30 miles per gallon for each car company, to go into effect sometime later. GM and Chrysler will not be in business for long, unless they move elsewhere, say China.
The company which provides San Antonio with electric power is trying to build a new neclear plant, and hordes of unwashed lawyers are preparing to sue in various courts to stop them. It does not make any difference what Obama thinks. Other plants are on the drawing board, but will be lawyered to death.
@Peter Taylor (09:39:41) :
To state that all Greens groups were funded, founded or entirely supported by the Soviet Union or other hostile nations would be patently false and to asserted that was implied is equally false. During the Cold War, the Soviets provided backdoor support and funding to many radical dissident groups. The West German Greens are a prime example of this.
I’m sure Green Peace was founded by people with only good intentions in mind. Regardless, Green Peace is not today what it once was and has become more and more left-wing, anti-industrial, anti-Capitalist with each passing year. That it is still considered a mainstream environmental group shows just how far left the entire movement has shifted.
There is enough coal in this world to last centuries. Despite breathless reports to the contrary, world oil supplies will last for decades. New discoveries are made every year. As the price of oil rises, it becomes economically feasible to drill in more locations. New technologies will also be developed and allow us to drill in places we can only dream of now.
The big problem isn’t the world’s supply of oil. The problem is the radical groups blocking development of new supplies and new refineries. They have a mistaken belief that multinational corporations are blocking the development of alternate energy and if they can stop Big Oil, then new energy sources will magically appear to replace hydrocarbon fuels.
Peter Taylor (09:39:41)
“Whilst I will be the first to agree that the ‘greens’ have lost sight of reality where global warming is concerned, and that they promote completely unrealistic supposedly renewable energy solutions – many of which will damage both community and biodiversity across the planet far more certainly than will climate change. . .”
I agree with you there Peter. I cannot think of anything less “Green” than burning rain forest to produce palm oils to be burnt in road vehicles (to mention just one of the current crop of idiocies).
“. . . the situation will not be improved by their critics putting themselves in equal denial of reality – nuclear options cannot solve the problem created by dwindling oil supplies and the end of the era of cheap fuel. Fast breeder reactors and fusion are illusions maintained for ‘jobs for the boys’ – they are vastly more expensive and cannot be rolled out on any scale and timing relevant to this crisis and are just as much an illusion as wind/solar/biofuels. Hydrogen cars will be ten times the cost of today’s cars, even allowing fro economies of scale and reduced production costs. The era of the private car is nearing its end – entirely on cost grounds.”
Now however, I am afraid you’ve gone all Malthusian on us. Suddeny Fast breeder and fusion are illusions. Maybe so, but we still have the current technology of reactors to fall back on, and I’ve heard good things said of Thorium fission. Last time I checked, the cost of conventional fission is less than even the most optimistic forecasts for wind power – and that includes the decommisioning costs.
You claim that Hydrogen cars will be 10 times more expensive even allowing for economies of scale and reduced production costs. I don’t know if you’re privy to economic research or have undertaken your own research but even if you have, do I need to remind you how many times in the history of the twentieth century “they” said something would never happen, would be too expensive only to be made to eat their words. I can think of computers (there would only be a need for 3 in the world), air travel (it would never replace the ship), mobile phones (will never catch on). And Kelvin famously declared that all that is to be discovered in Physics has been discovered, and the future can reveal nothing fundamentally new.
And even if you prove to be the exception and are correct about hydrogen cars, so what? The only thing special about hydrogen cars is that it represents an idea that has been kicked about for sometime. What about gas cars, or liquid fuel from coal cars, or electric cars powered by a new generation of thorium fission reactors? Will the automobile become obselete at some time? Of course it will. But when this happens it will be because something better is developed not because the world can no longer aford to power them. Oh yeah, did you read about BP’s new Mexican oil find?
BTW, good luck with your new book.
Flanagan (11:00:59) “Now, of course, we know that Ts actually increased on the long term. Which makes wiggle-analysis quite silly.”
How big’s your wiggle Flanagan? Mine is thousands of years big. I’m talking Holocene optimum, Roman warm period, MWP, modern warm period. Measured against this background, the modern warm period is a perfectly expected part of a natural 900 year cycle.
But of course, warmists are in denial about all these other warm periods. They are like the drunk who is searching for his car keys by the street light. Unbelievable”
On the economics:
EIA report on 2007 energy subsidies
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm
IER Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies,
analyzing EIA’s 2009 Annual Energy Outlook
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/05/12/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
Yes, coal and natural gas are the cheapest forms of electrical production, but nuclear is not that bad.
Now that we’re starting to manufacture nuclear power reactors, instead of hand craft them, the capital costs will come down some, and that is the biggest part of the expense of a nuclear power plant.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/27/discussion-thread-is-the-eia-forecast-of-2016-energy-prices-realistic/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/23/recent-nuclear-power-cost-estimates-separating-fact-from-myth/
On the Integral Fast Reactor:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/07/01/brave-new-power-for-the-world/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/20/why-is-the-us-ignoring-the-integral-fast-reactor/
juanslayton and Anthony:
Thanks for increasing my knowledge about San Onofre and Diablo Canyon.
–H.
On the economics of power generation:
EIA report on 2007 energy subsidies
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/energy_subsidies.cfm
IER Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies,
analyzing EIA’s 2009 Annual Energy Outlook
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/05/12/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/
Yes, coal and natural gas are the cheapest forms of electrical production, but nuclear is not that bad.
Now that we’re starting to manufacture nuclear power reactors, instead of hand craft them, the capital costs will come down some, and that is the biggest part of the expense of a nuclear power plant.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/27/discussion-thread-is-the-eia-forecast-of-2016-energy-prices-realistic/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/23/recent-nuclear-power-cost-estimates-separating-fact-from-myth/
On the Integral Fast Reactor:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/07/01/brave-new-power-for-the-world/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/20/why-is-the-us-ignoring-the-integral-fast-reactor/
It is likely that the Obama administration has chosen the construction of atomic power plants as the next great US manufacturing effort.
Obama isn’t that clever. He is little more than a unqualified racist Chicago thug who gained the Presidency with the help of a slobbering media, and the publics complete disgust with Bush. While the media still race to tell us how brilliant Obama is, I have seen no evidence of it. He is a racist, socialist ideologue and nothing more.
Richard Courtney
As the John Daly article about Thatcher emanated from yourself I’m glad I praised it!
tonyb
Peter Taylor-who made a long post above- has impeccable credentials as a thoughtful promoter of thoughtful green issues and has an excellent grasp of climate science and the politics behind it.
As someone who reviewed his book ‘Chill’ I can thoroughly recommend it. It deserves a very wide readership as it makes some very perceptive comments.
Tonyb.
LarryD, the nuclear cost figures in the link you provided are hopelessly low.
Ron de Haan (05:22:33) :,
Spot on. First it was too many Jews and other untermenschen. But that was found to be too racists for the tastes of some. So now it is just too many people. The socialists don’t seem capable of more than minimal change.
I agree with much of what Dr. Akasofu says about the junk science of man-made global warming. It is certainly nonsensical and absurd to believe that we have the best possible climate at this moment and that the trivial effects of man’s feeble emission of CO2 will lead to environmental catastrophe unless we burden ourselves with trillions of dollars in carbon taxes. Only the scientifically naive, ignorant or devious could still actually believe that fantasy.
However, Obama is not likely to be a pro-nuclear wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s an ultra-liberal, socialist greenie. They don’t want nuclear either. Their plan is to push Americans back to a 19th century lifestyle where we don’t need 21st century energy. Try to get all the permits you’ll need to build a new nuclear generator. The greenies have made it impossible. They want us to eat locally grown vegies, ride to work on our bicycles and stop all travel beyond the county line. They don’t want Americans to have any new energy sources, not even renewables.
It’s ironic, but if Obama and his comrads have their way, China will soon be the wealthiest and most powerful country and Americans will be eating rice grown in their own paddies.
M. Simon (07:30:09) : 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.”
Almost like the AGW hypothesis? Except that we have spent over 50 billion dollars and people still dont realise its no damn good!
Bangladesh problematic energy situation caused by…corruption.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8234144.stm
Doc Navy, you do us no favors conflating Three Mile Island with Chernobyl. The first was a small glitch that did little damage (other than political, thanks to our ever credulous media), while the second was a poorly engineered man-made catastrophe, many orders of magnitude more damaging in every conceivable way. We can live with the one, but not the other.
Guys:
Uranium…TONS and TONS and TONS in the “fly ash” fields outside of
coal power plants, which burn western coal.
Anywhere from 150 PPM to 600 PPM.
Say 400 PPM average.
That means 1 million tons of fly ash has 400 TONS of uranium.
One million tons of fly ash per year per coal plant. 100 coal plants.
40,000 tons of U per year being “banked”. 10 years = 400,000 TONS of U.
enough to run Nukes for a century.
Easily chemically extracted. (See Benedict and Pigford, “Nuclear Chemical
Engineering”.
The article mentions the role of China as an offshore manufacturer, maybe even more so as there are reports that China is considering banning or restricting exports of rare earth minerals including neodymium used extensively in highly efficient magnets for of course Wind turbines and Electric Car engines.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6082464/World-faces-hi-tech-crunch-as-China-eyes-ban-on-rare-metal-exports.html
A reason given being that they need to serve the interests of their own manufacturing. The link is a sobering read.
I see the other comments re. recent increases yet again in the TV propaganda , this evening the UK ITV early evening news at 6.30pm included a report from the ever faster melting of the Arctic ice cap where the UN top man has taken his carbon footprint, The report stated that the ice continues to decrease each year and that it getting warmer faster than anywhere else on Earth. I emailed the links for the Ice extent and DMI north of 80deg. temperature to their address, I do not expect a reply but the report was left out of their 10pm edition of the news. Just maybe…
http://algorelied.com/?p=2756