Guest essay by David Archibald
The good and the great are uneasy about the state of the world. They know that our current standard of civilisation has been made possible by cheap fossil fuels that will run out one day. And then what? Their experiments with solar panels, with mirrors, with windmills have been disappointing. And it is dawning upon people that 70 percent of the protein we eat has its origins in fossil fuels.
Our current dominant nuclear technology of burning U235 in light water reactors is inherently unsafe and produces a lot of waste while doing so. And it uses only 0.2 percent of the nuclear fuel available to us.
The situation is summed up in this blog comment:
So biofuels will power the mining of phosphorus and the manufacturing of nitrogen via the Haber Bosch process to fertilize crops to make biofuels to mine phosphorus etc etc and as well create surplus power for our appliances and food requirements. Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me. If you think solar power can replace oil (power our industrial civilization) and have enough surplus power remaining to mine the elements needed for the manufacture of solar panels, make solar panels, and maintain solar panels then I think you’re living in a dream world. Magical thinking at its finest.
In other words, solar panels are cheap only because the diesel and coal used in their making are very cheap. So the Breakthrough Institute has announced the formation of Breakthrough Energy Ventures to fund the development of new technologies that will provide reliable and affordable power. The funding available is $1 billion, provided by private individuals. In part, global warming is a religion that elites believe in and try to impose on the rest of us. So the first order of business for their new venture is to genuflect to their god with the prime requirement that the new technologies they will invest in “have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least half a gigaton.”
They have their screening processes for evaluating projects put to them but I can save them a lot of trouble. There is only one technology that can save civilisation – the thorium molten salt reactor, written up on WUWT here, here and here. If that technology produces power at $0.03 per kWh then liquid hydrocarbon fuel could be produced at about US$120/bbl equivalent. The molecule most likely to be used as an energy carrier is dimethyl ether (DME) which has an energy content and handling characteristics similar to those of propane. Civilisation could continue at a high level indefinitely.
Thorium has been wilfully neglected. How that came about is shown in the following graphic:
Fission of uranium was first demonstrated in Berlin in 1938. The following day, physicists at Oxoford University were brainstorming on how to make a fission-based bomb. That kind of development pace continued for three decades. Early work on how to run a thorium molten salt reactor was conducted at Oak Ridge in the mid-1960s. Then that work was terminated in favor of plutonium breeder reactor research which in turn was killed off. And nothing much has happened since, until a Chinese engineer read an article in the July, 2010 issue of American Scientist and the Chinese research effort into thorium molten salt reactors was initiated.
There are literally hundreds of different nuclear reactor designs and a range of fuels can be used. There is also a basic division on how to approach fission with consequences for inherent safety, handling and processing of fission products, and operating and decomissioning costs. That basic choice is either having the fuel circulate or having the coolant circulate, illustrated in the following graphic:
The first commercial reactor for power generation was commissioned in in 1958 in Shippingport, Pennsylvannia. It used a uranium-burning, lighwater reactor from a cancelled aircraft carrier. All subsequent commercial power reactors have the coolant circulating.
Over the last decade, governments around the world have spent tens of billions of dollars on all sorts of schemes to make energy from anything other than fossil fuels. They have tried everything except the only thing that will work. When the new administration comes into power, they will stop the waste of billions per annum on green nonsense. It would be wise to put aside a little bit of what is going to be saved and apply it to the only thing that will work.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution To The F-35 Nightmare.
“…the prime requirement that the new technologies they will invest in “have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least half a gigaton.”
(They probably mean gigatonne, and probably per year.)
Annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are somewhere around 36 Gt (of which about 55% is immediately removed by “greening” the biosphere and by the oceans). So a 1/2 Gt reduction is a 1.4% emission reduction.
For comparison, 1 ppmv CO2 (molecular wt 44.01) has mass = 8.053 Gt, of which 12/44-ths or 2.196 Gt is carbon. (400 ppmv CO2 has mass 400 × 8.053 Gt/ppmv = 3221 Gt.)
So if CO2 emissions were reduced by 1/2 Gt/year, atmospheric CO2 levels would increase by only about 1.94 ppmv, instead of 2.00 ppmv, in 2016.
Oops… in 2017.
Well, no. The first commercial nuclear power plant opened in 1956 at Calder Hall, Windscale, UK. I remember the publicity that surrounded it at the time.
The Soviets had a 5 MW nuke generating electricity into the grid in 1954.
(this from a 2-minute excursion to Wikipedia. People should check their facts before posting breathless articles)
From my limited experience, I have the impression that uranium became the preferred fuel because it was already being produced, refined and enriched for weapons making. It’s also very easy to extract from ores (readily dissolves in dilute sulphuric acid) and the fact that UF6 is a gas makes enrichment relatively easy. There is so much inertia in the incredibly heavily regulated nuclear industry that thorium never really made it through the door, even though it has obvious potential.
If you don’t electricate the transportation sector and the residential and commercial NG, nuclear power is at best a partial resolution to the non-problem of CAGW
Since about 55% of anthropogenic emissions of the precious air fertilizer are taken up by “greening” the biosphere and oceans every year, if emissions were reduced by more than 45% then CO2 levels would be falling, rather than rising.
Personally, I think the small modular reactors could prove very useful and economical. Many designs are still based on light water reactor technology, but with a small footprint, and low maintenance, re-fueling out at 30 years or so, I think they would be ideal for doing things like powering a series of desalination plants on the California coast, or providing power to small remote communities, or to large, self-contained urban entities like medical academic centers, or manufacturing complexes. Ignorance and politics almost killed nuclear in this country, but it can still make a come back.
Barbara@ur momisugly 8:14 In times gone by, I also thought small modular reactors were
a good answer. The terrorism threat makes that impractical. They would all
require security which would price them out of the market, both financially
and socially. Dirty bombs potential.
“In other words, solar panels are cheap only because the diesel and coal used in their making are very cheap.”
I’ve been saying that for a while, right folks? Mostly solar PV panels are coal powered batteries. You get the power back when you point them towards the sun.
I think, Author, you could put in a word for CANDU reactors which are also far safer in Fukushima situations and don’t need the concentrate. I am told they can burn thorium but that may mean they can burn U233. Maybe they are co-firing, so to speak.
I too hold out great hope for thorium based solutions. I doubt laser fusion is going to be affordable without several breakthroughs. It looks insanely dangerous. Rather something insanely safe and simple.
My father related to me several times the panic attack we were out of known oil reserves. The date? 1935. These panic attacks come along periodically. Untapped shale oil. Untapped methane cathrates. Untapped deep ocean basins. Untapped Arctic. That is what is in the way of running out. So far, noting coming out of the Monterey shale of CA, but if it is, its vast size of reserves would be one-third the length of the state.
DK, you need to read several of the energy essays in Blowing Smoke. Reserve Reservations discusses the Monterey. Ice that Burns covers methane clathrates. The situation is far more nuanced–and clearly less favorable–than your breezy hand wave.
Might want to have a look at Lockheed Martin’s fusion power project. Then there’s a little company called Energy Matter Conversion Corporation that have built small prototype Polywell fusion reactors. They’re looking for $30 million for a next step prototype, $250 million for a break even model, begging for investors.
http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html
http://emc2fusion.org/
….and just when you didn’t think something as humble as a gasoline engine could become substantively more efficient, there’s Liquid Piston.
http://liquidpiston.com/
I used to be into building race machines and have turned pistons into liquid.
Don’t think that’s what they have in mind.
“I used to be into building race machines and have turned pistons into liquid.”</i.
Yep, know the feeling!
higley7 commented :January 7, 2017 at 7:25 pm
“You miss the point that the greenies DO NOT WANT people to have cheap, reliable energy. They think people having a good, happy life means that they are using too much energy and MUST be damaging the world and environment. They are perfectly happy saddling the world with intermittent, expensive energy.”
+1 It’s not an engineering problem. It’s a social problem. Thorium/nuclear will solve a potential future energy problem but today and for generations to come fossil fuels will safely provide.
Thorium/nuclear will solve a potential future energy problem but today and for generations to come fossil fuels will safely provide.
Agreed, but ‘decades’ may be no more than two decades…in some parts of the world.
And that’s about how long it takes to build a nuke these days
Take the UK, now apparently floating off into the mid Atlantic. It needs power. Coal is too expensive and has to be imported. Bad for balance of payments. Gas is running out though fracking may help, but uranium is as cheap a fuel as you can get and there’s tonnes of plutonium stashed away that represents a problem, or could be fuel instead for decades.
The technology to be virtually fuel independent exists. It just needs to be deployed, and the reasons it isn’t being are 90% political.
Japan has similar problem. So do countries like Finland.
Thorium is a distraction. By all means stick a pilot plant together somewhere in the world for LFTR, as we in the UK did for a fast breeder for many years, but we never bet the farm on it, and it was good that we didn’t, because although it worked, the fuel it made cost more than digging up and refining uranium.
Which is cheaper today than back then….
Read what wiki has to say about breeder reactors. Yes, we thought they were cool way back then..
“In Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, breeder reactor development programs have been abandoned.[56][57] The rationale for pursuing breeder reactors—sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit—was based on the following key assumptions:
– It was expected that uranium would be scarce and high-grade deposits would quickly become depleted if fission power were deployed on a large scale; the reality, however, is that since the end of the cold war, uranium has been much cheaper and more abundant than early designers expected.
– It was expected that breeder reactors would quickly become economically competitive with the light-water reactors that dominate nuclear power today, but the reality is that capital costs are at least 25% more than water cooled reactors.
– It was thought that breeder reactors could be as safe and reliable as light-water reactors, but safety issues are cited as a concern with fast reactors that use a sodium coolant, where a leak could lead to a sodium fire.
– It was expected that the proliferation risks posed by breeders and their “closed” fuel cycle, in which plutonium would be recycled, could be managed. But since plutonium breeding reactors produce plutonium from U238, and thorium reactors produce fissile U233 from thorium, all breeding cycles could theoretically pose proliferation risks. U232, which is always present in U233 produced in breeder reactors, however is a strong alpha emitter, and as such would make weapon handling extremely hazardous, and the weapon easy to detect.”
Technology merely dictates where on the cost/benefit curve you end up, in broad terms.
Loads of Tempests Mustangs, P38s and so on were able to win the air war against ME262 jet fighters, because there were plenty of them, the technology was well understood, and they were good enough…
Can I sell you a Betamax recorder sir?
This problem could use some attention:
USA data for 2015 deaths: 33,091 opioid deaths in the year.
Compare this one year total to the number of deaths from Nuclear power?
Check this out it seems the most promising thorium reactor
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQjP3K9rHRAhWnwVQKHdgzACoQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moltexenergy.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNEb93hHExiDwz6qzRVu0UdIDESGCQ&sig2=XDorURZ5EFxNOJUX1Zs5pA
Life’s too short to find anthing useful on that site.
The graph missed the meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in 1959. I was about 6 months from being born while Mom was living about 10 miles downwind at the time of the meltdown. I keep waiting for my mutant powers to kick in.
So far, I can only time travel a bit. Just forward in time, about 6-8 hours or so. A bit longer if I’ve been to a party the night before…
I believe the “KISS” principle favors the light water reactors. Complex plants processing hazardous materials would be a nightmare.
I believe the “KISS” principle favours the light water reactors. Complex plants processing hazardous materials would be a nightmare.
Whoa there, Silver! You are in danger or replacing religious fervour with sound engineering common sense.
Of course what we need is the best compromise between cost, availability and safety that can deliver reliable baseload power.
IN engineering & statistical terms that’s PWR or BWR, right now.
CHEAP and GOOD ENOUGH. Can burn thorium/Pu239 fuel if you want, as well.
IN the magic thinking of the non technical, those can’t be any good because they are ‘established technology’.
That’s what has happened to the brains if those who have been exposed to too much marketing of ‘hi tech’ consumer products.
Can I interest you in a car with square wheels, it’s the latest technology? Way cool…
Nuclear materials are not hazardous for robots. The processing required is not so ‘complex’. If you only want to use existing BWR/PWR reactors you have to face up to keeping spent nuclear fuel, SNF, safe for hundreds of thousands of years into the future. This is because SNF is weapons proliferation risk. A crude thermonuclear device can be made from the plutonium in used PWR fuel.
Too much Pu240 in spent nuclear fuel to make a workable device, way too much.
If you only want to use existing BWR/PWR reactors you have to face up to keeping spent nuclear fuel, SNF, safe for hundreds of thousands of years into the future. This is because SNF is weapons proliferation risk.
so wrong its not worth even beginning…
Quoted from ref 1. What counts is the testimony non-proliferation experts are willing to give congress and the senate. If they say it can be done, SNF becomes a 200,000 year liability.
1. Testimony to Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What Should Our Research, Development, and Demonstration Strategy Be?”, June 17, 2009, Dr. Charles D. Ferguson Philip, D. Reed. An Assessment of the Proliferation Risks of Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Alternative Nuclear Waste Management Strategies (pdf)
2. Richard L. Garwin, “Reactor-Grade Plutonium can be used to Make Powerful and Reliable Nuclear Weapons,” Paper for the Council on Foreign Relations, August 26, 1998, available at: http://www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm J. Carson Mark, “Explosive Properties of Reactor-Grade Plutonium,” Science and Global Security, 4, 111-128, 1993.
3. Nonproliferation and Arms Control Assessment of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material and Excess Plutonium Disposition Alternatives, DOE/NN-0007 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, January 1997), pp. 38-39.
Dimethyl ether (DME) is no where near as safe as propane. Anyone who worked in an organic chemistry lab will tell you so. Quite a lot of organic chemistry lab explosions were down to old ether. The problem is that simple ethers are easily oxidised. The resultant peroxide is very unstable and, in effect, becomes an unstable detonator, with ether/air the bomb. If organic chemists have such problems handling it how well do you think Jill Public will do?
Mark, I don’t know what DME is doing in this discussion, but I have been working in a DME plant and I don’t see any problem with DME as propellant i.s.o. propane. It only oxidises if there is oxygen available wiich is not the case in aerosol cans. It can not be stored in open cans (like the old diethyl ether) as it is a gas at room temperature and it has the advantage of water solubility up to 10%, so it is evenly distributed in most liquids to give an even spray. In such a mixture, it only burns while spraying as long as an open flame is present and goes out when the flame is removed, while propane keeps burning…
Mark,
Sorry, overlooked that paragraph in the story above. DME as energy carrier? Indeed has about the same gas/fluid characteristics as propane, but I doubt that it has the same energy content, due to its high oxygen content. Anyway, I would like to see the whole electrical – DME or other hydrocarbons conversion – mechanical conversion chain before I believe in that route.
The conversion from electricity via batteries to mechanical (electromotor) is around 80%. The conversion from electricity via hydrogen (electrolyses: ~80%) to mechanical via fuel cells (~50%) is around 40%.
The conversion from electricity to DME or other hydrocarbons would be (much) more energy consuming than for hydrogen.
The only advantage I see is that storing and distribution of DME is largely the same as for propane and existing infrastructure is easily adapted, while storing huge quantities of hydrogen at enormous pressure is a nightmare…
+1
Nuclear technology indeed is the only candidate to sustain our society. The future cannot be predicted. I expect a lot from nuclear research being neglected for decades. The ultimate power source is anti-matter. But end of the 21 th century I expect compact fusion reactors. Transmutation may become a source of energy as well. I strongly believe in human ingenuity.
Progress Always amounts to less dependency on land and nature. Compact reactors installed near the user saves land and eliminate costly grids. Cheap abundent energy allows for a clean environment, waste recycling, fast undergound transportation systems, multilevel agriculture again saving nature.
“Nuclear technology indeed is the only candidate to sustain our society.”
Back to the past to solve tomorrow’s energy needs; I salute you and others for not exploring in more depth the inner workings of the atom and the repeated, continued production of ‘anomalous’ heat in numerous experiments in labs across the world (YOU want a list? I can provide one for you on receipt of a request.).
THIS is why science advances one obit at a time, and more importantly, as old technologies die and are finally buried (example? Our modern communications infrastructure does not depend on thermionic emission devices anymore! (6×4’s, 5Y3’s, 6AU6’s, 6AL4’s, 6AK5’s …IOW, tubes!)).
What breakthrough? ALL energy we can extract from this rock has already been stored in this rock. Dig it up and use it. Coal. Australia has ~500 of known reserves of coal at current consumption rates. Let’s use it!
~500 years…
Exaggeration for effect? Fast reactors are viable alternatives to power all humanity’s electricity needs. The waste cycle of a fast reactor will not be as clean. A fast reactor also needs far more fissile material to operate (at least 4 times as much, per reactor, per MW). So fast reactors are not ideal. In the near term, fast reactors may be more practical. With basic reprocessing, they can use much of the 300,000 + tonnes of spent nuclear fuel the nuclear industry has made as a fuel input. 3 main kinds of fast reactor are likely possible: molten salt reactors, and liquid metal cooled reactors. The liquid metal may be sodium or lead.
I’m all in favour of thorium reactors; but not if it means waiting 30 years for the perfect reactor to turn up. Gordon McDowell’s youtube video: thorium remix 2011 is a good introduction to the thorium molten salt reactor (despite not being made by an engineer). Yet viewers may get the impression the finished technology is further along than it is.
I too am nervous about moving into fast fission reactors. The funny thing is that Canada’s CANDU reactors were originally designed to fission thorium NOT U235. Why Canada hasn’t taken advantage of this today is puzzling. It is a slow fission design and one which has proven it’s safety. It does not require enrichment NOR fast fission to operate… yet is ignored. Go figure. GK
True. We should focus our R&D efford on MSR running on thorium. In Greenland we have so much thorium we can power the world for at least the next centuries.
“Our current dominant nuclear technology of burning U235 in light water reactors is inherently unsafe and produces a lot of waste while doing so.”
This is not really true. The current reactors, while not as cheap as natural gas in the US is very safe and fairly cheap, like coal. The regulations has skyrocketed and made the price higher than it needs to be. Also the regulations is based on the LNT model, while evidence is pointing to that it is not correct, making the regulations unnecessary hard and thus increasing costs unnecessarily.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
It produces waste which is 95% unburnt hence it can be used as fuel in a breeder reactor or a MSR reactor down the road.
Hence we should expand building LWRs as it satisfies both the need for more and cheap energy – and the green blob’s obsession with co2.
We don’t need intermittent energy such as wind or solar, but reliable cheap baseload, and if the lack of co2 emissions makes nuclear viable, I am all for it.
halken: “True. We should focus our R&D efford on MSR running on thorium.”
Yup. Never mind advances made in other areas since. Let’s look back to ‘tech’ pioneered in the 1950’s and ‘pour’ govt money into that …
(Have we NOT learned a thing since?)
A rational building code for nuclear plants would cause a renaissance for the industry. Then, retire all the regulators.
Whatever we do, it must be “walk-away safe” That is to say the design must not have any failure modes that require active energy inputs. The design of many power reactors in use today produce spent fuel that must be actively cooled. These fuel rods are kept in a pool of water that requires years of management and continuous circulation of cooling water.
This design illustrates the hubris of the big government regulatory state. It presumes that competent people and sufficient energy will continuously be available at the point of need. Any failure results in a Fukushima-like catastrophe. The inability to sustain the cooling of the spent fuel pool was exactly one of the components of that ongoing nightmare.
Now, we could go into the long regulatory history of nuclear power as well and how the regulators only approve designs they are comfortable with and the design history began with Naval submarine reactors. The problem with nuclear power is not the the radioactive nature of the power source, it is the decision-making and regulatory environment in which nuclear power plants are designed in the first place. A related component is that different designs imply different security issues. The more security that is needed, the higher the security “burden” during operation. The higher that burden, the more economic incentives weigh towards larger centralized power plants, meaning larger reactors and more of them inside one security perimeter, thus subject to a common cause of massive failure. It did not have to be this way. And there is NO reason to ever make this mistake again.
This is the nucleon binding energy chart. This is the energy curve that powers the stars and powers the supernovas.
http://www.mpoweruk.com/images/binding_energy.gif
Smaller-sized stars like the Sun stay on the bottom part of the fusion spectrum while the largest stars, greater than 8 solar masses, get all the way up to and past the Fe Iron fusion stage (and it takes huge temperatures and pressures to get to this fusion stage.)
But after Fe Iron fusion, the reaction takes “more” energy than it gives back. Once a critical mass of Fe Iron fusion is occurring in a massive star, 70% of the star explodes outwards in a supernova and 30% explodes inwards (or gravity collapses the matter inwards is a more accurate description).
The 30% that explodes inwards becomes a neutron star, a quark star or a black hole. These stars have been compressed so much by the implosion/gravity compression that the gravity at their surface is half the speed of light and even higher. As in, when a star with 16 solar masses explodes inwards in a supernova, the neutron star/quark star at its centre probably has gravity greater than the speed of light near its surface, ie an event horizon at some distance from the surface and now it is a black hole.
The 70% that explodes outwards occurs with such force, that even more elements are created through fusion on the way outward and the galaxy gets seeded with even heavier elements like uranium and others as well as whatever Fe Iron and Nickel is left over in the star at the time of the supernova. Earth is probably made up of a half dozen of these long-ago supernovas.
But this is the curve that powers the universe. Gravity is the force used to collapse mass until the fusion curve takes over but there are trillions upon trillions of objects in the universe that use this curve.
Somewhere along the fusion part, there is an Isotope of an element that fuses easier or produces enough energy that what we need to put in in terms of energy is less than what comes out. Some have said that the Nickel Isotopes are more apt to produce fusion reactions. We need to be experimenting with those (even the cold fusion guys have used this rationale).
Somewhere in there is the best option. One that will be inherently safer and even completely harmless. Maybe it is not at either ends of the fusion (H to He) and fission curves (U235) but somewhere else in the middle with one of the isotopes of all those elements and isotopes there.
“But this is the curve that powers the universe. ” et al.
… according to *present* thinking. ALWAYS remember that.
From The Nuclear News, “Thor-bores,” LOL. There is scant mention of Th at Rod Adams’, my co-worker’s, blog.
Let’s recover our nuclear-economy before we change horses mid-stream. We know our old nag is reliable if tired and ugly. Thor-bores’ promises are glib, shallow and brittle.
I agree. If we create a situation where nuclear plants can be built and make money, they will be. And if they become a part of the power infrastructure there will be money and motivation for R and D on more efficient and cheaper models. Universities might start turning out nuclear engineers and building small scale experimental reactors that can power the school as a side effect of the research.
“and make money”
Impose the same “restrictions” e.g. security requirements and decommissioning accrual accounts and the charging of fuel costs STRAIGHT through to the customer (i.e. level the playing field cost-wise) and SEE who “makes money.”
Are you aware that a functioning nuclear plant (Vermont Yankee) was closed within the last couple of years as a result of the way electric pricing works in the ‘merchant’ power market in its (VY’s) area?
http://www.x-energy.com/
Why the intermediate heat exchanger He/H2O? A turbine works fine with hot gas and He has no radioactive isotopes.
The supply of Helium is finite and the end is in sight.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
~
Nuclear fission will power us for centuries. Nuclear fusion will power us for as long as we continue, but we won’t commercialize fusion for decades. Let’s get good a fission. We do need to look into molten salts and thorium. (Research is behind. Probably need about 15 years to catch up. Fusion probably still needs several decades, unless there is a genius-breakthrough.)
“Over the last decade, governments around the world have spent tens of billions of dollars on all sorts of schemes to make energy from anything other than fossil fuels. They have tried everything except the only thing that will work.” David Archibald
I didn’t see any mention of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) in comments. This was a viable design by the early 1990s at Argonne West, but was cancelled by Bill Clinton with assists from then-Senator John Kerry and NRDC. (See the PBS interview with Charles Till at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html.) I believe the GE / Hitachi PRSIM reactor is based on the same ideas. But the problem is not technology, it’s politics.
I’m not sure if Clinton, Kerry and NRDC were fronting for oil and coal interests, but I doubt it. I think the objective on their part – they being “liberal” scare-mongers, Chicken Littles, and Luddites – was and is, as some have stated, to prevent us from having plentiful, inexpensive energy. They thrive on misery and crisis, which they propose to fix by the application of more government control and less personal freedom. I wish the average person were sufficiently educated to see beyond the propaganda and scare tactics that prevent us from having the future we otherwise would be enjoying, or maybe just sufficiently wise to detect evil motives in those who would reshape the world either for their own personal benefit or as a result of their complete and utter incompetence.
Brilliant Light Power
Mills has been running this scam, formerly known as Blacklight Power, for 25 years. His fancy math GUT-CQM is a joke; it is not Lorenz invariant. Thenwave equationmformhydrogen can be solved exactly. It predicts the experimentally determined energy level spectra precisely. There is no hydrino below ground state. His paper claiming experimental detection via XPS ignores that fact that the lightest element XPS can detect is lithium. It cannot detect hydrogen. And, by my count this is about the fifth device reincarnation of catalyzed hydrino energy. None of the previous ones worked. The ‘experiments’ claimingntheyndid were all easily proven jokes. Wrote it up to 2012 in The Arts of Truth.
Do not take ristvan’s word as the final conclusion on this. Mills is forcing NO ONE to finance his activities, yet, you would think reading ristvan that Mills is peddling snake oil out the back of a covered wagon to an unsuspecting pubic.
Mills is very open about the progress being made, and has published many papers and shows the results of many tests on his website.
See – didn’t I JUST write that “this ‘crackpot tech’ is not to be discussed in proper social circles?”
.
Glad to hear that Mills is not looking for money. I am looking forward to seeing his results. His evaluation of himself is very positive indeed.
No beuno. The stalwarts in old, ‘establishment physics’ has labeled this ‘crackpot tech’ and not to be discussed in proper social circles ….
Love Tom Cruise move LIVE. DIE. REPEAT. where he and the DI instructor exchange cities of origin: his is CRANBERRY NJ where Mill incorporated Black Light.
Actually it is the distillation of Pons/Fleischmann COLD FUSION which from the comments above still has the same contagion as HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED.