Early reactor conceptual developments

Eugene Wigner (left), Enrico Fermi (right)

Some of the best scientist of the 20th century hung around around the "Metallurgical Laboratory" of the University of Chicago. The "Metallurgical Lab" was a cover for the nuclear research establishment which Author H. Compton set up at the University of Chicago during World War II. The Metallurgical Lab was to later give birth to Argonne National Laboratory. The Lab was dominated by two extremely brilliant men, who both made undoubtably made tremendous contributions to establishing the nuclear age. They were the Italian Enrico Fermi, already the holder of a Nobel Prize in Physics, and Eugene Wigner, a Hungarian engineer/physicist who was later to receive a Nobel Prize.

Although no one speaks of a rivalry between the two men, scientist associated with Metallurgical Lab began to form networks around them. After the war Fermi was to lead Argonne National Laboratory, while Wigner took a brief stint as director of the naissant Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It was a young Wigner associate from the Metallurgical Laboratory, Alvin Weinberg, who was to Lead ORNL during its years of glory.

During the war, the atomic energy research establishment quickly expanded.  J. Robert Oppenheimer, of the University of California, organized the Los Alamos team. Fermi was clearly a player in the Los Alamos project.  Wigner focused on reactor development in Oak Ridge and Hanford.   Thus the division of labor between Fermi and Wigner thus made Fermi responsible for the bomb, and Wigner responsible for the reactors.

Weinberg was drawn to Wigner, an became his assistant at the Metallurgical Lab. Both had minds that were not compartmentalized in one discipline.  Wigner was educated as an chemical engineer, and had made significant contributions to theoretical chemistry, but although Wigner never formally studied physics, his is a great name in the history of the discipline.   Weinberg's PhD crossed the lines between physics, math, and biology, and for a brief time before he got caught up in the Manhattan Project, he appeared headed for a career in biology.   Weinberg, who had studied cell devision from the viewpoint of physics and math, was well equipped to understand nuclear fission and the chain reaction. For 35 years, Weinberg stood on the stage of history, and because he was an observant and thoughtful man, he left us an invaluable record of that history. 

It is a mark of Wigner's genius that between 1942 and 1945 Wigner headed both the theoretical-physics research and reactor-engineering and development at the Metallurgical Laboratory. Wienberg was a close Wigner associate. As a reactor developer, Wigner thought like an engineer. Both the original Stagg Field reactor and the ORNL pile reactor were air cooled. It was suggested that the larger Hanford reactors be cooled with helium. He objected to the use of helium as a reactor coolant, because the then existing reactor building materials would not tolerate the high heat found in helium cooled reactors. Wigner decided that the Hanford reactors should be water cooled. Weinberg observed, "making that proposal was a very brave thing for him to do because, at that early time, it had not yet been experimentally demonstrated that any chain reaction was possible. But Wigner had so much confidence in the accuracy of his calculations (backed, of course, by Fermi's experiments) that he insisted that, though the presence of water in the reactor would reduce the multiplication factor by perhaps 3%, enough reactivity would be left to make a reactor of modest size. Moreover, Wigner emphasized that a water-cooled machine could be built much more quickly than a helium-cooled reactor."

A.H. Compton backed Wigner's plan to build the Hanford reactors with water rather than helium cooling. And the Hanford reactors were designed and built as large, water cooled, graphite moderated piles.

The British, despite their participation in the World War II Chalk River project, which developed heavy water reactor technology, were to follow the path which Wigner rejected. Their first reactors were air cooled graphite piles. They were to pay dearly for this technological regression. The infamous Windscale fire, one of the three great reactor accidents in reactor history, was a result of the British use of this primitive technology. The British air and Helium cooled, graphite moderated Magnox reactors, have proven far less durable than American Water cooled reactors, and far more expensive to decommission.

After The Hanford reactor design project was complete. Weinberg states, "there wasn't much left for Wigner's group to contribute to the project, . . ."   In another account of the the period, Weinberg reports, 

We organized a New Piles Committee which met weekly for three months during the spring of 1944. Here the senior luminaries, such as Fermi, Wigner, Szilard, and Franck, together with a few younger assistants like myself, discussed various ideas for reactors: for power, for submarines, for production of plutonium, even for inducing endothermic chemical reactions. Our imaginations ranged widely as we considered various moderators, coolants, and configurations. Inventing a new reactor was an everyday occurrence, simply because no one else had thought about these matters. At that time we were under the impression that uranium would always be scarce.

What happened next was one of the most amazing episodes in the history of science. "Wigner obtained 37 engineering patents on various kinds of reactors: reactors moderated with heavy water, homogeneous reactors, fast reactors, air-cooled research reactors, and water-cooled compact reactors enriched with uranium-235. In all those instances, Wigner served as the spark behind the designs."

Weinberg, of coursed patented the the pressurized water reactor, the basis of naval and civilian power reactors. Farrington Daniels, a chemist in Wigner's reactors group, patented the pebble bed reactor in 1945. Among the reactors that Wigner patented, along with Harry Soodak was the liquid metal fast breeder reactor. Developing the homogeneous reactor became a Fermi project at Los Alamos.

Wigner advocated a homogeneous thorium breeder reactor over his own invention, the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor. Fermi preferred the fast breeder. The advantage of the homogeneous reactor concept was that it allowed continuous processing of nuclear fuel, and the extraction of fission products, in an environment in which nuclear breeding is possible. Wigner's background in chemical engineering played a critical role in his preference. A liquid core reactor would solve many of the chemical processing problems associated with nuclear breeding. Thorium held numerous advantages over uranium in nuclear breeding. The possibility of a shortage of Uranium was one of the Metallurgical Lab concerns, and breeders were the agreed on solution to that problem. Of course uranium turned out to be anything but in short supply.

The New Piles Committee was anything but short sighted. During a April 26, 1944 meeting, Fermi outlined the plans for a Pu-239 fast breeder that would supply fissionable fuel for other reactors, he noted, "There may be nontechnical objections to this arrangement, for example, the shipment of Pu-239 to smaller consuming plants offers the serious hazard of its falling into the wrong hands."

Weinberg also states that Fermi warned in a New Pile Committee meeting that "for the first time mankind would be confronted with enormous amounts of radioactivity; we must not assume that this will be accepted easily by society."

The devision between Fermi and Wigner about breeding technologies had long term institutional consequences. Fermi's Argonne National Lab developed and championed the LMFBR concept, while Wigner's lab, ORNL, under the leadership of his former assistant, Alvin Weinberg, experimented with homogeneous reactors until the late 1950's before abandoning the technology for the Molten Salt Reactor concept.

The idea for the Molten Salt Reactor originated with V.P. Calkins, Kermit Anderson, and Ed Bettis in about 1947. By 1950, Alvin Weinberg, Warren Grimes, R.C. Briant, and my father, C.J. Barton, Sr. were supporting the project. Although technologically more challenging, the use of liquid salt fuel solved many of the problems associated with homogeneous reactor. The MSR/LFTR concept thus is very much a part of the intellectual heritage of Eugene Wigner, even though he did not invent it.

Lowering Nuclear Costs

On The Oil Drum today, Cyril R commented,

I would like to know how you are going to lower the cost of nuclear power projects. The new ones in the US have been costed at 5-8 bucks per Watt, if they don't get adjusted upwards again. Corresponding electricity price would be in the order of 15-25 cents per kWh.

I responded:

Cyril R., There are several cost lowering approaches that should be examined.

First would be the use of new technology that would simplify reactor construction, while lowering labor and materials input. For example, a shift away from a PWR approach, could bring about significant savings. A switch to close cycle gas turbines generators that is possible with several different reactor technologies would increase the efficiency of electrical generation, while lowering the cost of generation units. New material technologies, such as carbon-carbon composites should receive further investigation. Not only could carbon-carbon composites potentially lower material cost, but they also have a potential for lowering reactor parts manufacturing costs.

A second attack on cost should focus on site cost. At the moment site development costs, dictated by NRC requirements. New reactor technology should lead to a reexamination of NRC siting requirements. For example, alternate reactor technologies, that pose no explosion or core melt down risks, do not need massive containment structures. Given the compact size of some Generation 4 reactors and their power generation systems, coupled with their safety features, smaller housing requiring far less material input is possible.

The diminished safety problems posed by some generation 4 reactors should lead to a reexamination of requirements, such as protection from terrorist attacks, and diversion of nuclear materials. The efficiency of the thorium fuel cycle, should greatly reduce the cost of handling post-reactor fission products, since there would be far less "waste" to handle. This in turn would mean fewer facilities would be needed to handle "spent" fuel.

Innovative siting schemes, such as underground siting, should be examined.

Thirdly, new schemes of reactor construction should be examined. In order to quickly produce the number of reactors needed, Reactors should be mass produced on assembly lines. At the moment reactor manufacturers like Westinghouse are moving toward mass productions of reactor modules, with local assembly. There is no reason why whole reactors cannot be mass produced on assembly lines.

Mass production would greatly shorten production time will decreasing parts and assembly costs. Labor cost would be far better under control. Sites can be prepared while reactors are built in factories. Mass production would greatly decrease the time required to build reactors, from the 5 years plus, required by current reactor building techniques, to a matter of months. This in turn would significantly lower interest on investments that are not bring a return, a significant cost problem for current reactor building.

Of course, the transportation of very large reactors is a problem, but some generation 4 reactor concepts can produce power very efficiently from modest size reactors. Small reactors can easily be transported by ship, barge, railroad, and perhaps even truck. There are advantages to the use of small reactors. Power production does not have to be centralized, and this makes load following easy. Mass production could lower costs far more than economies of scale.

At any rate these are some ideas that could be explored. The time for business as usual and old technology is over. We need to start thinking in terms of the steps we can take to bring energy solutions. If I had the same goals as the current nuclear Industry, I would argue, just build reactors and leave it at that. The problems of the cold war nuclear technology that the current nuclear industry relies on, requires not that we abandon nuclear technology, but that we improve it. I have pointed to some possible improvements. Lets start thinking about how practical they are.

The Oil Drum Zombie Attack

The Oil Drum Nuclear Debate has given me a flash back to the zombie attach survivors story, "The Dawn of the Dead," in which the Zombies keep coming and coming and coming. This morning I came across a comment by one "Crusty" which accused me of lying abut the cost of French nuclear power. The funny thing is that I had not written a word about French nuclear power. The same commenter prefaced his claim that I had lied about French nuclear power with a lament that name calling in the debate was not helpful and was obscuring facts. I laughed at the incongruity of "Crusty's" comments.

The anti-nuks keep trying to raise new arguments, each more crazy than the last. Like the Zombies in Dawn of the Dead, they are brain dead, but they keep trying to bite the living, in hopes of making us brain dead as well.

An Oil Drum Nuclear Debate Comment

Introduction: In practical terms I think the pro-nuclear side has won the debate about nuclear power. I state my reasons for thinking this below. The next step in the dialogue about the post carbon-energy future, is a dialogue about what form nuclear energy should take. At present we are committed to a "cold war" reactor technology, that is far from efficient in several respects. The inefficiency of Light Water Reactor technology, is responsible for some of the problems of reactors that the anti-nuclear crowd sees. My view is that fundamentally better technology already exists, a technology that could answer some concerns of the anti-nuclear party, while diminishing the magnitude of other concerns. It is possible to develop technologies and policies that could address all of the concerns of the anti-nuclear party. Of course the willingness of the of the Anti-nuclear party to engage in constructive dialogue is very much at issue. I would point to one group, often included in the anti-nuclear camp, that engages in constructive dialogue, the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Power companies continue to line up in front of the door of the NRC , combined construction and operating license (COL) applications in hand.

In Germany the Anti-nuclear Greens have nothing to offer as a substitute for the hated power reactors, but CO2 belching coal fired power plants.

It is unlikely that Germany will reach its CO2 reduction targets without the aid of nuclear power, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, plans to make nuclear power an issue in the 2009 German election.

The UK has announced its intention to proceed with the development of a new generation of nuclear power plants.

In the real world, the anti-nuclear party is loosing its fight against nuclear power. Pro-nuclear greens are raising their voice.

The anti-nuclear party has a choice to make, to let itself become increasingly marginalized, or to focus on its underlying goals. The fundamental concerns voiced by the anti-nuclear folks in this debate are about some important issues concerning nuclear power. They include:
* safety
* the problem of nuclear waste
* creating a sustainable energy future
* keeping electricity costs low

There are, in fact, people on the pro-nuclear side who share the same concerns, but not the anti-nuk conclusions. The anti-nuclear camp, since it is loosing in the real world, can go off and lick its wounds, or it can start to talk with the people on the pro-nuclear side who share their concerns but not their conclusions. Rational anti-nukes can begin a constructive dialogue with nuclear advocates who share common their concerns. We can talk about how to address our concerns through technology and policy. The choice is yours ladies and gentlemen.

The Oil Drum Nuclear Debate

I have participated in Internet debates on a variety of subjects including anti-semitism, and anthropogenic global warming. In the first debate I found that people who took anti-semitic positions directed anger and hate against the Jewish people and their institutions. Almost inevitably they used distorted information to support their case. They reported false statements as true. They altered statements of Jewish leaders to prove that Jews had evile intention, and they ignored important facts. They also reported events out of context. Behind their arguments was a belief that Jews and their institutions were evil, and that hat for them could be excused because of the bad things that Jews had done.

The second internet debate I participated in focused on global warming. I have know about CO2 and global warming for a long time. I have told the story many times how in 1971, I sat in on an informal conference of scientist at ORNL in which Jerry Olsen gave a briefing on increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and the long term implications for global climate. A generation later the attack on Al Gore, for voicing an idea that I had accepted for a generation came as a shock. I have little doubt that the PR campaign against the idea of global warming was paid for by oil, coal and natural producers. Indeed I tracked the flow of money from oil and coal produces to right wing propaganda factories, and then on to well known global warming skeptics.

In debating global warming skeptics I noted that the same thinking pattern that I had noted in anti-semites. There is virtually no science behind the global warming skeptics position, and most skeptical "scientist" are not doing peer reviewed research. Indeed one of the most often quoted skeptics, Dr. Fred Seitz, was 20 years ago judged by his previous paymasters in the tobacco industry to be "not sufficiently rational to offer advice."

What I discovered as I debated global warming skeptics was their willingness to distort information, and their underlying anger and rage.

So what do we find in the Oil Drum Debate on Nuclear power?


Will Stewart charges that I am not credible because I am not a scientist. Of course I try to back up my statements with the work of highly credible scientists, so as Finrod pointed out, "The people you're really attacking are the ORNL scientists and engineers who pioneered the technology in the fifties and sixties. Without doubt, they were some of the most competent minds of their generation."

Critics of Nuclear power during the Oil drum debate demonstrated an astonishing degree of scientific incompetence. For example, I had argued:

M. King Hubbert states, "1 gram of U-235 releases 2.28 x 104 kw-hr of heat, which is equivalent to the heat of combustion of 3 tons of coal or of 13 barrels of oil. One pound of U-235 is equivalent to 1400 tons of coal or 6000 barrels of oil. Within narrow limits the same values are valid for U-238 and for thorium."

The energy ratio between uranium and coal is 280,000 to 1.

Kiashu shot back,

Um, I think you mean "the energy ratio between U-235 and coal is..."

Since U-235 makes up 0.71% by weight (1 part in 141) of the uranium found naturally, we then get not 280,000:1, but 1,9858:1; let's be generous and call it 2,000:1.

And then we must consider that potential energy is not work done, so that the potential energy of anything - uranium, coal, sunlight - won't all be turned into useful work done. So for example fuel rods might be uranium enriched to 3.5% by weight U-235, after one cycle it's about 0.8% U-235, so that 77% of the U-235 has been used, and 77% of its potential energy released. Thus in practice the 2,000:1 then becomes 1,540:1

I was astonishing by Kiashu's ignorance. Kiashu appeared to not have the slightest understanding of one of the most simple concepts of nuclear science.

Kiashu was completely unaware of his blunder, In the same comment he wrote,

They should have got someone anti-nuclear like me to write the article; when you're against something, you're familiar with the arguments against it, and will look very critically at the arguments in favour of it, so paradoxically can actually argue for it better than those supporting it.

Surely the source Kiashu blunder is his attitude toward science. In another comment Kiashu stated,

The thing is, some people believe in Jesus, some believe in Mohammed, and some believe in Science! . . .

Science!

Remember: "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter..."

Always, grand claims. You get this not just from the nukers but from renewable fans, too. "My favoured technology has no problems, or if it does have problems they're easily solved, and future advances are inevitable, things which are just designs on paper will work perfectly. But the other lot has many problems, not easily solved, future advances are impossible, and those designs on paper will never be practical."

An honest approach would be to reject anything that's not currently commercially-proven, to acknowledge that each approach has its problems but that some problems are worth paying the price for the benefits they give.

But neither the nukers nor the renewable fans are keen on honesty, in general.

It is difficult for me to not feel anger when I encounter such a combination of ignorance and self approbation.

One of the intellectual errors is what I call ahistoricism, taking events out of their historical context. Thus Big Gav cited as evidence afinst the nuclear industry the health problems of cold war Native American uranium miners. Mine health and safety practices have changed dramatically since the cold war era, but big Gav does not mention that.

Some of the information distortion by the antinuclear side came from a failure to understand the information that debaters on the nuclear side used. In an exchange with Eric Blair, Soylent asked,

And do you really want farmers to toss all that uranium right where food crops are grown instead of co-mining it with phosphates? (to the tune of ~100 g per tonne of phosphate rock).

Blair answered.

The fertilizer, which the company describes as treated raffinate, is processed from wastes at Kerr-McGee's Sequoyah Fuels Facility here, one of two plants in the United States that purify milled uranium, a step in the process of making nuclear fuel rods for power plants.

In fact, the link that Blair provided,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDB1E31F935A25752C1A961948260
did not refer to phosphate fertilizer at all.

The problem of uranium in phosphates fertilizer is well known.
http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/papers/uranium_and_sulfur/uranium.html

One would expect that people who worried about problems like radiation from reactors and the disposal of radioactive "nuclear waste" would also be concerned with the presence of radioactive heavy metals in fertilizer. But this does not appear to be the case with Mr. Blair, who seemingly does not understand the issue.

Some of the critics of nuclear power assumed that we were headed for disaster. ccpo stated,

My account assumes TS is gonna HTF sooner rather than later; that collective action in the face of a massive economic downturn, geopolitical instability, famine, water shortages, energy shortages, etc., is highly unlikely; that GW is going to come at us faster than many think.

I would characterize ccpo's view as extreme and unwarranted pessimism, a willingness to give up without making an effort.

ccpo added:

Seriously: are there, now, currently, existing on this planet, working thorium reactors? I was pretty clear inn stating the essential components probably exist, wasn't I? And I never indicated they didn't work, did I?

The problem with an agenda? It affects how you perceive your world. Take off the radiation-affected glasses and read what is written, not what you want it to say.

I responded with a long discussion of the history of reactors that used the thorium fuel cycle, the current Indian thorium fuel development program including Indian reactors that currently use the thorium fuel cycles, reactors that the indians are building, and Indian plans to build thorium cycle reactors capable of producing 20 GWs of electricity by 2020. ccpo did not respond to my last comment.

Despit my original post, which demonstrated a supply of thorium capable of providing all of the power the united states needed for 400 years, anti-nuk commenters continued to argue that we are running out of nuclear fuel.

sofistek tried to rely on an argument about what no one knows.

No-one here knows that enough fuel will be extractable at needed rates without environmental impact. No-one here knows that future generations will eventually be able to sort out the problems we leave them with. You are playing the wishful thinking card. No more.

If "the next generation is dependent on us", then don't we owe it to them to ensure that they don't have to sort out our mess for the generation after them? Don't we owe it to them to try and find a way to live within the means provided by the earth (not just in energy)?

By basing an argument on what "no one knows" sofistek uses an argument form called an "appeal to ignorance." Appeals to ignorance are fallacious, and arguments based on them are invalid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Beyond the problem with logic, sofistek seems to believe that we will fix things for future generations by living within the means provided us by the earth. Of course what those means were was the substance of my argument. sofistik argue

Proven reserves of uranium would last only 40-70 years, depending on where the bar is set in terms of price. And that is only at current consumption rates. Current production rates are below consumption and so stocks of weapons grade uranium are being used. Production rates may decline, of course, allowing a longer availability time but at reducing rates. More reserves will become economically proven, there is no doubt, but how much, and at what rates of production, requires some crossed fingers.

You fall into the group of people who thinks that the only way is up, when it comes to energy (which is only one of the many limits we face). Another way is to reduce our energy use, stop wasting so much and moving towards sustainable societies. Unfortunately this would require a contraction of the economy and that would be unthinkable - ever.

sofistik's argument ignored my post which provided evidence of American thorium reserves would last for at least 400 years and quite possibly thousands of years. This is denial, a refusal to accept information that is avaliable, a refusal to accept a better future than sofistek had assumed.

Confronted with strong evidence about the thorium reserve, sofistik argues

You still offer hopes rather than definites, even if the outlook for Thorium looks a little rosier. The USGS may sometimes be conservative but their World Petroleum Assessment could be considered rather optimistic, at least on the discovery side.

I'm not denying that some companies have plans for the Thorium industry, but then companies also had plans for the hydrogen industry 28 years ago. So it remains a hope rather than a fact. Not all companies with business plans turn out to be successful.

sofistik attempts to diminish my evidence with words like "hopes rather than definites." Probable reserves might be counted as hopes, but proven reserves are more than hopes. At this juncture it is safe to say that 400 years of American thorium reserve exist Lemhi Pass. This is a truth beyonds a reasonable doubt, not simply a hope. The comparison of a thorium industry to the hydrogen energy is bogus. sofistik has not pointed to any basis for his analogy between thorium technology and hydrogen technology.

One of the debate tactics of the anti-nuks was to discount scientists simply on the basis of where they worked.

pondlife said,

estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities" - said a guy from Oak Ridge [a nuclear place] in a report..

I responded,

One of those guys from Oak Ridge was R.E. (Bob) Moore, a long time associate of my father. Moore along with J. P. McBride, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco published their finding on coal in article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. A publication in Science is a sign that the research of exceptional quality and importance.

My father wrote about Bob Moore: "Bob had an unusual ability to combine his knowledge of mathematics, physical chemistry and computer programming." Considering the quality of scientist my father worked with, this is high praise.

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/01/bob-moore.html

I could go on with this account, but I think by now I have sufficient evidence of the intellectual caliber of the anti-nuclear party to leave it at that. At least some in the anti-nuclear party want to believe that we are running out of all sorts of energy. Any effort to show tham that substitute energy sources exist is dismissed out of hand. Some in the anti-nuk camp have a low oppenion of science and of scientists. Some claim that the fact that research is done by scientists in Oak Ridge, automatically discredits it. The anti-nuclear camp seems to discount the very idea of technological progress. Some in the nuclear camp argue that if proven technology is not already in commercial service, no effort should ber made to do so. People who hold this view appear to wish to terminate all efforts toward technological progress. The anti-nuks have use any argument no mater how weak, counterfactual, irrational, illogical, and dishonest to further their case.

I could go on with this account, but I think by now I have sufficient evidence of the intellectual caliber of the anti-nuclear party to leave it at that. The anti-nuks have use any argument no mater how weak, counterfactual, irrational, illogical, and dishonest to further their case.

Oil Drum Post tomorrow

Finally, I got word that my Oil Drum post will be up in the morning.

Update 4/3/08: The Oil Drum debate has sort of been posted. However, it has been posted on The Oil Drum Europe which no one reads. Whether it will be posted on The main Oil Drum page remains to be seen. The European editor, Chris Vernon, is a closet anti-nuclear fanatic, and a world class idiot. He introduced the nuclear debate post with a letter from a British MP, Colin Challen, who proves that the UK has dumb politicians too!

At any rate the Introduction quoted Challen aqs saying:

John Hutton's latest reflections on nuclear power demonstrate how rapidly British energy policy is regressing to its default mode - dig it up and burn it. At the same time as we are promised the nuclear pipe dream, we are also set to have new coal-powered power stations without carbon capture and storage. This comes at the same time as we have fought for one of the lowest renewables targets in the EU, are languishing third from bottom in current renewables provision out of 27 EU states, and are announcing yet another microgeneration review.
The message Hutton's department seems to want to promulgate in its energy policy is to reassure everybody that no serious change is needed, that we should carry on increasing our demand for energy and that climate change isn't as urgent as some people make out. One can only conclude that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is utterly unfit for purpose and should have the title Department for Fiddling While Rome Burns.
Colin Challen MP
Lab, Morley & Rothwell

Chris Vernon assures me that he is not an anti-nuclear fanatic. Well there I go again shooting off my mouth.

The Oil Drum Post

I expected my Oil Drum post to be online yesterday.  But it did not go up and nothing has been posted.  This only adds to the annoyance I feel with the Oil Drum, staff.   Of course, I don't know what problems they are dealing with, and maybe I should not judge them harshly.