The pollution and climate effects of fossil fuels have made them unacceptable - WA

To: Emeritus Physics Professor Wade Allison

Oxford University

United Kingdom

Dear Wade,

Here is the link to one of your Internet pages:

https://sone.org.uk/energy-for-2030-and-2050-the-non-negotiablerequirements/

You state:

In my opinion, fossil fuels have fulfilled tremendous services that will be very difficult and costly to replace:

1) Allowed reliable electrical energy for billions of people for communications, overhead wire urban and town public transportation, computers, Internet, smartphones, elevators for high rise and skyscraper buildings to reduce urban sprawl, control systems on almost every other use of energy for the world today, operated printing presses, radio and TV for the mainstream media, operated instant replay and advertising for lighted signs at sports events and the Olympics, recorded classical and rock music, recorded books on tape. operated instrumentation and monitoring system in hospital operating rooms and patient rooms, operated electric wheelchairs for handy capped, enabled university professors and high school teachers to use PowerPoint Presentations instead of chalk on a blackboard, enabled electronic voting to replace and count billions of paper ballots, enabled students to use computers instead of having to learn script

"Today, the pollution and climatic effects of fossil fuels have made them unacceptable."

writing, and most of all enabled billions of poorer people to communicate with the rest of the world and be inspired by it so they have hope to work for better government and standards of living for themselves.

2) Replaced slavery and indentured servitude with machine power.

3) Helped do away with "royalty" versus "commoners," helped create equality of sexes, races, respect for religious beliefs, helped have equal pay, done away with witch hunts and Inquisitions.

4) Promoted Freedom and Democracy.

5) Provided power to mine all the minerals needed for the modern world.

6) Provide power to manufacture everything in every store we shop in.

7) Provided power for all transportation needs.

8) Provided power for fresh water supply and wastewater treatment systems.

9) Provided power for sanitation, garbage and recycling services.

10) Provided power to manufacture and operate all satellites and space craft.

11) Provided power to put telescopes in space to see to the edges of the universe and back in time to the beginning of time so we can understand the creation and evolution of the universe better than stone markers at Stonehenge

12) Provided power to run super computers and publish research and policy reports about supposed catastrophic man-made global warming.

13) Manufactured fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides for agriculture and

gardening.

14) Operated all equipment for farming, ranching, fishing and food processing,

15) Enabled management of forests, use of forest products, studies of wildlife migration, and protection of wildlife habitat.

16) Reduced and controlled pandemics.

17) Produced concrete and asphalt for millions of miles of modern roads and highways.

18) Produced steel and concrete for buildings and bridges. They are taken for granted. Imaging the restrictions for 8 billion people if there were no steel bridges across rivers, gorges, valleys. Imagine if there was no equipment to cut through hilltops and tunnel through mountains. The Dutch and Germans couldn't cross the Alps to get to Italy, Croatia, and Greece for wonderful summer vacations.

Professor Allison, you have been a tremendous inspiration for learning physics, understanding the science of low-dose radiation, and the importance of nuclear power.

Thousands of scientists, engineers, economists, government policy advisors, some elected officials, millions of everyday people and I encourage you to do three things:

1) Acknowledge the importance of fossil fuels and their by-products in creating the modern world and being irreplaceable for hundreds of years to come.

2) Recognize that it is going to take time to correct the problems created by anti-fossil fuels and anti-nuclear alarmists and their partners in

government since the 1970s.

3) Recognize that it is going to take time to develop ways to manufacture synthetic liquid and gas fuels to replace oil and natural gas.

Michael Shellenberger changed from being anti-fossil fuels, anti-nuclear. He is now doing an outstanding job getting the world going in the right direction.

We hope you will join us in making a better world.

Sincerely,

John A. Shanahan Civil Engineer Founder, website: allaboutenergy.net Denver, Colorado,

USA 80210

E-mail: john.shanahan@allaboutenergy.net ===================================================

Dear John

This is closely related to the Nocebo Effect.

Everyone has heard of the Placebo Effect where someone gets better because they think they have been treated when in fact they have not.

The Nocebo Effect is the malign opposite. Someone gets ill, and even dies, when they think they have been injured when in fact they have not.

See an interesting article

https://possiblemind.co.uk/voodoo-when-mind-attacks-body/

There are many others too

Kind regards

Wade

Wade Allison, MA DPhil wade.allison@physics.ox.ac.uk

Emeritus Professor of Physics and Fellow of Keble College, University of Oxford, UK

Hon. Sec. Supporters Of Nuclear Energy (SONE) www.sone.org.uk

"The Flight of a Relativistic Charge in Matter" 2023 Springer; "Nuclear is for Life" 2015;

"Radiation and Reason" 2009; "Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging" 2006 OUP.

Lieber John,

danke für die Mail.

Bin ganz deiner Meinung.

Habe gerade im Fernsehen gehört, dass viele Krankenhäuser in Deutschald vor der Pleite stehen.

Das liegt nicht nur an der Erhöhung der Löhne für die Beschäftigten und die allgemeinen Preissteigerungen. Die Kosten für Energie der Krankenhäuser haben sich im Verlauf des letzten Jahres verdoppelt.

Viele Grüße

Reinhard Storz

Marine Engineer

I am reminded of what happened to me about 5 years ago--after I had presented at the Nuke Soc and Health Physics meeting on linear no threshold at Pasco in 1918, performing as best I could to replace Ed Calabrese on the issue of junk radiation biophysics/linear no threshold toxicologic deceptions by fanatic anti nuke charlatans.

On the last day, I assume because I was a hard line advocate for reassessment of the LNT fraud, this group wanted a noisy doctor/lawyer to be part of their little army.

However a Brit member of the group, and possibly other members of the group banned me when they found out that I had equally strong and well developed advocacy on air pollution false claims of toxicity/lethality--EPA sponsored fraudulent claims aimed at most of the criteria pollutants of the Clean Air Act--small particles, ozone, ozone precursors (NO2 SO2), carbon monoxide.

These nuke rad LNT experts were in over their heads on the epidemiological tricks used by environmentalists to buff up a claim of lethality and harm from ambient air pollution--they knew too little about epidemiological and toxicological cheating and asked the organizer of the group to eliminate me--the guy in the group who knew what he was talking about from 20 plus years of battling the EPA on their air pollution claims and their lead cheater named Jon Samet.

It reminded me of a patient I had as a small town doctor, a woman who had a GI problem and when introduced to a physician consulting making rounds with me at the hospital said "Oh, you're a cardiologist," obviously disappointed.

I tell that story to the mechanics and carpenters and plumbers and electricians--and the moral is "stay in your lane" and you will be fine, otherwise study up before you offer opinions. Even nuke physicists can be stupid if they don't know the tricks charlatans can play in matters scientific and there are plenty of "scientists" who Richard Feynman warned about.

So our friend doesn't like the risks he claims exist because of the use of fossil fuels, and he considers fossil fuels a poisonous thing--gee, study a little epidemiology and toxicology, Dr, before you offer an opinion on the toxicity of ambient anything, including drugs/air pollution/water pollution/CO2/dietary components. Lots of junk science out there where the politicians and money people have set up shop and have an army of well paid experts are ready to advocate for their masters.

Oxford is a nice place, Orwell said it best--some ideas are so absurd only intellectuals would believe them. That fits with what Feynman warned about--cargo cult science, a failure to be properly skeptical and follow the evidence, one form of fallacy--the fallacy of relying on your own reference to your own well developed sense of competence, or alternatively the Pygmalion syndrome, a devotion to your own creations and beliefs. .

The lesson to learn is that even smart physicists can be hoodwinked by scaremongers who have computers that can data dredge/p hack and project scary risks while ignoring basic rules of toxicology and proof of causation as articulated by Bradford Hill. I was cancelled and I took it as a grand gesture of close mindedness driven by ignorance. It was an honor to be rejected by such a smart bunch of scientists.

John D. Dunn, MD, JD Texas, USA

Dear John

I agree with everything you say, I think. Fossil fuels have got civilisation where it is today. Yes. Hurrah. But by 2050 they should be replaced by nuclear power. Vastly more powerful, cleaner, more widely available, and should be cheaper.

Almost without exception the wars of the past 120 years have been about fossil fuels.

No more! Difficult, yes. Probably bloody. But certainly possible. Let's get on with it. Renewables are not up to the job.

Best

Wade Wade Allison, MA DPhil wade.allison@physics.ox.ac.uk

Emeritus Professor of Physics and Fellow of Keble College, University of Oxford, UK

Hon. Sec. Supporters Of Nuclear Energy (SONE) www.sone.org.uk

"The Flight of a Relativistic Charge in Matter" 2023 Springer; "Nuclear is for Life" 2015;

"Radiation and Reason" 2009; "Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging" 2006 OUP.

FYI, Nuclear cannot replace crude oil!

● Nuclear only generates electricity, but cannot manufacture products or fuels for jet, ships, military, and space programs, nor can it make the more than 6,000 products being used in society.

● Crude oil, on the other hand, is useless until its manufactured into fuels for the 50,000 jets in the world and the 50,000 merchant ships, and the military and space programs, and the more than 6,000 products made from the oil derivatives that come out of crude oil!

Ronald Stein, P.E.

Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”

Policy advisor on energy literacy for The Heartland Institute, and The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and National TV CommentatorEnergy & Infrastructure with Rick Amato. Energy Literacy website ===================================================

Wade:

Please let me butt in.

If you are going down that path, a more accurate statement would be: "Fossil fuels, Wind and Solar should be replaced by nuclear by 2050."

Regards,

john droz, jr.

Physicist

North Carolina =================================================

Ronald Stein:

Excellent reply. We will have to do more by electricity. Maybe by 2100, we will be able to have electric cars that work. We might have to make liquid fuels for air, road and off-road vehicles. The latter is for the farmer who grows your food.

Keep up the good work!

Regards,

H. Douglas Lightfoot Mechanical Engineer

Quebec, Canada ==================================================

Dear friends and colleagues,

Some of you may have been holding your breath while my friend Emeritus Physics Professor Wade Allison and I talked about fossil fuels, nuclear power and climate change.

Wade and I agree on many things and have had civil conversations.

Where we still disagree are:

1) The challenge of replacing oil and gas with synthetic fuels. That is a vast, necessary scientific and technical challenge.

2) The time frame for the transition to worldwide nuclear electric generating plants and additional nuclear power plants for manufacturing vast quantities of synthetic fuels for all things electricity can't do.

Wade says it can be / must be done by 2050 or 2100. I say worldwide use of nuclear electric generating plants won't / can't happen in 300 + years. To license, build, operate, maintain and decommission nuclear power plants AND reprocess used nuclear fuel needs good governments, economies,

education systems with minimum corruption, terrorism and local wars. To operate additional nuclear power plants to produce synthetic liquid fuels needs additional sectors of the economy and more peaceful tranquility. We need to develop uranium and thorium fertile nuclear "fuels." Even if fusion nuclear power becomes a reality, a big IF, it won't be the major source of power for hundreds of years.

I think it will take more than 500 years for the world to be running on nuclear powered electricity and nuclear manufactured synthetic liquid fuels.

Please see this article by Ronald Stein article on transportation, military, and space programs.

Meanwhile, those particular nuclear power advocates concerned about carbon dioxide, the molecule of life, causing catastrophic climate change must stop doing nothing to solve real problems in the nuclear power industry and stop falsely advertising that nuclear power can solve nonexistent man-made global warming issues.

Time will tell who is right. Taking the right course will get to a good solution sooner.

Best wishes to everyone.

John

John A. Shanahan, Dr. Ing. (Germany)

Retired Professional Engineer

Civil Engineer

Founder, website: allaboutenergy.net

Denver, Colorado, USA 80210

E-mail: john.shanahan@allaboutenergy.net

And I am Michael Jordan and can, at 5-9, dunk with both hands.

The only stronger fear factor scam on the planet than the bogus climate change scare is the fear of nuclear radiation-- more nukes are going dormant and retired than being built--are you guys confined at home with no communications?

You can thank Hermann Muller, commie and traitor but also a liar. He's your one hit mutation and cancer man.

--

John Dale Dunn MD JD

401 Rocky Hill Road

Brownwood, TX 76801 ===================================================

The discussion about fossil fuels has been interesting. I do not recall seeing anything about the use of those materials for other purposes. Natural gas is the primary ingredient in ammonia based fertilizers. Petroleum is used in the production of plastics and synthetic materials. I expect many of the pieces of everyday clothing could not be produced if petroleum recovery was banned. Most of these petroleum based materials are generated as by products from refining petroleum for liquid fuels.

I would like to thank all the participants in this discussion for their remarks and ideas.

Ken Kok

2557 Magnolia Court

Richland, WA 99354

Dear Ronald,

You are on the wrong track.

Nuclear can electricity and much more. For example production of Hydrogen around the clock, instead from time to time with elektricity from Sun or Wind.

In the 1980ies I worked on nuclear coal gasification with energy from a High-Temperature Reactor for production of gas and fuels.

Nuclear generating stations, like Stade in Germany and Gösgen in Switzerland, were used to deliver heat for paper- and cardboard production. The nuclear ship Akademik Lomonossow supplies electricity and district heating in Siberia.

Best regards

Reinhard Storz

Marine Engineer

Cologne, Germany ==================================================

Dear all,

The paper below describes the error of control-theoretic physics that misled climatologists into imagining that global warming would be very likely to be large enough to do net harm. In reality, the world is warming at half the rate originally predicted by IPCC in 1990. A one-page summary of the paper is also attached. Comments are welcome. - Christopher

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Hobbit Court, Dyrham, Chippenham, SN14 8HE UK

monckton@mail.com

=================================================

How climate scientists forgot the Sun was shining and predicted far too much global warming

Christopher Monckton

IN 1984 NASA scientists, in a paper on how much warming our emissions might cause, borrowed feedback mathematics from control theory, a branch of engineering physics. They misunderstood the mathematics they had borrowed and made an elementary error. The divide between scientific specialisms hid their error. Climatologists everywhere copied the error.

In 1850 the natural greenhouse effect was 28 degrees (8 degrees’ direct warming forced by naturally-occurring greenhouse gases plus 20 degrees’ “feedback response”, an extra, indirect warming responding to a direct temperature and proportional to it). Feedback response arises chiefly because warmer air can hold more water vapour, itself a greenhouse gas.

Based on 1850 data, climate scientists thought each degree of direct greenhouse-gas warming would become 28 / 8 or about 3.5 C final warming after adding feedback response.

Real-world data confirm this result. In 1990 climate scientists, misled by their error, had predicted 0.3 degrees’ warming every ten years from 1990-2100 and thus 3 degrees by 2100. In the 33 years since then, however, the warming has been only 0.14 degrees every ten years, implying not 3 degrees’ final warming from 2001-2100 but only a harmless 1.4 degrees.

The 260 Kelvin sunshine temperature must not be – but has hitherto been – overlooked. Effectively, climate scientists added its large feedback

response to, and miscounted it as part of, the actually tiny feedback response to warming by man made greenhouse gases.

Even a tiny change in feedback strength compared with 1850 could have a large impact on 21st-century warming. Increasing the true feedback strength by just 7% compared with 1850 would increase 21st-century warming by more than 100% to the midrange 3 degrees climatologists predict. Corrected feedback strength is so tiny, rising by only 0.01 units per degree of total direct temperature for each extra degree of predicted final warming, that it can neither be measured directly nor derived theoretically to anything like a sufficient precision:

Therefore, feedback-based predictions of global warming are no better than guesswork. The difference between the feedback strengths driving IPCC’s currently-predicted 2 to 5 C doubled-CO2 or 21st-century warming is only 0.03 units per degree of direct temperature. Thus, all predictions that rely on feedback analysis – such as diagnoses of feedback strengths from computer models’ outputs – are valueless. Real-world observation is best. It indicates less than 1 degree of warming from now to 2100. That will do no net harm to the planet.

For further information, see: The heavy cost of a non-problem.

Dear All,

https://hkrugertjie.substack.com/p/how-does-eskom-intend-toend-loadshedding

Under Paris we made the following commitment,

South Africa is likely the first real casualty in CO2 reductions, rolling blackouts can end tomorrow if the utility comes up with a budget to maintain the coal fleet. 16GW of units are basically standing in the rain.

all while forgetting this key fact,

regards

Hügo Krüger Civil Engineer

Paris, France

Nuclear energy can be used to produce hydrogen. But not by electrolysis of water, but by thermal splitting of water at 700/750°C. To do this, we need high-performance reactors (HTGR). This research has been underway at the EU's Ispra research centre since 1960.

So, to produce hydrogen without natural gas, we need to develop GEN4 technology.

Having worked on the subject, I wrote a book about it. « The Hydrogen Illusion » https://www.amazon.com/hydrogenillusion-Samuel-Furfari/dp/B08KHGDZNS/ ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Samuel(e) Furfari

Prof Géopolitique de l’énergie/ Energy geopolitics

ESCP London, ULB (emerite)

sfurfari@escp.eu

samuel.furfari@ulb.be

Dear All,

South Africa is likely the first real casualty in C02 reductions, rolling blackouts can end tomorrow if the utility comes up with a budget to maintain the coal fleet. 16GW of units are basically standing in the rain.

https://hkrugertjie.substack.com/p/how-does-eskom-intend-to-endloadshedding

Hydrogen is just a sophisticated scam, https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/down-to-earth/20210104-rivertransport-reborn

Regards

Hügo Krüger

Dear John,

I am with Wade. Nuclear can do everything fossil fuels can. It can produce hydrogen which can replace gas via the Sabatier process. Synfuels – yes their production is necessarily wasteful – can replace oil and kerosene. Ocean going vessels can be powered like the big ships of the navies: nuclear. The only point, were I disagree wit Professor Allison: I don’t think we can do it ’till 2050. Maybe by the end of the century, unless climate change develops faster than I expect.

All the best

Simon

Dr. Simon Aegerter Physicist

Säumerstrasse 26

8832 Wollerau, Switzerland

Nuclear can potentially do a lot of these, so can wind and solar etc.

But at what cost?

The issue with nuclear is not the energy density, it's the materials required to operate at those high temperatures. Fossil Fuels do what they do, because they are plentiful and easy to handle.

If we can move beyond the PWR then perhaps nuclear had an opportunity, but I haven't seen an SMR yet with a business case to rapidly replace the FF fleets.

Regards

Hügo Krüger

Dear Simon

You ask the right question: How fast can we do nuclear?

As fast as the French did it in the 1970s? As fast as the Chinese are doing now? Or wait for next year's model? It is true that there are very much more flexible ones coming up. Or wait until China is offering us nuclear at a price that we cannot beat?

Now the critical path is manpower and skills. Stop specialising in decommissioning and waste. Put youth to work on building!

Let's ask them

https://sone.org.uk/winners-of-the-sone-jubilee-essay-prizes/

The UK has talent but the Govt is frightened of making sience-based decisions - hence wind and solar etc.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

339629356_Nature_Energy_and_Society_A_scientific_study_of_the_opt ions_facing_civilisation_today

Best wishes

Wade

Wade Allison, MA DPhil wade.allison@physics.ox.ac.uk

Emeritus Professor of Physics and Fellow of Keble College, University of Oxford, UK

Hon. Sec. Supporters Of Nuclear Energy (SONE) www.sone.org.uk

"The Flight of a Relativistic Charge in Matter" 2023 Springer; "Nuclear is for Life" 2015;

"Radiation and Reason" 2009; "Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging" 2006 OUP. ===============================================

Dear Colleagues,

An added complication ...

Many of the nuclear power plants are sited on the coast (for cooling) ...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stationsuk.pdf ...

... may have to be abandoned within the next 20-30 years due to rising sea level, soon to accelerate dramatically I believe ...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 373756272_Antarctic_ice_collapse_will_raise_world_sealevel_3_metres_by_2100 Regards,

Roger

Dr Roger HIGGS (DPhil geology, Oxford, 1982-86)

Geology, Climate & Sea-Level Consultant

Geoclastica Ltd, UK

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Climate-and-sea-level-change-bySun-not-CO2

http://www.geoclastica.com ===============================================

Coast? Red herring!

Most US and French ones not on coast. Higher efficiency smaller SMR and AMRs need less cooling anyway. Waste heat should be used profitably!

Wade

Wade Allison, MA DPhil wade.allison@physics.ox.ac.uk

Emeritus Professor of Physics and Fellow of Keble College, University of Oxford, UK

Hon. Sec. Supporters Of Nuclear Energy (SONE) www.sone.org.uk

"The Flight of a Relativistic Charge in Matter" 2023 Springer; "Nuclear is for Life" 2015;

"Radiation and Reason" 2009; "Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging" 2006 OUP. =================================================

Sea levels are rising steadily at about 3 mm a year, with no sign of acceleration at all. So by 2100, they will be 230 mm higher than now – just about the span of my hand. I don’t see any threat either to nuclear power plants or super-rich politicians such as Barack Obama who have luxury homes at the coast.

Andrew Kenny

Nuclear Engineer

South Africa

Hello John and dear colleagues.

As I have mentioned before, the nuclear option is a political decision, not an economic or technical one. It is up to political leaders to decide to restart the decaying nuclear industry in the US and Europe. Unfortunately, the social effects caused by Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, exacerbated by the press and interested parties, have created a very strong fear that something like that could happen anywhere, anytime. If the electrification of the automobile industry continues as planned, the demand for electricity will skyrocket, and the only technology capable of supplying such demand will be nuclear. Regrettably and only after lack of electricity would strike society badly, the rebuilding of the industry and the construction of new nuclear plants will take decades, and the only transition generating resource will be gas. No wind no solar will be capable of supplying the electricity needed in the electric car future.

I am dreaming of a very large, important world meeting of scientists, engineers, biologists, economists, sociologists and yes, politicians, with a full pro-nuclear stand, not minor proposals, as navy men would put it “full ahead” for nuclear power….. A meeting like that would surely show that the industry is alive and well, that nuclear is the safest generating technology in terms of deaths/MWh, that without subsidies it is the cheapest one and the modern form of generating electricity for the next century. Diverse forms of exploiting nuclear energy to generate electricity exists, but none of them are capable of producing more MWh/US$, or MWh/km^2 or MWh/yr than the venerable PWR.

Have a nice day……..

Yours, José Maldifassi Engineering Professor

Dear All,

The question posed by John opens up a number of avenues.

Firstly, not touching the coal is actually the question of ‘not producing carbon dioxide’. So that is still a question which needs to be answered. We know that CO2 produced by any activity of mankind makes no meaningful difference to the temperature of the planet. Maybe the anthropogenic carbon dioxide makes the slightest difference, but so what.

It would appear that the observed rise in global temperature of around 1 degree since the time of Queen Victoria, Abraham Lincoln and Napoleon is related to alterations in cloud cover induced by variations in the magnetic field of the Sun. So it is going to happen no matter what mankind, or any animals do. So not eating meat, to cause the farmers to kill their cattle, to prevent them eating the grass is crazy. The Methane argument is bunk.

The greenies like to say, ‘since the industrial age’, to try to imply that the industrial age is to blame. That is a clever trick, and unfortunately it has been working, because of the fact that they repeated it so often.

But what if we look at global warming from the time of Shakespeare to Queen Victoria. I would like to see someone in this group play around with that. Shakespeare lived in the depths of the LIA.

The point is that anthropogenic CO2 - induced climate change is plain and simply wrong. But it is currently a political reality.

I am trying to raise funds to privately build an SMR. We are getting major interest from around the world, but everybody says that they are interested in the fact that nuclear produces no CO2.(www.stratekglobal.com)

Sources of funds are all linked to the CO2 propaganda. So, I have to say that

our reactor produces no CO2. I never say that it will help in climate change. I have no doubt that the entire world will change from coal to nuclear. The physics and engineering are so plain and simply in favour of that, that it has to happen.

If you look on the Internet for pictures of the first motor cars. You will find pictures of horse drawn carts and coaches going down the road with cars passing by. That was the transition taking place and many people at the time said. This motor car thing is just a passing phase, and the real transport will always be done by horses. They were wrong. It is amazing to think that at the beginning of the First World War by far the majority of military transport was horses. In terms of the historical passage of time, the First World War was just yesterday.

Where are we now with nuclear?

The world has changed dramatically in favour of nuclear energy during the past 18 months. I am convinced that many political leaders are in favour of nuclear, and don't believe the CO2 story. But all are too scared to say so in public. A couple of years ago, when I was in Paris, I spoke to Emmanuel Macron, and I said to him that: “I'm promoting French nuclear more than you are.” He replied. “Yes, I realise, but remember I have those crazy greens out in the street and one wrong word from me and they start throwing bricks through car windows.” So as the mood of the people changes in favour of nuclear, and they realise the nonsense of the CO2 story, then political leaders will come out and say so, as if it was their idea all along. Political leaders run behind the crowd, shouting ‘follow me’. Their first objective is to ‘stay popular’. Macron has, in the past year, announced his strong support for nuclear energy and has even initiated in SMR programme.

Certainly, Putin has helped nuclear a huge amount in this past year. The Ukraine story has made Europe realise just how crazy their energy systems are. The idea of ‘energy security’ is now very visible and is giving political leaders the opportunity to go for nuclear. Furthermore, more journalists around the world, and people-in-the-street are realising that the climate change stories are just not as true as they thought. This is all giving journalists the opportunity to write popular articles changing the narrative.

The journalists are discovering that they get popular support and that gives them the courage to keep going. At the same time, the ‘Just Stop Oil’ crowd and the crazy Woke crowd are so damaging to their own cause that they are very effectively shooting themselves in both feet.

I predict that over the next two years there will be a big rush for nuclear. In fact demand will outstrip supply.

We already see the Uranium price rising dramatically, and countries consequently trying to position themselves for nuclear.

In December, the US tried to pull a dirty trick on us and threatened to withhold nuclear fuel supplies to South Africa, for our power reactors, unless we signed a document undertaking never to produce our own nuclear fuel. We used to produce nuclear fuel entirely, including the enrichment, prior to 1994 when the US intervened and damaged our nuclear fuel supplies such that we were not allowed to do the enrichment anymore. That forced us to start importing some nuclear fuel from the US. However, the current. US move also includes TRISO fuel for SMR's. We're supposed to stop producing that. We refused, and the dispute is now ongoing. But we obviously have more than one supplier, and also a two year stockpile of fuel. So, I don't know how long the fight will continue.

We are also world leaders in TRISO. We have a small production plant in Pretoria.

In fact, it appears that nobody in the world can make the TRISO fuel that we can make.

Over the past two years, we developed a TRISO variant for a U.S. company, but the US company insists that nobody anywhere is told about it.

The US company produced articles in the US, complete with pictures, but all the pictures come from Pretoria, and 100% of the work was done here. But the US articles all implied that it was all done in the US, with not a single word about South Africa in the articles. This upsets our people.

When one young engineer here walked through our production facility with

a friend, the US company hammered him. They took the poor guy to court and for three months he fought like crazy about ‘giving away the American IP’. The young guy won, but it cost him a fortune and spiritually damaged him quite a lot. I had to sort of act as, ‘psychologist’ and ‘legal adviser’ as I tried to explain to lawyers what IP meant in the context of nuclear fuel, so that they knew what they were talking about, in the legal sense.

Also, what has happened recently is that the BRICS group of countries has just been expanded, by the addition of another six countries. This is a very dramatic political shift, but it seems that this has hardly been reported. In the West.

When I did a Zoom with Australians last week, they did not know about it. The new BRICS-Plus is now financially stronger than the G7.

The BRICS-Plus group is pro-nuclear.

The political shift, as a result of the Ukraine affair, is far more dramatic for the West than is the Ukraine war itself. It amazes us here that very few people in the US and Europe seem to have grasped this.

So back to coal.

Coal will be used for decades to come, as nuclear gently but firmly takes over.

Meanwhile, I feel that coal can be used in other ways. For example, catalytically cracking it to produce other chemicals. In South Africa, we have a large company which converts coal to liquid fuels. One third of South Africa’s petrol comes from coal. Aviation fuel is also produced. The company is SASOL. But interestingly, the company also produces cosmetics like lipstick and face cream from coal. South Africa is also the only country in the world which produces aspirin from coal.

So I can't see the coal being left in the ground.

What I see is small nuclear reactors providing the heat to crack the coal into a range of chemicals.

Currently, half of the coal delivered to SASOL is used to burn to provide the heat to chemically crack the other half. Imagine the increased profit if all the coal transported daily by train gets converted to chemicals, by using nuclear heat. Our reactor, the HTMR-100 is perfect for that. By the way, South Africa was the first country in the world to start developing a commercial SMR. That was 25 years ago. I was part of the team that in the 1990s sat down and figured out that we needed a gas-cooled small reactor, far inland, because that would be the future need. South Africa has minimal water inland, so we had to go for Helium-cooling, since there are no large dams or rivers, particularly near the large mining centres.

So, to finish my long saga; coal is really important, as is oil, and I can't imagine them being left in the ground. What we do with him will change in time.

In 30 or 50 years’ time, school history teachers will teach classes about the strange things that went on at the beginning of the 21st Century.

School teacher: ”There was this strange belief in anthropogenic Global Warming, which led to catastrophic energy systems in so many countries, which were really damaging to their economies. This resulted in countries like Germany discovering that large segments of their industry moved out of their country and moved to the Middle East and Far East. This permanently damaged Germany, and nuclear power came about there. However, they permanently lost large blocks of their industry, which went to countries such as the BRICS formation. This is one reason why there was such a major political power shift from about 2020 to 2035, from the traditional West to the former communist East.

Remember to study for your test next Tuesday, and if you don't, the School Head will remotely switch off your cell phone for a week.”

Regards,

Kelvin Kemm Nuclear Physicist South Africa

Kelvin, Well said.

What’s worse is that the public has bought into the current rhetoric “lock, stock, and barrel” to STOP THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS, which simulates the resurrection of the 1978 mass murder-suicide of religious cult members of the Peoples Temple, led by Jim Jones, Jonestown, Guyana.

When I watch the TV coverage of protesters, both politicians and teenagers, carrying signs to STOP THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS, what I SEE is:

RID THE WORLD OF AIRPORTS, JETS, SHIPS, SPACE PROGRAMS, AND STOP SOCIAL MEDIA, AND THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONES, COMPUTERS, and PORCELAIN TOILETS that are dependent on the derivatives manufactured from crude oil!!

As John Stossel so often said, “give-me-a-break”!

Ronald Stein, P.E.

Ronald.Stein@EnergyLiteracy.net

Co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”

Policy advisor on energy literacy for The Heartland Institute, and The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and National TV CommentatorEnergy & Infrastructure with Rick Amato.

Energy Literacy website Ronald Stein (energy consultant) Wikipedia page

If you’re not on distribution please sign up here for more: Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

To Roger,

Few know sea Levels were 2-4 meters higher just 4-8K years ago than today.

Walter Horsting, Principal

Bus. Dev. Intl. LLC.

Sacramento, CA 95835

1-916-213-1724 M

visionar@comcast.net

https://businessdevelopmentinternational.biz/developers/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/walterhorsting ===============================================

Yes Wade, right. Nuclear should replace fossil. Better, it should have prevented the wind and solar renewables but given these are with us nowcompliments of our dumb political and profit-focussed enterprise classesit should replace them too.

But not by 2050, or any other specified short term date.

But only when economies can afford it and countries become developmentally ready. Obviously not all countries can go off fossil at the same speed seeing their present reliance on coal and oil varies from 35 to 90%. (refer Hugo’s email in this group of 20230921) and transition all in the same timespan to a nuclear technology that many economies at present have not even ‘tasted’. It should happen at their own affordable speed, depending on multiple economic, financial, and especially developmental factors. Countries can only run nuclear plant while having a class of people understanding the relevant physics, thermodynamics and engineering, and

having a broad industrial base.

And not because fossils warm the climate catastrophically. They don’t. First, the climate warms but not catastrophically. Then, CO2 is a small side effect. Fossils barely change the climate which does its own changing/warming/cooling as per some two dozen cosmic, galactic, solar (EM radiation, solar wind, magnetic fields), planetary (yes, other planets influence us, a little), and earthbound short term ocean and atmospheric cycles and effects (a lot) that we cannot influence. It is long past the time that everybody, especially educated people, stop falling for the politically created CO2 scam.

And also not because fossils will peak.

One fossil will peak, namely coal on earth’s surface, but only on a century scale, providing ample time for economies to mature and go off coal slowly. Coal must continue to be used during the long transition to nuclear, but in a cleaner way than the quick-and-dirty 19th and 20th century way. Need for cleaning up power plants’ exhaust from particulates and sulfur- and nitrogen-oxides is a given, and clean-coal technologies have started to exist. After all we no longer trudge ankle deep through medieval horse dung either.

But because coal is also a feedstock for various industries (steel, cement, …). Rather use nuclear to make energy and keep the coal for its feedstock role.

Carbon dioxide need not be filtered out, it is the essential plant food. The coal formation process some 100s of millions of years ago had depleted the CO2 in the atmosphere and earth was running very low at 280 ppm lately. It is better to use the remaining few hundred years of coal to increase CO2 again as much as possible (thank the lord on bare knees it is happening a bit) and make earth as fertile again as it used to be when coal was forming.

Those who think human-made CO2 does all the warming have missed some real science.

The other fossil, hydrocarbons (gas and oil), will not peak because hydrocarbons are not really fossil but came with the formation of the planetary system, and landed up in the cooler outer planets, including earth. Recall that low hydrocarbons (CH4 and a few up) have been measured present in distant nebulae. Our less dense outer planets and some of their moons have (frozen) oceans of the stuff at their surface. Earth’s hydrocarbons are present nearly everywhere in the top 100km of earth’s body, most of it deep down, and – being light - are forever gravitationally pushed to the surface (this happens slower here than on the less dense outer planets). In that sense they are even somewhat ‘renewable’ over the long term. Hydrocarbons have use as energy generation source and as chemical feedstock/raw material for practically all things used by humanity. So not using hydrocarbons for energy generation makes more available for feedstock. And they will have to be mined ever deeper even while being abundant. I expect mining technology to be able to keep up with requirements far into the future. It could until now. US has only reached 4km but can mine sideways, Russia has reached 12 km deep. There is still far to go.

So we should go nuclear, but not because it emits no CO2. That is practically irrelevant, CO2 is a small side effect in a climate that does it own varying already. But because it is the superior technology and can do what coal can do, but much better. It is coal’s natural successor technology. Very high energy density, very low volume easily manageable waste. It cannot do what hydrocarbons do, namely be feedstock for the world’s materials’ requirements. (Yes, it can be used to make process heat that can then even be misused to split water thermally, only to subsequently recombine when burning or in fuel cells – both very wasteful detours to make energy).

Nuclear will have to stay with fission for a long time to come. But it should

not stay with the wasteful use of less than a percent of the mined uranium by using only U235, but should switch to the breeder process that can use most of mined U238 as well as thorium. The present stock of ¾ century “spent fuel” holds trillions of dollars in energy value good for thousands of years of energy generation. Breeder technology needs major development, and soon.

And, of course, the effort to achieve fusion must continue until such time that it either works, or until it is solidly proven that it is not possible to achieve an acceptable efficiency. Whatever time that takes.

That the world around the year 2000 is stuck with a moronic uneducated illterate and innumerate political class with a sick agenda that promotes politically motivated nonsense like the Montreal, Rio, Kyoto and Paris agreements, who live by junk science and understand absolutely nothing of any of the above, is the tragedy of the millenium.

Kind regards,

Geert F de Vries

PO Box 1468, Groenkloof 0027, Pretoria

mobile 083 260 8261

geertdev@iafrica.com ================================================

Dear Geert

I am with you most of the way.

Only problem for me is that you seem to KNOW that emissions are not causing the climate to change.

I do not know that, and find anger unpersuasive.

I do know that the local atmospheric consequences of coal burning are awful. They were in London in 1950s (I remember) and are nowadays often in Delhi and Beijing. So, I look forward to an 80% nuclear cleaner age for primary energy. In 2050 I would be 109, so I leave it to the children.

Nuclear is coming on much faster than you think but there is no need to put a date on it.

Science comes first. The rest is left for economics and politics to fight over, as they will.

I will put it this way. I think Sunak has made a wise move. SA is obviously more difficult.

Education is key - and that leaves many people out, as I think you agree.

I hope you are right about CO2 - but hope is not good enough.

Best

Wade

Wade Allison, MA DPhil wade.allison@physics.ox.ac.uk

Emeritus Professor of Physics and Fellow of Keble College, University of Oxford, UK

Hon. Sec. Supporters Of Nuclear Energy (SONE) www.sone.org.uk

"The Flight of a Relativistic Charge in Matter" 2023 Springer; "Nuclear is for Life" 2015;

"Radiation and Reason" 2009; "Fundamental Physics for Probing and Imaging" 2006 OUP.

Prof. Wade Allison,

of course we (you, too!) DO all know that current emissions do NOT cause CC.

If emissions caused CC then without emissions there would be no CC. But this is unphysical and untrue: there is always CC!

Some might say: the last 100-years' CC has been faster. But this is untrue: there was no GW in the years 1940-80, actually there was a global cooling!

And in the years 1999-2014 the global-T's were flat (hiatus, they say).

Hence we can confidently say that the last 100 years emissions have nothing to do with CC.

Franco

Battaglia

Enzo Ferrari University of Modena, Italy

PS. The above is one of about 12 arguments that refute CC due to CO2 emissions. A logical argument: if CO2 implies CC then no-CO2 would imply no-CC; but no-CC is untrue hence...

Astrophysicists/climate experts William Happer and Richard Lindzen have been provided the correspondence and I have attached their submission to the EPA on proposed new regulations on CO2 producing fossil fuel sources. They decimated the arguments and demonstrated the benefits of CO2 while debunking the amplification feedback claims that allow for the CO2 obsession in spite of the well established saturation level and heat absorption dynamics of atmospheric CO2--from this point of CO2 (a little over 400 PPM) the CO2 greenhouse effect tails off dramatically with any CO2 increases as described and shown by Happer and Lindzen. Absorption limits are what they are. Geert de Vries is holding a fortified position-fortified by the evidence. This is no fairytale--we work with evidence, don't

we?

Although we can all deplore the condition of the urban air that was the result of coal burning and lack of mitigation of the emissions, there never was and never will be evidence that the ugly smog was lethal, or harmful. If it had been it would have been easy to show. Failure to show toxicity becomes, finally, evidence that the toxicity is not in evidence,and aesthetics are not toxicology unless you have feelings you consider to be rational thought. Let's start with Paracelcius' rule about dose makes the poison--in the case of real atmospheric catastrophe, the historical catastrophic events are unique because of inversions that trapped noxious Sulfur gasses and extreme levels of heavy coal emission in the London early 50s. Smog as a general consideration is an aesthetic problem, not a toxicity/lethal/harmful problem--dose makes the poison.

All the nuke scientists and engineers know that's why one hit toxicity/linear no threshold is unscientific and doesn't follow the evidence, instead is aesthetic or riding a political horse. Wanna reverse the industrial revolution and progress, find something to label an existential harm to the planet or the human race--get everybody worked up.

The research on small particulate air pollution is all junk epidemiology-small associations (relative risk of less than 1.2) propped up by p hacking and produced by data dredging is not toxicology.

I won't repeat the arguments by Happer and Lindzen, any more than I would try to imitate Horowitz at the piano playing Liszt or Chopin. They nailed Dr. Allison--first round knockout. Read their excellent submission to the EPA--it's a little long but everyone reading this reads for a livin'.

John D. Dunn, MD, JD

Texas, USA

Well said John.

I would like to add that there are VERY many legitimate reasons and high expectations for Geert de Vries’ so-called HOPES.

The raw science and laws of Nature, coupled with the vast amount of direct evidence (the non-fudged and non-manipulated variations of evidence) clearly and strongly suggests to ANY AND ALL honest and truthfully informed observers that additional atmospheric CO2 has NO SUBSTANTIAL OR EVEN MEASURABLE effect on global warming and therefore not on climate change either.

To put our faith, money, and human efforts on the ridiculously small chance that CO2 is anywhere near being the demon that it’s claimed to be by climate alarmists is worse than foolhardy. It is suicidal on the grandest of scales. It is also in denial of real science and real evidence.

Now who are the climate change deniers?

Russ Babcock Biochemist Canada

First published at the Heartland Institute.

Today, Russia and China account for seventy percent of new zero-emission nuclear power plants.

Greetings!

As the USA and many world leaders continue the pursuit of “unreliable electricity”, from wind turbines and solar panels, that can only generate intermittent electricity at best from available breezes and sunshine, Russia, China, France, and Finland have emerged as the leaders in nuclear power generation to achieve continuous uninterruptible, affordable,

and zero emission electricity.

According to recent reports, Russia and China are currently leading the world in nuclear electricity generation. About 60 nuclear power reactors are currently being constructed in 15 countries, notably China, India and Russia. Together, China and Russia account for 70 percent of new nuclear plants.

The United States, which once led the way in nuclear energy, now lags behind with only a handful of new reactors under construction. The dominance of Russia and China is likely to continue for the foreseeable future as they invest heavily in new technology and expand their nuclear power programs.

Many of the next generation nuclear plants will require a new form of enriched uranium - called High-Assay, Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU). Russia is currently the only country to produce HALEU.

Global demand for affordable, reliable, secure, and clean electricity is soaring because of rising security concerns and ambitious climate commitments. Today, both Russia and China lead the US in terms of the number of agreements with sales of their nuclear energy hardware and services attached.

Two of America's primary competitors for zero emission generated electricity also happen to be major geopolitical rivals: for Russia and China, nuclear exports are not just lucrative, they are an effective means of entrapment and exerting geopolitical influence. When Russian and Chinese state-owned nuclear companies export nuclear hardware and equipment, they get to set the standards on safety, security, and nonproliferation. Also, Russia and China usually structure their deals with long-term financing and fuel supply, meaning they are an avenue to cementing long-term ties and exporting their values as well.

The US was once the dominant global supplier of civil nuclear technologies, but that market position has since eroded with the emergence of new international vendors , led by Russia and China. Accordingly,

America’s ability to compete in the nuclear market impacts our national security and democracy that are on the line.

While the nuclear movement continues to be led by Russia and China, the United States, through subsidies and tax incentives, continues to provide financial incentives that are aiding and abetting Communist China’s egregious exploitation of children—some as young as 6 years old and becoming more dependent on Chinas Xi Jinping’s brutal dictatorship.

America must compete to secure the myriad of national interests. At stake with this market is trade, climate, energy and national security, geopolitics, nonproliferation, and more.

The geopolitical value of nuclear trade and commerce means that Moscow and Beijing are actively involved in helping their state-owned enterprises win reactor build projects abroad.

The Russian and Chinese governments will use various diplomatic instruments—ranging from preliminary MOUs to more comprehensive cooperative agreements—to support their respective state nuclear companies in winning overseas deals.

Moscow and Beijing use collaborative R&D arrangements to familiarize partners with their respective technologies. Through these arrangements, Russia and China invite students from partner countries to train and study at domestic universities and institutes. Ultimately, these efforts can influence the decision of client states once the procurement of civil nuclear technologies begins in earnest.

Russia and China are leading in hard agreements, and their presence in international markets is growing. The data is consistent with assessments from the last several years that Russia is by far the world’s leading exporter in nuclear power plants in terms of reactors planned and under construction—Russia has hard MOUs with 45 different countries. Russia’s Grip on Nuclear-Power Trade Is Only Getting Stronger.

Even though its emergence as a global nuclear supplier has been relatively recent, even China leads the US on hard agreements with 13. China is also

planning ambitious buildouts of nuclear domestically, giving it a significant industrial base for export.

Not only are many of these foreign countries ready for significant nuclear generated electricity deployment, demand for nuclear energy, is soaring globally as electricity security concerns become paramount and the imperative to decarbonize grows.

Competition in the international nuclear energy market is high politics. To rise above the competition, America would need a coherent and strategic vision to guide their policies on nuclear energy and civil nuclear exports, to compete with Russia and China.

Sadly, as America and a few other European countries continue to focus on ridding the world of fossil fuels, for just occasional electricity generated from breezes and sunshine, America is resigning from the nuclear power generation industry race and relinquishing that control to Russia and China.

Meanwhile, the lack of Energy Literacy among President Biden and his counterparts in Europe is perpetuating and reflected in these satirical John Stossel styled “give-me-a-break” comments about the lack of Energy Literacy among President Biden and his counterparts in Europe:

· The best part of the efforts by President Biden and his counterparts in Europe to stop the use of fossil fuels is that it would ground Air Force One!!!!

· However, it would also ground the other 50,000 jets in the world and leave the 50,000 merchant ships tied up at docks AND discontinue the 6,000 products made from oil that are supporting the 8 billion on this planet!

· Wind and solar can only generate electricity but cannot manufacture anything for society!

· Thus, without a replacement for the fossil fuels that provides the products supporting today’s humanity, President Biden and his

counterparts are focused on jumping out of an airplane without a parachute!

The future of America is looking darker and darker, not only with its growing dependency on intermittent electricity generation from wind and solar, but also with diminishing access to the products manufactured from crude oil that support all of humanity, the infrastructures that did not exist before the discovery of oil a few centuries ago such as, the medical industry, communications, electronics, militaries, and space programs.

Ronald Stein, P.E.

Good morning Andrew.

As you point out, the pollution that is created by the burning of coal is very real, but we have long since learned how to essentially eliminate that pollution, such that we can and do burn coal in power plants without contaminating the atmosphere like we did back in the 1950's in London. This is where GENUINE environmentalists spend THEIR effortsmitigating against and abating REAL pollution. Over the decades, we have been very successful in doing just that. Yes, there's more cleanup to do, but the point is, we CAN, and we don't have to ban using coal (or any other hydrocarbon) as a fuel to do it.

This is very different from where the pseudo-environmentalists spend their efforts. Their mission is to demonize CO2 as a catastrophically dangerous pollutant. When enough of our western world governments and the

populations they govern BELIEVE that to be the case, then their drive to ban the use of hydrocarbons as fuel becomes that much easier to peddle. The mission of these phony alarmists has absolutely nothing to do with any concern they disingenuously purport to have regarding the environment, the weather, the climate, or anyone's well-being OTHER THAN their ownand that well-being is purely political and/or financial on their part.

They parade their CULT as science. It is NOT. The science and the evidence over the millenia clearly and strongly tells us that instead of banning the use of hydrocarbons, or worse yet, extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, we should be focused on learning to mimic Mother Nature, and produce MORE liquid hydrocarbons on massive and commercially viable scales. THAT would be very wise, since it would enhance the carbon cycle of life AND provide transportable, reliable, clean, AND RENEWABLE energy for as far into the future as we can see.

Best regards,

Russ Babcock