The GKG Twin Blessing course comprises 8 lectures, although the last is optional, and the first may not be needed for some audiences. It could be given in a single day seminar, or, in an academic environment, in 7 or 8 separate lectures.

New nuclear capacity won’t show up until around 2030

Meta is writing more checks for nuclear investment, even though the new capacity tied to those deals is unlikely to come online until around 2030. The company says it will need the new power to run its hyperscale datacenters.

Facebook's parent company says it has inked agreements with three outfits - TerraPower and Oklo are developing new reactor technology or building fresh sites, while Vistra is supporting existing nuclear plants. All three will deliver electricity into the grid rather than straight to Meta's own facilities.

The hidden costs of powering civilization //

I want to ask you a question we don’t usually think about when we flip a light switch or fill up a tank…and that is, where does the energy actually come from?

Sure, sunlight, wind, and even coal and gas are technically free, they are energy sources just sitting there in nature to be used… some facing more limitations than others. But turning them into power we can actually use to run Santa Claus’ chocolate factory or light our christmas trees? That’s a whole different story.

This is where the idea of primary energy comes in. It’s actually not about the electricity we see listed on our bills, but is really about all the raw energy we have to pull from nature, to process, convert, and deliver before we get anything useful, such as 24/7/365 electricity, every single second we need it. And once you start looking at energy this way, things get a lot clearer.

We often hear that solar and wind energy is “clean” and basically “free” and it does not have thermal losses like a nuclear or gas-fired power plant. But to make this wind and solar energy usable and reliable in the real world, we have to build enormous support systems, mine rare minerals, manufacture components, build storage, upgrade the grid, maintain everything, and then, eventually, dispose of it. It’s not just about a solar panel and a little breeze blowing over a turbine blade.

Now compare that to conventional fuels like coal or gas or oil… they might lose more energy during combustion in power plants or engines, but the upfront infrastructure is simpler, and the systems last much longer, with the average coal or gas plant running for a good 30-60 years, nuclear usually far longer. That is not nothing and this should be considered when speaking of “free” energy.

Understanding primary energy helps cut through the feel-good stats and get down to the physics. It assists in showing us the full cost of electricity (FCOE), time, money and materials used in making any source truly usable…and once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

That is why looking at the real problem with the “Primary Energy Fallacy” often used by supporters of grid-scale wind and solar, is worth it! //

The “Primary Energy Fallacy” a term coined eloquently by many, is the idea that all primary energy from fossil fuels must be replaced by an equivalent amount of “renewable” energy. However, those people say, this would not be necessary because more than two-thirds of primary energy is lost as wasted heat during the conversion processes.

The misunderstanding occurs in the belief that wind and solar generate electricity without any losses (a secondary or tertiary form of energy) while coal, gas, uranium may have a high energy content but have “thermal losses” ~60-70% during processing. This PE fallacy argument is used for power generation and also for internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE) in a slightly adjusted form.

• Stated Primary Energy Fallacy 1: “The conversion of gas and coal to power results in a loss of around 60%. This means that one unit of primary energy from wind or solar, replaces two units of that of gas/coal”
• Stated Primary Energy Fallacy 2: “The conversion losses during end use in internal combustions engines ICE are also high. Electric motors are much more efficient. Most car engines ‘lose’ 70% of fuel energy, which means that one final energy unit of electricity replaces three units of gasoline/diesel”

The late, great Dr. Petr Beckmann was editor of the great journal Access to Energy, founder of the dissident physics journal Galilean Electrodynamics (brochures and further Beckmann info here; further dissident physics links), author of The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear (Amazon; PDF version) and the pamphlets The Non-Problem of Nuclear Waste and Why “Soft” Technology Will Not Be America’s Energy Salvation. (See also my post Access to Energy (archived comments), and this post.)

I just came across another favorite piece of his and have scanned it in: Economics as if Some People Mattered (review of Small is Beautiful by E.F. Schumacher), first published in Reason (October 1978), and reprinted in Free Minds & Free Markets: Twenty-Five Years of Reason (1993). Those (including some libertarians and fellow travelers) who also have a thing for “smallness” and bucolic pastoralism should give this a read.

Small is Beautiful is the title of a book by E.F. Schumacher. It is also a slogan describing a state of mind in which people clamor for the rural idyll that (they think) comes with primitive energy sources, small-scale production, and small communities. Yet much–perhaps most–of their clamor is not really for what they consider small and beautiful; it is for the destruction of what they consider big and ugly.

… The free market does not, of course, eradicate human greed, but it directs it into channels that the consumer the maximum benefit, for it is he who benefits from the competition of”profit-greedy” businessmen. The idea that the free market is highly popular among businessmen is one that is widespread, but not among sound economists. It was not very popular in 1776, when Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was published, and it has not become terribly popular with all of them since–which is not surprising, for the free market benefits the consumer but disciplines the businessman.

If the free market is so popular with business, what are all those business lobbies doing in Washington? The shipping lobby wants favors for U.S. ships; the airlines yell rape and robbery when deregulation from the governmental CAB cartel threatens; the farmers’ lobby clamors for more subsidies. What all these lobbies are after is not a freer market but a bigger nipple on the federal sow.

Petr Beckmann

• Hammer and Tickle Hammer and Tickle $ 12.00
• The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear $ 15.00
• Access to Energy - 5 Volume Set Access to Energy - 5 Volume Set $ 199.00
• Fancy Napkin Foldings Fancy Napkin Foldings $ 8.00
• Musical Musings Musical Musings $ 20.00
• A History of Pi A History of Pi $ 16.00
• The Non-problem of Nuclear Waste The Non-problem of Nuclear Waste $ 8.00
• Orthogonal Polynomials for Engineers and Physicists Orthogonal Polynomials for Engineers and Physicists $ 39.00
• Radiation by an Antenna With Non-Gaussian Phase Errors Radiation by an Antenna With Non-Gaussian Phase Errors $ 8.00
• Electromagnetic Feilds and VDT-itis Electromagnetic Feilds and VDT-itis $ 8.00
• The Radiation Bogey The Radiation Bogey $ 8.00

Illuminating lecture by the late, great Petr Beckmann. For more on Beckmann, see my posts:

• Access to Energy (archived comments);
• A Basic Physics Reminder for Solar Energy Advocates;
• Beckmann’s Economics as if Some People Mattered, or, Small is Not Beautiful;
• Carson: Libertarians for Junk Science.

Most countries stopped testing nuclear weapons after they signed the global Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) starting from 1996. The treaty emerged amid growing concerns about human health and the environment above the ground, underground and underwater, from nuclear pollution.

The US conducted its first nuclear test in 1945. In all, the US has conducted 1,032 nuclear tests, according to the United Nations. The US last tested nuclear weapons in 1992. It signed the CTBT in 1996 but never ratified it.

The Soviet Union conducted 715 nuclear tests, the last of them in 1990. Since the USSR’s dissolution in 1990, Russia – which inherited the former superpower’s nuclear arsenal – has not conducted any nuclear tests. In 1996, Russia signed the CTBT, ratifying it in 2000. But Putin revoked Russia’s ratification of the treaty in 2023.

China last tested nuclear weapons in 1996. //

France last tested nuclear weapons in 1996. It conducted 210 tests between 1945 and 1996.

The United Kingdom conducted 45 nuclear tests from 1952, with the last one conducted in 1991.

Since the CTBT came into effect, 10 nuclear tests have taken place.

In 1998, India and Pakistan conducted two nuclear tests each. India and Pakistan have never signed the CTBT.

According to the UN, North Korea has conducted nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016 and 2017. It conducted two tests in 2016. North Korea has also not signed the CTBT.

Nine states have nuclear arms, including the US, Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

For decades, Israel has maintained nuclear ambiguity, also known as “opacity”. It has never publicly confirmed or denied the presence of its nuclear weapons programme.

adiation. Should I be concerned about it? Is it safe? Is it harmful? How do I know when it is okay and when it isn’t? Some people say it is nothing to be concerned about, but others say even a little is too much—what should I believe?

We all have questions about radiation and it isn’t easy to sort through the available material to find answers. Sometimes the information is too technical or it is too hard to find just the answer you’re looking for. The purpose of the information on this Web site is to help you find answers quickly and easily.

The radiation warning symbol should not be confused with the civil defense symbol designed to identify fallout shelters. For more information about the latter, view the collection item Civil Defense Fallout Shelter Sign.

Radiation Warning Symbol (Trefoil)
Radiation warning symbol

The civil defense symbol for a fallout shelter consists of a circle divided into six sections, three black and three yellow. The general form is very similar to the above however there is no central circle. The Office of Civil Defense originally intended fallout shelters to use the radiation warning symbol with the circle in the center and the three blades, but this idea was rejected because a fallout shelter represents safety whereas the radiation warning symbol represents a hazard.

The three-bladed radiation warning symbol, as we currently know it, was "doodled" out at the University of California Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley sometime in 1946 by a small group of people. This event was described in a letter written in 1952 by Nels Garden, head of the Health Chemistry Group at the Radiation Laboratory: "A number of people in the group took an interest in suggesting different motifs, and the one arousing the most interest was a design which was supposed to represent activity radiating from an atom."

The first signs printed at Berkeley had a magenta (Martin Senour Roman Violet No. 2225) symbol on a blue background. In an earlier letter written in 1948, Garden explained why this particular shade of magenta color was selected: "it was distinctive and did not conflict with any color code that we were familiar with. Another factor in its favor was its cost... The high cost will deter others from using this color promiscuously." Explaining the blue background, he said, "The use of a blue background was selected because there is very little blue color used in most of the areas where radioactive work would be carried out." //

Despite Garden's view to the contrary, most workers felt that a blue background was a poor choice. Blue was not supposed to be used on warning signs, and it faded, especially outdoors. The use of yellow was standardized at Oak Ridge National Lab in early 1948. At that time, Bill Ray and George Warlick, both working for K.Z. Morgan, were given the task of coming up with a more suitable warning sign, a blue background being too unacceptable. Ray traveled to Berkeley and picked up a set of their signs. Back in Oak Ridge, Ray and Warlick had their graphics people cut out the magenta symbols and staple them on cards of different colors. Outdoors, and at a distance of 20 feet, a committee selected the magenta on yellow as the best combination.

The Office of Civil Defense originally intended fallout shelters to use the radiation warning symbol (yellow background with a magenta circle in the center of three magenta blades) but this idea was rejected because a fallout shelter represents safety whereas the radiation warning symbol represents a hazard. The above version of the national fallout shelter sign was introduced to the public by the Defense Department on December 1, 1961. It was intended to only be used with federally approved shelters. Unlike this example, these signs often had yellow arrows below the words "fallout shelter" to indicate the direction to the shelter. In 1962, contracts were negotiated for the production of 400,000 aluminum outdoor signs and one million steel signs for indoors.

The document concentrates accurate information about radiation into a a tri-fold that can be read and understood in just a few minutes. It is a valuable presentation handout, would be a useful addition to the material offered in doctor’s offices, and should be a part of any classroom discussion about radiation.

Robert Hargraves, who has lived a life of achievement including writing a well received book titled Thorium: Energy Cheaper than Coal, founding a business, serving as Chief Information Officer for Boston Scientific, serving as an assistant professor and associate director of the computation center at Dartmouth College, publishing numerous peer-reviewed articles on a variety of topics and earning a PhD in Physics from Brown University, researched and produced “Radiation: The Facts” as a “labor of love”.

Hargraves tapped a deep pool of expertise by requesting reviews and comments from his extensive contact list that includes radiation biologists, health physics professionals, and nuclear engineers. Though space on a brochure is obviously limited, Robert has provided the references supporting the statements on the brochure on his web site and given creative commons license for others to republish his work.

We are writing to express our concerns with a January 30, 2014 article by Rita F. Redberg and Rebecca Smith-Bindman. The article is alarmingly titled, “We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer”, and is accompanied by a frightening cartoon that appears to be a doctor holding an X-ray film, and wearing a gas mask and helmet. The picture and title are the first clues that sensational claims follow, and the article does not disappoint in that regard, though it falls far short in offering prudent medical advice to frightened patients and parents.

The authors only mention in passing that medical imaging can save lives, and quickly move on to assert that there is little evidence of better health outcomes from current scanning practices. They do not mention, for example that the National Lung Screening Trial recently found that former smokers who received CT screening were 20% less likely to die from lung cancer and 7% less likely to die from any cause, compared to those who were screened with lower dose chest radiography. They do not mention the studies demonstrating the clear clinical benefits of mammography, bone mineral densitometry, and CT colonography. They do not mention the hundreds of studies that suggest that the body’s natural defense systems are quite capable of dealing with very low doses of radiation – like those that have existed on our planet since its beginning and those associated with modern medical imaging.

This essay responds to an article by Stanford Professor Mark Z. Jacobson et al, 
100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World. Their controversial WWS roadmap has several interesting features and benefits. //

Several authors have pointed out the impossibility of this Stanford WWS roadmap. Jesse Jenkins and Samuel Thernstrom published Deep Decarbonization of the Electric Power Sector. Mathijs Beckers wrote The Non-Solutions Project of Mark Z. Jacobson.

Misled by Jacobson, climate activists such as Bill McKibben of 350.org calls for world war-like mobilization of nations to effect the $125 trillion WWS roadmap.

This present essay describes a doable, affordable liquid fission (LF) power roadmap to solve the multiple issues of climate change, air pollution, and poverty reduction.

When a single RIF (Radiation Induced Foci) is faced with multiple DSB's (Double Strand Break in DNA), it can end up rejoining the wrong ends, creating a possibly viable misrepair. A few of the viable mutations will escape our immune system, and a few of those could become cancerous.

If double DSB's are the real problem, then dose rate and repair time becomes all important. The probability that a hit will cause a DDSB is proportional to the inventory of still unrepaired DSB's at the time of the hit.3 To over-simplify, if the repair processes can keep up with the damage, and keep that inventory low, we are OK. If the damage rate is higher than the repair rate, the inventory of unrepaired DSB's will build up, and the probability of a DDSB and a misrepair will grow rapidly. //

If we conservatively assume 10 metabolic DSB's per cell-day, and 0.04 DSB's per millisievert then it would take 250 mSv per day to equal the number of DSB's produced by our metabolism. 250 mSv is about 25,000 times normal background radiation. If normal metabolic damage is equivalent to 250 mSv/d, then any damage associated with 2 mSv/d would almost certainly not be detectable. At the same time, it is not surprising that we start to detect harm at 20 or so mSv/d. At that point, the cell is forced to deal with a substantially higher than normal number of DSB's. ///

Nature has equipped us with a remarkably effective DNA repair system. She had to do this because our O2 based metabolism damages our DNA at a rate that is more than 25,000 times the damage rate from average background radiation.

Despite technological and regulatory hurdles, Amazon remains convinced that small modular reactors (SMRs) are the answer to the cloud titan's power woes.

Last fall, the house of Bezos announced a $500 million investment in SMR startup X-Energy. On Thursday, the e-tailer revealed that X-Energy's Xe-100 SMR designs would eventually supply Washington State with "up to" 960 megawatts of clean energy.

"Eventually" is the key word here as construction isn't expected to start until the end of the decade and the plants won't begin operations until sometime in the 2030s.

About six-in-ten U.S. adults now say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, according to a Pew Research Center survey fielded in April and May. That’s up from 43% in 2020, driven by increasing support among both Republicans and Democrats.

A line chart showing that a Majority of Americans continue to support more nuclear power in the U.S. //

Americans remain more likely to favor expanding solar (77%) and wind power (68%) than nuclear power (59%). But while support for solar and wind power has declined by double digits since 2020 – largely driven by drops in Republican support – the share who favor nuclear power has grown by 16 percentage points since then.

How We Can Make Nuclear Cheap Again Paperback – March 30, 2025

by Jack Devanney (Author)

This book has a joyful message. We can simultaneously solve the Gordian Knot of our time: the closely coupled problems of energy poverty and global warming. The solution is cheap nuclear power, and we can have cheap nuclear if we want it.

Here's the Good News:

1) Our fear of radiation is vastly overblown. A providential Nature has provided us with DNA repair mechanisms that can easily handle dose rates 100's of times above normal background. Dose rates that exceed the repair capabilities of our bodies will almost never be encountered by the public in even a very large release.

2) Thanks to its insane energy density and the resulting tiny resource requirement, nuclear power is inherently cheap, less than 3 cents per kWh cheap. Indeed nascent nuclear in the 1960's did-cost less than 3 cents/kWh in today's money. Nuclear power should consume far less of the planet's precious resources than any other source of electricity, while producing nearly no pollution and very little CO2.

Nuclear's problems are man-made. Nuclear power never escaped from its government sponsored and controlled birth. In the process, it developed a regulatory regime explicitly mandated to increase costs to the point where nuclear power is barely economic, while at the same time convincing everyone that low dose rate radiation is perilous.

But what is man-made can be man-unmade. All that's required is an acceptance of these two providential realities, a change in attitude, a metanoia. With this change, the way forward becomes obvious, and not that difficult to implement.

This little book explains why (1) and (2) are true, and then traces nuclear power's decline into a prohibitively expensive mess. Finally, it offers a way out, a system for regulating nuclear which will force the providers of nuclear power to compete with each other and new entrants on a level playing field, in which case the inherent cheapness of fission power combined with technological advances will push the cost of nuclear electricity down to its should-cost.

Nuclear would undercut fossil fuel almost every where. Fossil would be relegated to a bit of peaking and backup for unplanned outages. Intermittents would be limited to a few niche markets. This would all be automatic. No need for subsidies or mandates. The poor would be immensely richer. Electrification of transportation and industry would explode. Desalinization would take off. Synthetic fuels could become viable. Skies would be clean. All this electricity would require little land and produce almost no CO2. The planet would be cooler. Could there be a more joyful message?

according to LNT, if every human ate a banana a week, bananas would kill 1600 people a year. In the same scenario, SNT kills one person every 2.5 million years.

Now, class, let's get back to basics.
Repeat after me:

It's not dose. It's dose rate profile.

Good.
Repeat after me:

LNT does not say eating a banana is safe or unsafe.
LNT says eating a banana has a 4 in a billion chance of killing you.

Repeat after me:

SNT does not say eating a banana is safe or unsafe.
SNT says eating a banana has a 1 in a billion-billion chance of killing you.

Whether those risks are safe or unsafe is up to you.
Class dismissed.

Mopani says:
July 22, 2025 at 1:18 PM

“Investors studiously seek to minimize or mitigate uncertainty.”

Absolutely 100%. The present operational method of the NRC militates against this very desire for certainty. ALARA and LNT both destroy certainty, and as others have pointed out, recent builds have proven it, with the NRC changing the rules mid-build. At minimum, once a construction license is awarded, the NRC should not be allowed to change the rules that the license was awarded under.

Mopani says:
July 22, 2025 at 1:28 PM

Separately from my previous comment, the US NRC logo in the article says everything about the viewpoint of the NRC: “Protecting People and the Environment” — from nuclear power evidently.

A better tagline would be “Clean & Safe Energy for All”. The NRC as presently constituted is not about promoting safe energy, its about promoting safety.

An illustration: If the first rule of traffic safety is “safety first” then 35MPH would be the maximum speed limit. If the first rule of traffic safety is “keep the traffic moving” then speed limits and other rules take their rightful place — accidents impede the flow of traffic, so traffic rules should help prevent accidents, but the rules become subservient to the primary goal of keeping traffic flowing.

The safety rules around Nuclear power should be subservient to the rule that nuclear power should be plentiful, cheap, and safe. Those are not unachievable goals. The failure of the NRC is to regard nuclear accidents as somehow more special than any other industrial accident, contributing to the culture of treating nuclear power as more dangerous than any other industry. As Petr Beckmann noted in the title of his book, “The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear”, depriving society of plentiful, cheap and safe energy is more hazardous.

As a retired nuke plant employee I take it as kind of an insult to read the utilities caused this Dense-pack problem to save a few bucks. After 47 yrs of commercial operation Davis Besse is still waiting on the Federal Government to come and get even one of THEIR spent fuel assemblies. //

mjd
Aug 16

Here's a link to proof the the US Government owns the Spent Fuel and even has to pay the utilities to store it. It's a breach of contract for the government not to take their Spent Fuel and proven in a court of law: https://www.buildsmartbradley.com/2024/08/united-states-ordered-to-pay-breach-of-contract-damages-to-nuclear-operator-in-spent-fuel-dispute/