...Nascar has been running (E-15) and has been getting better mileage....
Gasoline has 116,090 BTUs/gallon.
Ethanol has 76,330 BTUs/gallon or about 34% less.
Therefore E10 (10% Ethanol) has 112,114 BTUs/gallon, which is about 3.5% less than straight gasoline.
If there is less energy in the fuel then you're going to be hard-pressed, assuming equal engineering prowess and thus an equal efficiency of extraction of that energy and conversion of it to turn the wheels, to get better mileage on ethanol-laced gasoline.
(Incidentally this is one of the reasons that diesels have a fuel economy advantage; #2 diesel has 128,450 BTUs/gal, or about 11% more energy per gallon of fuel.)
I'm going to say all this once, 'cause it's getting tiring.
And anyone who fails to present facts to refute what I'm laying out and pops up on my Facebook page, on my comment area of this Ticker, or anywhere else that I have moderation privileges will find themselves facing this:
I'm happy to entertain a debate. I'm very tired of people running scaremongering crap without a scintilla of scientific evidence or facts behind their claims or thinly-veiled scaremongering.
Japan’s government will lead “emergency measures” to tackle radioactive water spills at the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant, wresting control of the disaster recovery from the plant’s heavily criticized operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501)
Yes, radioactive materials are all over that site. Yes, the water contains radioactive isotopes. Yes, this is bad.
Now let's quantify things.
First, the current risk of a catastrophic release of material. I will define that for you -- a rapid, aerosol release of radioactive isotopes that is sufficient to meaningfully increase the risk of health deterioration or death somewhere other than mainland Japan in the reasonably-immediate area of the reactors.
There is one place such a risk can reasonably arise today: The spent fuel pools.
There is bad news and good news in that regard. The bad news is that for all intents and purposes all of the fuel inventory in those pools is where it was at the time of the tsunami. Further, the damage done to the pools has not been repaired nor can it reasonably be in many cases; the pools will have to be emptied of spent fuel instead. That's bad because it's possible for the remaining integrity of the systems there to be lost.
Now the good news: The heat released from decay decreases at an exponential rate once the fuel is removed from the reactor and is not in active use. It has been two years, more or less, since the accident. A lot of the risk of a spent-fuel pool disaster has thus been taken off the table simply through the passage of time.
I do not have an inventory of the pools and as far as I know there has been no public release of that inventory, including when each of the fuel bundles in there was removed from active service, how many of them are new ("unburned") fuel assemblies that were slated to be into active service, etc. All of this matters -- a lot -- to the risk profile involved.
There are two risks with unloading the pools. First, it theoretically possible for a criticality event to take place in the pool during that operation. The pools and operating protocols normally preclude this, but the damage done during the accident means that the geometric protections built into the way the bundles are stored may or may not be entirely intact. We must assume that at least part of that protection is gone.
However, even with that protection gone it is pretty hard to get an accidental criticality, especially with spent fuel. It's not impossible by any means, but the reactivity of spent fuel is considerably lower than that of fresh fuel and water is necessary as a moderator. So paradoxically a loss of cooling actually reduces (to effectively zero) the risk of such an event.
Incidentally, "criticality" does not mean "boom" (as in "Atom Bomb"); it means a chain reaction as would take place in the reactor for power production. It is physically impossible to get a "prompt critical" (atom bomb) event with fuel enriched to the level used in this style of power reactors; the fuel is not "rich" enough.
The final point on an accidental criticality event in the pools is that if if happens it will leave exactly nothing to the imagination. There will be no hiding it and no question if it occurs. This sort of incident, if it happens, will truly "ring the bell" in a way that cannot be hidden or "un-rung."
Now the bad news: a loss of cooling capacity in those pools, if it goes on long enough or is of a catastrophic sort, will cause the bundles to overheat, and if they are "fresh" enough they can still violate the cladding and potentially have what amounts to a decay-heat fed fire. That's the "really awful" scenario. And the paradox is that eventually those bundles have to be unloaded from the pools.
But -- and this is important -- time is our friend in this regard. The longer you keep them cool under water, the more of that decay heat is dissipated and the lower the risk of an overheat incident. Eventually you can remove them to air-cooled casks, which would be the ideal situation. The challenge is doing it without taking a lethal dose of radiation in the process; the water in the pool is a good radiation shield but you have to get the fuel into a cask (made of lead or similar that provides adequate shielding) without delivering lethal radiation to the people operating the equipment.
Of course this risk has to be balanced against the possibility of a second earthquake that topples the structures, which must be presumed to be materially weakened. That would be a true catastrophic event.
Now on to the reactors and water leaks.
Nobody knows where the cores are in the reactors themselves that were operating at the time of the event. There are many who claim that they have violated not only the reactor vessel but also the secondary containment and are literally in the earth. There is no evidence to back up this claim at the present time and if this had happened and was leading to ridiculously high level releases of radioisotopes into groundwater where is the evidence of this in samples from both water on or near the site and surrounding sea?
The inside of the pressure vessels (what's left of them anyway) is an unholy mess with radiation levels high enough that even robotics cannot survive for any material amount of time, so this presents a serious challenge of verification -- at least for now. And that makes the claims that this has happened impossible to scientifically refute except by exclusion since nobody can take a picture and effectively "go look."
But exclusion is pretty-good science, and if in fact the cores were effectively eroding away en-masse into the groundwater there would be hard proof of this via isotopic analysis of the water in the vicinity.
So.... where is it?
Now let's look at the release of radioactive material that we know about -- I'll quote Forbes:
Tepco admitted on Friday that a cumulative 20 trillion to 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium may have leaked into the sea since the disaster.
Let's use the higher number.
40 trillion is a lot, right?
A "bequerel" is a very small unit of radiation. It is one decay event per second.
To put this in some perspective a single ordinary banana has about 15 Bequerels of activity. That is, if you measured all of the breaking down (and naturally-occurring) potassium in said banana, you'd count 15 decays per second.
Hmmm... you say, that's a hell of a lot of bananas.
Ok, I'll give you that.
But there are a hell of a lot of bananas that grow (and are eaten!) every year.
If you remember, in Leverage (look to the right) I talk about using coal as a feedstock for a sustainable energy paradigm. I put forward this path because coal naturally contains a small amount of Thorium, which is fertile. It is also (mildly) radioactive and in fact is where most of the radioactivity that comes from coal plant emissions is found.
Now those emissions cause lung cancer. We know this but we tolerate it because we want our lights to come on when we flip the switch. So the question becomes exactly how much radiation do those plants emit into the atmosphere?
There answer is about 0.1 ExaBequerel, or 1 x 10^17 Bequerels each and every year.
Fukushima is releasing less than 1/1000th of that amount.
Now that might sound like the end of the conversation, but it's not. See, not all radiation is equal. There are three rough categories and then one modifier when it comes to human exposure.
The three categories are the types of emission -- alpha, beta and gamma.
Alpha is the most hazardous when inhaled or eaten. Alpha radiation is an atomic nucleus (of mass 4; it is a helium nucleus in atomic composition) and is stopped by a single piece of ordinary paper -- or intact skin (the outer layers of which are dead, by the way), but because it's so large (comparatively) it has a high risk of damaging DNA in the body. As a result alpha emitters outside the body are almost completely harmless. Inside the body they are extremely dangerous because the first thing they are likely to contact is alive and they can and do cause cancer along with acute radiation poisoning (and death.) Thus, the risk from coal-fired power plants and their emissions when it comes to lung cancers. In relative terms Alpha has a risk factor (when consumed) of about 20. But outside the body, with intact skin, the risk from alpha approaches zero.
Beta is next. It is less-hazardous as it is basically electrons (or positrons.) Electrons are smaller (by a lot!) than alpha particles and thus are less-likely to cause a mutation. Note that "less-likely" doesn't mean not dangerous, however. Beta can be shielded against with a thin piece of aluminum or similar material. Note that beta emissions are intentionally used in a medical PET scanner (positrons.) The risk of Beta on a relative factor is about 2 and it will penetrate the skin, so it's dangerous unless there's something reasonably solid (e.g. a thin sheet of metal, etc) between you and it.
Finally there is gamma radiation. Gamma can be emitted when a decay event happens and the nucleus is left in an excited and unstable state. It behaves like all other forms of electromagnetic radiation (e.g. radio, infrared, etc) except that it is of much higher energy and frequency, and thus shorter wavelength. It is ionizing radiation, meaning that it is capable of knocking electrons out of an atom's orbit and thus does direct damage to tissue. However, being a photon they do not have charge. Gamma is difficult to shield against because it is a photon and a wave as opposed to a particle (Ed: Yes, I know, that's a simplification but close enough for this purpose); material thicknesses of lead, concrete or other dense materials (such as water) are required to provide material shielding against gamma. The relative risk of gamma is "1" (what the others are measured against) but no material help is provided by ordinary materials as it goes right through them (other than from things like concrete, lead and interestingly enough water, all in reasonable thickness.)
Ok, now let's look at the spectrum of risk materials at Fukushima and focus on a couple of particular interest.
First is Tritium. Much has been made of the fact that there's a lot of it over there, and there is. Tritium decays by beta emission, which is moderately dangerous. (It is that emission, incidentally, that makes "tritium weapon sights" and similar things work in conjunction with a phosphor.) Tritium is "heavy hydrogen" and thus can form any compound that hydrogen can, including water. It is that water that many people are freaked out about. The beta decay that comes from it is relatively-low energy and while dangerous, is not especially hazardous.
But water is water, and biologically Tritium does not bioaccumulate for this reason. It has a half-life after exposure of one to two weeks, depending on the species that ingests (or swims in) it. This isn't great but it also isn't catastrophic, and dilution of course cuts exposure.
Tritium is naturally produced in all water-cooled reactors. It is also intentionally produced for use in nuclear weapons.
Leaving that aside in 2003 56 pressurized water reactors in the US released approximately 1.5 x 10^15 Bequerels of Tritium.
Look up above. Fukushima has released 40 x 10^12, or 4 x 10^13 Bequerels total since the accident, or (given 2 years) 2 x 10^13 annually.
Approximately one hundred times as much Tritium was released to the environment in one year in normal operation by US pressurized water reactors as has been released by Fukushima.
Argue with the facts folks, because the facts are that while the radiation released is indeed a big number using Bequerels requires context as that's a really tiny unit of radioactivity -- and as such it's really easy to scare people by using "big" Bequerel counts.
From this you might conclude that I am not concerned at all with this incident.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let's first start with the basics -- the scaremongering that "there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation."
This may be technically true but it's also immaterial, because we're all surrounded by radiation. I have a geiger counter on my desk. Right now it says the local background radiation is 0.150 uSv/hr. I can't get around this fact and neither can you, so the premise that "there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation" is true but misleading because risk is non-linear and you can't avoid all radiation anyway.
Dose of course is a matter of concentration. If you took that entire 2003 Tritium release you'd be very dead, very fast. You're not because it's spread all over the place and thus has an inconsequential impact on your total body radiation dose.
So how could Fukushima "get" you in terms of real risk?
Incidentally anyone claiming that there is an ongoing risk of radioactive Iodine release must be immediately challenged to show where active criticality is occuring now and if they can't they're either ignorant and thus should be ignored or they know they're full of crap and are trying to scare you in some fashion.
The reason is that radioactive Iodine of interest (I-131) is only produced in an environment of active fission and has a half-life of eight days. After 10 half-lives there is effectively none of whatever you started with left. This means that within three months after the accident it was all gone.
The bottom line is that there's zero evidence of contamination in amounts that are biologically relevant thus far, despite the repeated claims of those who would like it to be otherwise and are peddling "we're all gonna die" scaremongering nonsense.
If you claim that there is such evidence then let's see you produce it. It should not be difficult because the elements in question (Cesium and Strontium) both decay by beta emission (as does Tritium.)
In short, let's see your evidence if you have the contrary point of view. What I see here over the last two years is no change in background radiation levels and I've also yet to find any evidence of contamination in food that passes through this household.
Mayor Bloomberg is trying to claim that Sandy had something to do with "climate change." He's full of crap. Sandy was a freak storm that hit as it did due to a high pressure system in the middle of Atlantic that forced it westward, amplifying with forward motion the normal easterly wind of a tropical system. While the central pressure was very low as hurricanes go it was a yawner.
In terms of storms the United States hasn't been hit by a Cat 3 or better since Wilma; seven years of time have passed. If human-caused "Glo-bull" warming is responsible for more and more-furious storms, where are they? Missing, that's where.
Mayor Bloomberg intentionally forgets that in the 1950s three successive storms in one year's time hit the east coast and each of them individually did far more damage than Sandy. Yet the 1950s were well before the alleged "explosion" in man-caused Glo-Bull warming took place.
Humans put about 3.5% of the total CO2 into the atmosphere via fossil fuels. Of that the OECD nations, that is developed nations, are responsible for about half. The rest is from developing nations such as China and India. China and India are not going to stop developing, and they are projected to be emitting far more CO2 than we within the next 10 years, with that trend continuing onward. Yet they are explicitly omitted from any alleged forcible plan to play "tax the rich", which means that any such plan will do exactly nothing to address this non-problem and the promoters of these taxes know it.
And that, my friends, is granting the premise that humans are actually responsible at all for changing climate. The problem is that there's scant evidence to back that up and what does exist is tainted by intentionally-tampered with data, selective editing of data sets out of thousands of samples with the others obscured or destroyed, knowing modifications to analyticalk software complete with comments that document an intentional skewing of results to fit a desired claim and more.
This is nothing other than a scam and people like Bloomberg ought to be ejected from the public square and politically hung for running it. Theft is against the law in both custom and fact, and those who commit it by fraud under color of law or authority deserve the harshest of punishment.
We do have a problem with fossil fuels but it's not what's presented. Rather, the problem is that this rock is finite and the easily-accessed sources have been burned up. We have intentionally ignored the inescapable fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch but there are paths forward that can work which we as a people have ignored on purpose due to conflicts of interest both financially and within our military machinery for war-fighting materials. We also allow to go unanswered ridiculous and facutally bereft scaremongering on nuclear power predicated on our current installed base of technology after we intentionally crippled it by refusing to both close the fuel cycle and exploit known nuclear technologies that are both safer and provide a means to produce fossil-fuel "lookalikes" that can run our transportation infrastructure.
The simple fact of the matter is that energy lies at the root of all economic progress. I don't care whether people like this fact or not, it is a fact. While Bloomberg is somewhat less-strident than many in this regard the simple reality is that you cannot have both economic progress and a stifled energy infrastructure, and the so-called "green alternatives" are thermodynamic frauds when one attempts to actually replace what's being done today.
We can either face these facts and develop reasonably economical alternatives, including nuclear power, or we will have the choices made for us as the cost of continued extraction and production of energy, including so-called "green" power, goes through the roof. Down this road lies the precise disaster that Bloomberg cares to claim we can avoid. Indeed it is that inherently evil called diesel fuel that enabled the NY Stock Exchange to open Wednesday morning.
Bloomberg would like you to forget that.
I don't intend to let him get away with it.
A Chesapeake Energy Corp.-backed company and Oxford Catalysts Group Plc are planning U.S. factories to make diesel, gasoline and jet fuel from gas, which fell to a decade-low price this year. Their goal is to make motor fuels more cheaply and easily than oil-based products produced at giant refineries, and all within two years.
That's Fischer-Tropsch, which I have highlighted before. It works with any carbon source, and natural gas is of course CH4 (mostly.)
The key is of course the cost of not only the feedstock for it but also the energy required to put into the system in order to get the liquids.
This is half the puzzle.
Between the two we can solve the problem.
Right now, we can significantly help when it comes to liquid fuels.
We just need the will. It is not a question of ability.
The solution to half of our budget problems -- those centered around defense -- is found here. Forward progress will make a monstrous difference in our economic future.
As noted, this is not new technology -- the Germans figured it out long ago. It's simply technology, like LFTRs, that we refused to exploit -- even though we do know how.
We must stop being stupid for our own good.
Those who refuse to investigate the premise behind their opinions often find themselves on the wrong side of a debate through ignorance rather than circumstance.
About 40 percent of the world’s electric power is generated from burning coal, which is second only to oil in contributing to global energy use.
And affordable coal may soon be running out just as fast as affordable oil is.
No resource can withstand the pressure of an exponential growth in demand. China burned 3.7 billion tons of coal in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, compared with 1.2 billion tons in 2000. Today, China uses almost twice as much coal as the U.S. while possessing only half of its reserves.
That last statement is true. Now if we could just get people to recognize that exponential growth never works forever -- and usually results in tears for those who try to press it well into the range where pairs of exponential functions start to diverge from one another.
Like, for instance, debt and GDP.
But let's talk about coal and nuclear energy again, because people seem to forget.
I used to be a strong advocate for conventional nuclear energy -- the sort we all use today. The reason is simple -- E = MC^2 is one of those rare physical phenomena where the "law of large numbers" works for you instead of the other way around.
Specifically, "C" is a very big number. And C squared is a monstrously big number. This allows for very small amounts of "M" (matter) to be turned into enormous amounts of "E" (energy.)
That's the "magic" of nuclear power. That's all it is, when you get down to it -- the exploitation of a physical fact that is embodied in that simple equation.
Conventional nuclear power has a number of drawbacks. Our original design for nuclear energy in the United States, and most other nations, involved a fairly complicated fuel cycle. Natural uranium ore contains a tiny bit of U-235, the only naturally-occurring isotope (in any rational quantity) that is fissile -- that is, which will split when struck by a neutron, releasing that aforementioned energy.
There are several features and misfeatures of this fuel cycle. Let's go over the misfeatures first, because the list is long and troublesome.
First, traditional "light water" reactors produce relatively-poor quality heat energy. This is due to the critical temperature of water and the fact that light water reactors use the water as both a moderator and coolant. The moderator is necessary to slow down the neutrons; without it they are traveling too fast for optimal fission and the chain reaction cannot be maintained. This also means that the reactor must operate at extremely high pressures, as keeping water in liquid form at temperatures over 100C requires elevating the pressure in the system. Any loss of integirty in the reactor vessel or its plumbing is catastrophic as water heated to beyond 100C will instantaneously flash-boil to steam when the pressure is released, leaving the fuel without coolant. Since the fuel continues to generate heat from decay products for quite a while after the reaction ceases maintenance of system integrity and circulation of the coolant (as well as having a place to reject the heat to in the event the generators are unavailable due to being offline or damaged) is a must.
The poor-quality heat energy also limits where one can place such a reactor for power purposes. The maximum theoretical efficiency of any thermal system is limited by the difference in Kelvin between the temperature of the heat source and that of the heat sink; that is, the turbine inlet and outlet. Since water freezes at 273K (0C) and the critical temperature is 647K (374C) the maximum theoretical efficiency is about 58%. In actual operation this is not achieved as the operating temperature is typically around 300C and efficiency is further limited by the cooling water source and heat transfer to it in the condensers. Typical actual operating efficiencies are around 33% and achieving this requires extremely high volumes of cooling water for the condensers, which is why modern plants are all built near large rivers, lakes or oceans.
Finally, conventional uranium-fuel-cycle plants inherently produce both lots of long-lived transuranic and actinide elements, including plutonium. Plutonium is fissile itself and can be chemically separated, as it is a distinct element and then burned for nuclear fuel. But transuranic and actinide elements tend to be extremely dangerous as they have very long half-lives and thus remain radioactive at hazardous levels for thousands of years or more. Plutonium is inherently produced by any reactor that has Uranium-238 in the fuel, as U238, when irradiated by neutrons, captures a neutron and then undergoes two beta decays to become Neptunium-239 and then Plutonium-239.
Now the rub -- these nasty elements, along with some shorter-lived ones, have to go "somewhere" and the fuel that is used has to be dealt with. The original design of our nuclear system in this nation envisioned both reprocessing of spent fuel and a crop of fast breeder reactors, cooled by liquid sodium, to produce fuel at a higher rate (that is, to produce fuel at a rate more-quickly than they consumed it.) But the fast breeder design is even more dangerous to operate than a light water reactor in practice, as the coolant is liquid sodium metal, and that coolant reacts explosively with the water vapor in ordinary atmospheric air. As such an accident in which contamination of the coolant has occurred (say, due to rupture of a fuel pin) and that coolant is then released into the environment produces an instantaneous airborn release of huge amounts of radioactivity as the sodium burns immediately on contact with the air. (For the record, we came relatively close to exactly that sort of nightmare scenario at Fermi I in Monroe MI, a commercial Fast Breeder which has since been de-commissioned. It suffered a meltdown due to a cooling passage becoming blocked.)
Jimmy Carter added his 2 cents to this mix through executive order, shutting down reprocessing. Ronald Reagen immediately reversed that order when he took office, (correctly) deducing that not reprocessing fuel would eventually lead to a dearth of fuel availability and a pile-up of waste products. But the damage had been done; private industry was unwilling to risk losing their investment and today no commercial reprocessing takes place in the United States despite an abortive attempt to restart it beginning in 1999 (yes, 13 years later, there is still no reprocessing going on.)
Years ago, despite all of these limitations, I was a strong proponent of "conventional" nuclear energy. The reason is simply thermodynamics and the reality of economics -- behind every unit of GDP is a unit of energy, and if you cannot exploit the energy your economy will stall and ultimately fall back. Risk is part of every human endeavor, and the fact of the matter is that using coal for electrical generation causes deaths as well -- they just happen to be diffuse and occur one at a time. Humans are terrible judges of both diffuse and point-source but unlikely risks -- we are scared to death of nuclear accidents and radiation poisoning but dying from lung cancer and asthma attacks caused by coal-fired power plants one at a time doesn't seem to bother us so much, even though something like 10,000 people a year in the US (and many more in places like China) succumb.
There is, however, a better way.
We experimented with Thorium as a nuclear fuel in the 1950s and 1960s. Carried in a molten salt there are a number of significant advantages to this fuel cycle. Chief among them is that the reactors operate at atmospheric pressure, have a strongly-negative temperature coefficient (that is, reactivity drops as temperature increases) and because they operate with their fuel dispersed in the coolant and rely on a fixed moderator in the reaction vessel shutting them down is simply a matter of draining the working fuel into a tank with sufficient surface area to dissipate decay heat. This can be accomplished passively; active cooling of a freeze plug in the bottom of the reactor vessel can be employed during normal operation and if for any reason that cooling is lost the plug melts, the coolant and working fluid drains to tanks and the reactor shuts down.
In addition thorium is about as abundant in the environment as is lead, making its supply effectively infinite.
Finally, these reactors operate at a much higher temperature; the units we have run (yes, we've built them experimentally in the 1950s - 1970s!) run in the neighborhood of 650C. This allows closed-cycle turbine systems that are more efficient than the conventional turbines in existing designs, making practical the location of reactors in places that don't have large amounts of water available. That in turn means that the risk of geological and other similar accidents (e.g. tsunamis!) is greatly reduced or eliminated. Finally, the fuel cycle is mostly-closed internally; that is, rather than requiring both fast-breeder reactors and external large-scale reprocessing plants to be practical, along with a way to store a lot of high-level waste these units burn up most of their high-level waste internally and produce their own fuel internally as well as an inherent part of their operation.
So why didn't we pursue this path for nuclear power?
That's simple: It is entirely-unsuitable for production of nuclear bombs as it produces negligible amounts of plutonium.
That's the bottom line folks.
Now here's the other part of the story. Bloomberg also talks about how coal is getting more expensive as we've burned up most of the easily-accessible anthracite coal and are chewing through bituminous coal at a prodigious rate. This is true, and is going to turn into a bigger problem over time.
But the LFTR -- thorium based nuclear power -- can solve this problem and our oil problem.
As I've previously written and feature in Leverage, there is thorium in coal. We can extract it, use the thorium to produce energy, and then turn the coal into synthetic fuel.
The latter half of this was proved during WWII by Germany and today produces fuel in South Africa; Sasol runs a coal-to-liquids plant using conventional energy and it produces fuel at a very viable cost.
The clever part of this scheme when it comes to LFTRs for the power source is that it's thermodynamically reasonable. LFTRs produce process heat at about 650C and the Fischer-Tropsch reaction requires heat in the 300-350C range. As such a combined plant that does both, without first going to electricity (and suffering the loss of efficiency involved in doing so) is quite practical, with the remaining heat used for electrical generation. Envision a plant that produces both electricity and liquid hydrocarbons for our cars and trucks.
Now add to this that what is little-understood about CTL is that it's not COAL to liquids, it's carbon to liquids.
And carbon is, quite literally, everywhere -- including in the atmosphere.
The only barrier is cost, and as coal becomes more expensive we will find it economically feasible to condense CO2 out of the atmosphere as is done today for commercial production of CO2 and use that as the carbon feedstock required for liquid hydrocarbons.
But all of this, along with a secure energy future, requires that we have an abundant source of energy to begin with.
There is no such thing as a "free lunch" but the closest we can reasonably accomplish is in fact nuclear power, and there are far safer and more-efficient means available to us than what Bloomberg and others, who are all looking at the "conventional" option as the only choice, opine upon.
Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker
The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.