Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
And they need to have at least part of this working by April 14 or sooner. Even that might not be soon enough. They need this now. Break down dockside loading equipment into pieces that can be transported by helicopter, unless they can get a floating dock adjacent to the Fukushima plant in three or four days. Convert this equipment into what is required on site. Have redundant teams on each project. After all, they are only trying to save their country.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 11:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
After all, they are only trying to save their country
 
I swear to god!  They are acting like preserving the northern third of their main island is optional!  

But this is the proof, if it weren't obvious:  Industrial civilization is coming apart.  Crises that in the past would have been dealt with with speedy determination are now responded to with indifference and bungling.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 03:48:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If we can believe reports and public statements, there is nothing but indifference on the part of the Japanese government, and rather a sense of urgency.

ceebs:

Prime Minister Naoto Kan turned down the request, telling TEPCO: "Withdrawal is impossible. It's not a matter of whether TEPCO collapses. It's a matter of whether Japan goes wrong," according to Mainichi.
However, the technical know-how is within TEPCO and the Japanese nuclear safety agency, so there can be a lot of bungling without indifference.

In any case, it is telling that the government has set up the crisis management committee in TEPCO's headquarters, with the PM and minister of industry heading the committee, while the president of TEPCO ha variously been reported AWOL or "sick" since that happened.

It does happen that a culture becomes unable to replicate the artifacts it was itself able to make in the past, and this may be happening to industrial civilization now: we're losing the ability to adequately handle technologies we ourselves created 40 years ago. For at least 30 years we've been busy at replacing technocracy/meritocracy with cleptocracy. The problem is that this was the result of ideological/cultural shifts which seem hard to reverse and may take another 30 years even if we started now, which we're not.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 04:11:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
One important observation. When I say
we're losing the ability to adequately handle technologies we ourselves created 40 years ago. For at least 30 years we've been busy at replacing technocracy/meritocracy with cleptocracy. The problem is that this was the result of ideological/cultural shifts which seem hard to reverse and may take another 30 years even if we started now, which we're not.
I don't have any primary memory of how any ot this was done before 1990 (optimistically) so, for instance, I don't remember much about Chernobyl that I haven't read from secondary sources much later.

So it is entirely possible that my view of Western Industrial Civilization pre-1980 is a complete fairytale or wishful thinking. The older among us may be able to clarify this.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 04:42:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My impression - from understanding gathered along the way, not from deliberate study, and that's an important disclaimer - is that nuclear technology was often in the past attempting to move ahead faster than its ability to provide full security. It began (and continues) as a military technology, and testing in the postwar decades showed little or no regard for the environment and human life and health (see American testing in the US SW and the Pacific, French in the Pacific, USSR in Kazakh SSR). Civil nuclear came into being in the context of that arms race, with military researchers and engineers providing the know-how. This isn't to say they were slipshod or had no security concerns, but I don't think they were, 40 years ago, better able to get on top of an out-of-control accident than now.

TEPCO has certainly shown ineptitude, and this may be linked to its being a private company concerned with profit. It may also be linked with sheer force of habit over the decades producing a culture in which the thought of major risk has gone out of currency. All the same, if the quake and tsunami had happened early in the life of Fukushima Dai-ichi, the outcome would have been probably similarly catastrophic, because the station just wasn't planned for so much havoc.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 05:35:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
@afew

Feral Scholar » Blog Archive » Nuclear Power - A Really Bad Idea

Then Reagan started the sabre-rattling and eventually invaded Grenada. When he was reëlected in 1984, I'd had enough. I fought for and won an honorable discharge as a conscientious objector -- not an easy task for someone who'd volunteered (and reënlisted). Of course, after I got out -- owing the government a large amount of money -- the only real marketable skill I had involved nuclear reactors. But many of my shipmates had gone on to work in civilian facilities and the horror stories I'd heard were frightening. Besides, I'd already concluded that nuclear power was a very bad idea, even when cost was no object. To try to make a profit off it? Insane. I was having none of it.

One of the things that not many people know is that the Navy's reactors are designed in a fail-safe (sort of) manner such that if the coolant temperature rises, the rate of fission decreases. This provides a negative feedback that helps to maintain temperatures and power levels. It's self-regulating. Civilian power plants, which are much, much larger than the Navy's small reactors, are designed such that higher coolant temperatures mean higher rates of fission, which heats the coolant further, creating a feed-forward loop with a tendency to run away. How stupid can you get? I mean, really... how utterly imbecilic can you get?

I have long maintained that nuclear power is the stupidest idea humans have ever had. Frankly, it's not even arguable, and anyone who says otherwise is either selling something, or a seriously-deluded "true believer." I think the real function of nuclear "power" is to allow nuclear weapons lovers to pretend that there are "peaceful" benefits to splitting the atom.



'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 07:14:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
melo:
I have long maintained that nuclear power is the stupidest idea humans have ever had. Frankly, it's not even arguable, and anyone who says otherwise is either selling something, or a seriously-deluded "true believer." I think the real function of nuclear "power" is to allow nuclear weapons lovers to pretend that there are "peaceful" benefits to splitting the atom.
Straw men are nice.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 08:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
melo:
One of the things that not many people know is that the Navy's reactors are designed in a fail-safe (sort of) manner such that if the coolant temperature rises, the rate of fission decreases.

Heh. That's (sort of) true for BWR as well.

by generic on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 01:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Both PWR's and BWR's are like that, and it's called negative void coefficent. Having a positive one is very bad, as in an exponentially accelerating nuclear reaction when the core heats up. That's what happened at Chernobyl. The core went from 1000 MW to 1000 GW in a fraction of a second, blowing everything to hell.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 03:43:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One of the things that not many people know is that the Navy's reactors are designed in a fail-safe (sort of) manner such that if the coolant temperature rises, the rate of fission decreases. This provides a negative feedback that helps to maintain temperatures and power levels. It's self-regulating. Civilian power plants, which are much, much larger than the Navy's small reactors, are designed such that higher coolant temperatures mean higher rates of fission, which heats the coolant further, creating a feed-forward loop with a tendency to run away. How stupid can you get? I mean, really... how utterly imbecilic can you get?

That's not true... It was true of Chernobyl, but BWRs such as those in Fukushima have a negative void coefficient.

Part of the reason for this is that water acts as a moderator, slowing down neutrons and thus aiding the reaction. If water becomes so hot to turn to steam, the moderation is lost and the reaction slows down because the neutrons are too fast and leave the core before reacting.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 04:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd say the opposite. Many technologies have always been too dangerous to use, starting from coal onwards.

In the past they were used regardless and the health risks and environmental consequences were simply ignored. Victorian England was a prime example of this, with non-existent sanitation, slave-like worker conditions and a permanent smoggy haze that must have killed millions. But politically very little changed until after WWII. And even then some industries - nuke especially - have been in a permanent reactionary cover-up mode to pretend that the risks don't exist.

Now it's slowly seeping into public awareness that technology has its costs. The difference between then and now is that then it was possible to pretend that the costs were irrelevant.

Now it's becoming obvious how untrue that is.

Awareness is still patchy and it may be 25-50 years before it becomes the consensus. But Fukushima and the rest are helping make sure that change becomes possible.  

What's missing are similar changes in politics, finance and economics. Those worlds remain steadfastly Victorian in outlook - to everyone's detriment

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 05:52:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not a million miles away from your
I think there's a growing awareness that the old ways of doing things no longer work. Even if it's a minority interest, this is the first time in history there's any serious interest in thinking strategically on a planetary scale.

Psychological sophistication is much higher than it used to be. There's the beginning of an understanding that old assumptions about decision making and rationality are wrong.

...

Morality and awareness of human rights are more developed than ever. Politicians continue to ignore the developments, and there are still substantial elements of the population who are happy with the old ways. But there was barely any concept of humanitarian aid or human rights a century ago, and now these concepts are common currency.

Genocide used to be business as usual. What made Hitler and Stalin remarkable wasn't the scale of the genocide - except for mechanising death, they were hardly unusual in history - but that their actions were considered insane and unacceptable. Five hundred years ago they'd have been generic princelings, and nothing out of the ordinary.



So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 06:08:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps what has happened is that the engineers have wised up, but the MBAs are still fat, dumb and happy.

Whether this has something to do with the fact that the MBAs are now doing the jobs that the engineers used to do back when the engineers were still fat, dumb and happy is left as an exercise for the reader.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 07:05:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What it does do is insure that the decision makers are primarily trained in matters economic and administrative rather than technical. That does make a difference. I would like to see the backgrounds of the senior management at TEPCO.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 08:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd disagree here, certainly. If people 300 years ago had decided that coal mining was too dangerous we'd be a lot worse off now. Sure, coal mining is dangerous. But not compared to living in a primitive pre-industrial society.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 06:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Certainly, action was much more co-ordinated, determined, and thorough. That is facilitated by an authoritarian state and a command economy, of course.

On a technical level, it seems like they did everything possibe as quickly as possible, unlike the Fukushima clusterfuc. A couple of provisos :

  • Not having to respect human rights makes things a lot easier, in particular you can expose your workers to much higher levels of radiation (then abandon them. Though, to be fair, it was largely the post-Soviet regime that abandoned them.)
  • Not being subject to close scrutiny by the media of the entire world makes it easier to come out looking relatively good.

Would Japan have reacted more effectively to such a crisis if it had happened in the 1980s? That doesn't seem obvious to me. I think there are cultural issues about crisis management involved.

On balance, if I had to live through a major nuclear crisis, I would prefer to do so in the USA or France. Not only because they know the tech best, but because I have a feeling they are generically better at crisis management.

[duck and cover]

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 09:43:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
March 25
Because of the Soviet lack of transparency it was possible for them to send in firefighters without telling them what they were working on. It was also possible for the authorities to start evacuating Pripyat within 48 hours, before Forsmark in Sweden raised the alert due to the radiation levels. It was also possible for the Soviets to deploy thousands of "liquidators" to do the cleanup after the fire was out.

Here we have a situation where safety of emergency workers is taken seriously and information flows relatively openly, which probably results in slower crisis response and contamination over longer times.

Compare the incident of the Japanese workers wading ankle-deep in radioactive water with the Chernobyl firefighters.



So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 09:46:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
eurogreen:
if I had to live through a major nuclear crisis, I would prefer to do so in the USA or France. Not only because they know the tech best, but because I have a feeling they are generically better at crisis management
I don't know about France, but the Katrina disaster in New Orleans completely dispelled any notion that the US can do crisis management.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 09:48:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know about France, but the USA!? At crisis management!?

in particular you can expose your workers

Most of the active-duty victims were the more than two hundred thousand liquidators, who were hired volunteers and "volunteers":

(then abandon them. Though, to be fair, it was largely the post-Soviet regime that abandoned them.)

The diseases would have come whether they are abandoned or not. It is a myth spun by the nuclear industry that diseases among liquidators and evacuees could be down to the general drop of healthcare after the collapse of the Soviet union, whereas multiple control group studies showed that disease rates are way above that in the general populations.

I think if I had to choose between Japanese and Soviet disaster management, I would have chosen the Japanese: rather be safely evacuated while meltdown containment is unwinding than stave off a technically greater disaster at the price of much greater human disaster.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 09:56:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Plus, despite the criticism, I would say the Japanese have been more transparent than the Soviets and maybe that the Americans at TMI.

Though that may be a function of not being able to hide the fact that a nuclear plant had been affected by the tsunami and was on battery power on the first day.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:13:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do get a sense that much of the outcry against hiding information in Japan is due to failure to find or correctly interpret relevant information. This morning I watched a news channel where an 'expert' admonished the Japanese government for not setting up monitoring stations in the 100 km zone around the plant and publish the results regularly – not knowing they do so for two weeks already, on multiple sites.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:31:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is your take on why they seem to be approaching this in such a hesitant, fumbling manner?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 04:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First of all, they do care about the safety of the emergency workers. Several times they have pulled the workers out because of high levels of radiation. If they could just throw bodies at the problem it would be much easier to solve. That explains the hesitant part.

There  was a more criminal kind of hesitance at the beginning, when tepco hesitated to aggressively cool the reactors for fear of losing them as assets. But the first hydrogen explosion was 24 hours into the incident. After that there was no excuse and it still took 3 days before the government apparently took over the operations.

It appears that they have been surprised by various developments over the past 3 weeks, most of which were predictable with hindsight. So I'm not sure what to think about that. Is it the case that the damage to the support systems of the reactors was so extensive that they had no way to know for sure what the state of the various facilities really was? The fact that the plant was without power for over a week did not help.

The question is whether we get a sense that they're now getting a grip on the situation. The plant needs to be taken under control before it can be effectively cooled down. Who's actually in charge of strategizing about that, from an engineering point of view? It is evident that the upper levels (how deep?) of TEPCO's management structure are clueless.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 05:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is evident that the upper levels (how deep?) of TEPCO's management structure are clueless.

That is my sense, and I have trouble understanding how, in a company that has relied on nuclear for so much of its baseload for forty years can have an upper management that is so clueless. It leads me to think that decapitation of TEPCO and assumption of the whole utility by the Japanese Government might be a good idea. Don't there have to be some competent individuals down at the plant level?

And it is obvious that Japan will have to continue to rely on nuclear for the next decade, at a minimum. So they must learn how better to respond to possible  future emergencies and to make appropriate preparations to harden their other facilities. Since so many facilities are near the sea, they need to be able to assure prompt resumption of back-up power after another "once in a century" earthquake/tsunami. Having generators and fuel on secure high ground and having pads, pylons, cables, fresh water, contaminated water storage capability, pipes, pumps, etc. available on or near the site should enable them to resume power within a day or two even with a tsunami such as they experienced.

Part of the problem may reside in the federal/provincial  structure of Japan. It seems that power provisions have been made on the provincial level, some having 50 Hz and others 60Hz power. This might be complicating a take-over by the central government. Japan had, essentially, a feudal political organization until the Meiji Reformation. While the feudal structure was replaced with a central state I do not know how the divisions between central and local government were carried out. I suppose, in some ways, the early zaibatsu could be seen as a modernization of feudal structures. How that played into federal/regional divisions I have no idea.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 07:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ARGeezer:
Since so many facilities are near the sea, they need to be able to assure prompt resumption of back-up power after another "once in a century" earthquake/tsunami. Having generators and fuel on secure high ground and having pads, pylons, cables, fresh water, contaminated water storage capability, pipes, pumps, etc. available on or near the site should enable them to resume power within a day or two even with a tsunami such as they experienced.
It seems they're working on that already

ceebs:

Gov't orders utilities to prepare for tsunami with more backups | Kyodo News
The industry ministry ordered utility companies Wednesday to act within a month to prepare for a possible loss of power at their nuclear reactors when hit by unexpectedly large tsunami waves, as concerns are growing over the safety of nuclear power plants following the March 11 quake that crippled the Fukushima Daiichi complex.

They are instructed to secure vehicle-mounted power sources, deploy fire trucks that would supply water to the reactors, work out a procedure on how to deal with an emergency situation by using such vehicles, and carry out drills.

The measures are part of efforts to prevent a recurrence of the ongoing nuclear crisis at the plant in northeastern Japan, where the power grid and most of the emergency diesel generators were knocked out by the magnitude-9.0 quake and ensuing tsunami, resulting in the loss of the reactors' key cooling functions.

Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Banri Kaieda said that the emergency measures are the ''first step''

We've become so used to craven governments that I can't help feeling that, when I see the Japanese government doing the right things, I'm just responding to PR or engaging in wishful thinking.

For the future, it is important to restore the credibility of governments' claims to be acting in the public interest. One of the most toxic legacies of the Reagan/Thatcher revolution will be the erosio of the idea of the common interest or that collective institutions can exist that effectively work for the common interest. Enlisting and empowering competent people into government and civil service positions is a necessity.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 04:48:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by das monde on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 10:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is commendable, but they are needed alive since they are the ones who know how to do this stuff.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 04:53:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We have to remember that the Japanese did not develop this technology. That was done by the USA, in their case, by G.E. TEPCO may, effectively, have been riding on the technical prowess and prestige of the USA and G.E. ever since and have had a very false sense of security. Not only did G.E. provide the initial design, it was G.E. technology that formed the intital basis for the entire Japanese nuclear industry, to my knowledge. It was likely as a result of Japanese political considerations that G.E. formed subsidiaries with Hitachi, etc. to build nuclear power plants.

The relationship is likely as archetypal as Godzilla: we were the first to develop the technology; they were the first ones on whom we used it; we then massively intervened in their culture to re-order and realign loyalties; then, twenty years later, we encouraged G.E. to form a mutually profitable relationship with Japanese companies to apply that technology to power generation. That they would see the USA as the guarantors of the beneficence of that technology is somewhat natural. And have the Japanese been any more lax about nuclear safety than has the USA?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 08:58:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ARGeezer:
We have to remember that the Japanese did not develop this technology. That was done by the USA, in their case, by G.E. TEPCO may, effectively, have been riding on the technical prowess and prestige of the USA and G.E. ever since and have had a very false sense of security.
However, there has been technology transfer to Japan: Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi. All six reactors were designed by General Electric.
The result of that technology transfer is that Hitachi now designs reactors: Advanced boiling water reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) is a Generation III boiling water reactor. The ABWR is currently offered by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. The ABWR generates electrical power by using steam to power a turbine connected to a generator; the steam is boiled from water using heat generated by fission reactions within nuclear fuel.
But how japanese is it? Is it just a financial joint venture?

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) is a provider of advanced reactors and nuclear services. It is located in Wilmington, N.C.. Established in June 2007, GEH is a global nuclear alliance created by General Electric and Hitachi.[


So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 11:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
tuasfait:
If the disaster is somehow contained, it will be the result of sheer luck and the worksmanship of Toshiba who built the plant.


So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 11:53:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
well hopefully theyre better made than number 4, which had a worker report how he'd helped cover up flaws in the reactor vessel.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 12:09:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Japanese know nuclear power. They are very good at it. With the exception of AREVA and Atomstroiexport, the big reactor makers are all Japanese, like GE-Hitachi, Toshiba-Westinghouse and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Then you have that Korean company that got the big UAE order.

Basically everyone got their original know-how from the US. The Japanese did it, the Koreans did it, even the French did it. The Russian obviously didn't do it, not did the Brits, the Canadians or the Indians. But then the Indians, Brits and Russians didn't became very succesful at it either. The first commercial power reactor not built with US technology supposedly was Oskarhamn 1 in Sweden which used wholly indigenous technology developed by ASEA-ATOM.

(Even though we did get plenty of basic LWR know-how from the US through Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program).

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu Mar 31st, 2011 at 03:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series