The Nuclear Power Thread

[Astronuc]

So as things stand with current reprocessing technology, there just isn't a cost effective way to get most of the U235 out of used fuel rods without it having an admixture of unwanted isotopes.
I guess it might be feasible to do it in principle, but on economic grounds it's considered that this process takes an unreasonable amount of time and energy to do it.
There ARE however facilities in a fair number of countries where they do actually do this, and they wouldn't bother if the economic argument against was fully conclusive, what would be the point?

Each nation has to look at its indigenous resources, e.g., plentiful U/Th supply, and at the back end costs (i.e., disposition of spent fuel or fission products). Some countries, like the US and Canada, have abundant U resources, while nations like France, UK and Japan, do not. The latter group are more likely to reprocess than the former.

 

[jim hardy]

There's a book, "The Curve of Binding Energy" by John Mcphee, describing proliferation concerns that brought about a halt of US progress toward reprocessing.
McPhee writes on diverse subjects.
His "Survival of the Birch Bark Canoe" is another fun read.

 

[mheslep]

Veteran nuclear engineer Charles Forsberg from MIT, ORNL, is the principal investigator for a very interesting nuclear concept here, called the FHR for Flouride salt High temperature Reactor. Molten salt cooled, pebble-bed fueled, high temperature. These features have been explored before. The novel aspect with the FHR is the hybridization with gas and/or heat storage to allow a peaking capability of 140%, which would allow the reactor-hybrid to work well with intermittent power. Its compelling. Efficiency 66% with combined cycle.

The inherent safety advantages of molten-salt are contradicted, to a degree I think, by the selection of a solid fuel as a opposed to fuel contained in the salt which can be gravity drained away for the core.

Abstract
The Fluoride-salt-cooled High-Temperature Reactor (FHR) with a Nuclear Air-Brayton Combined Cycle (NACC) and Firebrick Resistance Heated Energy Storage (FIRES) is a new reactor concept. It is designed to (1) increase revenue relative to base-load nuclear power plants by 50 to 100%, (2) enable a zero-carbon nuclear-renewable electricity grid, and (3) eliminate the potential for major fuel failures in severe accidents. With the reactor operating at base-load the plant can (1) deliver base-load electricity to the grid, (2) deliver peak electricity to the grid using auxiliary natural gas or stored heat at times of high electricity prices, or (3) buy electricity when electricity prices are below that of natural gas and store as heat for peak power production at a later time. The system may provide grid electricity storage to replace pumped hydro storage, batteries, and other devices. These capabilities are a consequences of (1) coupling the FHR (high-temperature gas-cooled reactor fuel and liquid salt coolant) to a gas turbine, (2) advances in gas turbine technology, and (3) advances in high-temperature fuels. MIT leads a university consortium with the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Wisconsin to develop the reactor. The Chinese Academy of Science plans to start up a 10 MWt test reactor by 2020. As a new reactor concept there are significant uncertainties and major development work is required.

 

[nikkkom]

That's true for the most part. However, in the case of MOX (U,PU) fuel, the Pu-content is necessarily greater than 5% (more like 6 to 8%), but equivalent to 5% U-235, in order to compensate for the parasitic absorption of isotopes like Pu-240.

Technically, producing fuel rods from repU with 5.5% u238 enrichment is not a problem.

The problem is regulatory: this is not an approved kind of fuel.

Yes, it can be approved. But bureaucrats surely will make lives of everyone involved in certifying that (or anything else, for that matter) a nightmare. A long one. Think five years of paperwork, with small admixtures of occasional _actual_ useful work (such as running computer simulations, to prove something you are nearly certain of anyway: that this fuel is basically equivalent to 5% enriched natural U).

 

[Astronuc]

Technically, producing fuel rods from repU with 5.5% u238 enrichment is not a problem.

Well, enrichment usually refers to the fissile isotopes, specifically U-235, which is about 0.71% in natural U, but increased up to 5% in commercial nuclear (LWR) fuel. It is certainly regulatory, and the regulations are based on criticality control. Some shops have had licenses in the past for >5% for certain special programs in commercial fuel, just as some shops currently have licenses for highly enriched (≥ 20%) U-235, but that fuel is used in research, or otherwise special, reactors, not commercial reactors.

For U with less than 0.71% U-235 is considered depleted U.

Reprocessed uranium (RepU) has been used in Germany and France.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Mixed-Oxide-Fuel-MOX/

Reprocessing of 1050 tonnes of French used fuel per year (about 15 years after discharge) produces 10.5 tonnes of plutonium (immediately recycled as 124 tonnes of MOX) and 1000 tonnes of reprocessed uranium (RepU). Of this about two-thirds is converted into stable oxide form for storage. One-third of the RepU is re-enriched and EdF has demonstrated its use in 900 MWe power reactors.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1630_CD/PDF/IAEA-TECDOC-1630.pdf

I've participated in projects involving RepU and MOX.

 

[Astronuc]

PNNL - Energy and Environment Directorate - Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Regulatory
http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ne/
http://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/ne/pdf/nuclearenergy_story.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

Materials for Nuclear Plants
From Safe Design to Residual Life Assessments
Authors: Hoffelner, Wolfgang
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781447129141

This is a reasonably good book on nuclear materials and is fairly comprehensive with respect to materials and reactor designs. It provides a good introduction and overview for those not familiar with the subject. One could write book on each material system, as well as on each chapter in the textbook.

It is important (even critical) to distinguish between in-core and ex-core systems and materials. The neutron irradiation environment has a profound effect on materials vis-à-vis irradiation damage (changes to microstructure) and transmutation. Although the textbook includes a comment attributed to reference 2, "Only minor differences between nuclear and non-nuclear applications exist," in my experience, there is nothing minor about the in-core environment.

 

[Astronuc]

A reasonably accurate list of canceled nuclear reactors in the US.

http://www.rogerwitherspoon.com/docs/cancellednukeplants.pdf

 

[mheslep]

Those canceled reactors roughly tally at ~110 GWe? Modern up-rates probably take them to ~120 GWe, i.e. would have more than doubled US nuclear power capacity.

 

[Astronuc]

A rundown of advanced nuclear energy programs.
http://www.thirdway.org/report/the-advanced-nuclear-industry

 

[eXorikos]

Is there a technical reason why in the UK it was chosen to build new nuclear powerplants rather than go for a lifetime extension? I am not very familiar with AGR design. I know Magnox fuel is no longer produced.

 

[rootone]

I think it was just a case of newer designs being more effective in various ways, just like you don't forever upgrade the same computer.

 

[eXorikos]

I think it was just a case of newer designs being more effective in various ways, just like you don't forever upgrade the same computer.

Of course, I was just asking what the technical reasons are. In many other countries using PWRs they did a lifetime extension, e.g. Netherlands and Belgium. So it appears to be cost-effective for a PWR, but apparently not so for AGR.

 

[Astronuc]

Some good summaries of LWR technology.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-06-engineering-of-nuclear-systems-fall-2010/lectures-and-readings/MIT22_06F10_lec06a.pdf
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-06-engineering-of-nuclear-systems-fall-2010/lectures-and-readings/MIT22_06F10_lec06b.pdf

I did note some misinformation that will have to be corrected. The error relates to the description of PWR control rods, specifically the Ag-In-Cd control rods which are effectively black, not grey. Grey rods use Inconel or Ni-based metals, although Westinghouse is introducing a newer concept for grey rods in the AP-1000. Black control rods are used for shutdown, while grey rods may be used for power shaping and relatively small changes in reactivity, for example during load-following. Some EdF plants use grey rods for power maneuvering. B&W plants were designed with axial power shaping rods (APSRs), but otherwise most PWRs have not used grey rods.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-...lear-systems-fall-2010/lectures-and-readings/

 

[TJM-Ex-Op]

What two or three things would you tell non-technical college age voters about nuclear power?

Dear Physics Forum nation,
I'm a long time nuclear professional, former Senior Reactor Operator in commercial nuclear power. I made a career change to consulting/contracting a short time ago. I recently helped some professors at the local junior college who were teaching a class called "Physics in Society" to non-science majors. I presented some info on nuclear power. I thought I did a good job of presenting a balanced objective case. It was well received so I was invited to return and integrate this more directly into the course. Meaning the material presented would be testable. Pretty awesome no? The course material presented by the professors covers reactor types, fuel cycle, stream cycle etc. I tried to emphasize how people are trained, the oversight, and the traits of a healthy nuclear safety culture. The professors challenged me asking, "What one or two things would you want young potential voters to know about nuclear power?"
So I thought I'd reach out to Physics Forum nation for help.
Some of my thoughts,

• Plants cannot blow up like a nuclear bomb
• The industry is highly regulated
• Personnel go through extensive initial and continual training
• Carbon emission goals proposed cannot be met without current nuclear plants
• Plants are built for the long term, decommissioning cost are factored into the cost to run. Plants are not discarded like an old steel mill.
• Plants are a vital part of the economic engine of the local community

I'm trying to develop one or two major takeaways. What do all think?
I welcome suggestions.
tjm

 

[jim hardy]

he professors challenged me asking, "What one or two things would you want young potential voters to know about nuclear power?"
So I thought I'd reach out to Physics Forum nation for help.
Some of my thoughts,

At the plant where i worked, two of the mechanical foremen took photographs of a refueling outage at the plant. They wanted a show&tell for their kids' elementary school.

They produced a great series of 35mm slides covering a refueling - from lifting the concrete covers off reactor cavity , removing head cables and insulation, detorque unbolt and lift reactor head , floodup , lift internals, swap fuel , put it all back together again.
That's everyday stuff and midnight oil to plant guys like you and me
but to somebody who's never seen a steam turbine or inside of a containment , that huge machinery is right out of sci-fi.
Our two foremen became local celebrities, every school within forty miles asked them to present their show..
Local media got wind and we hosted an enterrage of TV reporters. The pretty evening news anchor lady posed on our spent fuel crane, in yellows.

So

"What one or two things would you want young potential voters to know about nuclear power?"

I'd want them to know
their friends and neighbors work here
it's honest hard work
it's not spooky or scary science
the nuclear reactor itself works great for it was thought up by geniuses
99.9% of the work in a plant is on the mechanical systems surrounding the reactor.

This line changed my anti-nuke Mother in Law's thinking:
"The power reactor grew out of the Manhattan project.
That's unfortunate because the power reactor inherited the stigma of 'The Bomb' .
Had events unfolded in the reverse order, public opinion would be instead :
"What?
Somebody actually blew up perfectly good uranium? Profligate Wastrels ! Don't the fools know you can make electricity with that stuff? "

I use this analogy for non-science majors:
"You understand chemical reactions.
A reactor is to a bomb as firewood is to dynamite . "

So my advice is - bring your considerable experience into your presentation. Get real photos . My Walmart scanned my 35mm slides on to a cd-disc for a presentation 2013, hopefully they still have that ability for yours.

 

[Astronuc]

• Plants cannot blow up like a nuclear bomb

• The industry is highly regulated

• Personnel go through extensive initial and continual training

• Carbon emission goals proposed cannot be met without current nuclear plants

• Plants are built for the long term, decommissioning cost are factored into the cost to run. Plants are not discarded like an old steel mill.

• Plants are a vital part of the economic engine of the local community

It looks like 6 great take-aways. As for decommissioning, look at cases like Big Rock Point, and other examples.

I know a lot of folks in the nuclear industry and many are very involved in the outdoors and conservation. There are a lot of folks who enjoy outdoor sports, including camping, fishing and hunting with their friends and family, so they have a vested interest in maintaining the safety of nuclear plants.

 

[mheslep]

• Plants cannot blow up like a nuclear bomb

• The industry is highly regulated

• Personnel go through extensive initial and continual training

• Carbon emission goals proposed cannot be met without current nuclear plants

• Plants are built for the long term, decommissioning cost are factored into the cost to run. Plants are not discarded like an old steel mill.

• Plants are a vital part of the economic engine of the local community

US nuclear power has for decades been the bedrock of the clean US energy supply and with an excellent safety record. Today, new problems and new innovations have come to the fore that suggest a new approach to the discussion.

With regards to possible public fears about nuclear power, Fukushima is in the public's recent memory. So it is radiation leakage (not nuclear explosions) the prompts fears, fears encouraged by an active and irrational anti-nuclear community with connections to the fossil fuel industry. Notably, despite the great loss of life from the quake and tsunami at Fukushima, nobody died from radiation nor, per the World Health Organization, are any deaths from radiation causes likely to ever be detectable.

Your points 2,3,4, and 6 are all related to a real issue with nuclear power: the cost of new nuclear. As you are likely aware, the first nuclear plants in the US, before the creation of the NRC, were built relatively quickly in the hundreds of million dollar range (today's dollars). Now, Vogtle 3 and 4 will cost $15-16 billion with a ~ten year build time. It is this large cost that make the destruction of the Fukushima reactors a very large negative for a utility. By contrast, a new gas plant of similar size might cost a fifth the cost, can be built in 18 months, and does not require a large staff with "continual training", a security force, and permanent onsite regulators. So yes the industry is highly regulated, but is the particular US regulation appropriate? Does the current regulatory regime drive up costs unnecessarily and stifle innovation. Many new nuclear designs have been proposed, but recently DoE/NRC officials essentially testified that any non-light water reactor designs need not apply, though some of them could make a Fukushima type plant explosion not unlikely but impossible.

The point of nuclear power is to enable economic engines by means of clean and affordable energy; it should not be a jobs program.

 

[nikkkom]

By contrast, a new gas plant of similar size might cost a fifth the cost, can be built in 18 months, and does not require a large staff with "continual training", a security force, and permanent onsite regulators. So yes the industry is highly regulated, but is the particular US regulation appropriate? Does the current regulatory regime drive up costs unnecessarily and stifle innovation.

Even with all this heavy regulation, nuclear industry failed to create the feeling that reactors are safe and won't ever spew lots of radioactive materials to the environment. The facts are, reactors did do that, multiple times, and there were multiple close calls as well.

Why are you surprised general public is not eager to see "innovation" from this industry?

 

[mheslep]

As you know, harm from radiation is not defined by "lots of radioactive materials" in the environment as the environment already has lots of radioactive materials, but by a level of radio-toxicity that causes measurable short or long term fatalities or disease. While possible, that's never occurred from commercial reactors in the US nor from the Fukushima accident in Japan. Meanwhile, the emissions from coal plants continue to cause a very predictable and measurable harm via lung disease and the like every year.

 

[nikkkom]

As you know, harm from radiation is not defined by "lots of radioactive materials" in the environment as the environment already has lots of radioactive materials, but by a level of radio-toxicity that causes measurable short or long term fatalities or disease. While possible, that's never occurred from commercial reactors in the US nor from the Fukushima accident in Japan.

It did occur elsewhere.

Also, US and Japanese accidents were "close calls", they demonstrate that nuclear industry is incapable of delivering on its promise that nuclear power is safe.

I don't need to wait to actually see fuel pool fire and 10% of Japan rendered uninhabitable as a result, to conclude that nuclear power (as it is managed today) is not safe. It was enough for me to see that for 10 days in 2011, it was unknown what's going on in fuel pools at Fukushima, and there were no means to refill them.

Meanwhile, the emissions from coal plants continue to cause a very predictable and measurable harm via lung disease and the like every year.

Straw man argument which assumes that I'm a proponent of using coal as our main source of energy.

 

[mheslep]

It did occur elsewhere.

Yes, from a seriously flawed reactor design radically different from those in the West, a design soon to be discontinued if not already, and the operation of which was notoriously badly managed. Still, the number of fatalities from acute radiation sickness or fire (30) at Chernobyl was far lower than, say, the 1040 killed in Chinese coal mines in one recent year (2013).

...that nuclear power is safe... conclude that nuclear power (as it is managed today) is not safe.
...Straw man argument which assumes that I'm a proponent of using coal as our main source of energy.

Context is not a strawman, and "safety" in particular is a concept rendered meaningless without context, especially in on a topic where many would inject fear into the discussion when allowed to avoid evidence. Coal is particularly relevant to the safety discussion since China is i) by far the world's largest consumer or coal and ii) also has by far the world's largest collection of new reactors currently under construction (24). That is, in China, nuclear and coal are the two primary non-hydro alternatives for base load power.

One does not have to favor coal power, sitting in the dark without power, or even living close to the sea on Japan's Pacific coast without seawalls to assess the downside of those scenarios.

 

[nikkkom]

Yes, from a seriously flawed reactor design radically different from those in the West, a design soon to be discontinued if not already, and the operation of which was notoriously badly managed. Still, the number of fatalities from acute radiation sickness or fire (30) at Chernobyl was far lower than, say, the 1040 killed in Chinese coal mines in one recent year (2013).

I'm Ukrainian. So please, don't b.s. me about "low casualties of Chernobyl".

True, only a few people died from *acute* radiation sickness. No one knows how many people died from non-acute effects of radiation, but they are certainly in the thousands. Children in evacuated families of Pripyat quite often have a "bouquet" of ailments, they are statistically less healthy than other people.

None of these people took the risk of nuclear power *willingly*, unlike miners or say, policemen, who chose their profession knowing the danger.

Ukraine and Belarus will have hundreds of square kilometers of land unfit for permanent habitation for a century to come.

Japan has such land now, too. And it's pure strike of luck (wind direction at the time of accident) that its uninhabitable "nuclear" land is smaller than Ukraine's.

As it is currently managed, nuclear industry almost certainly will have another major incident in not too distant future. "We need no stinking filters on emergency vents" attitude.

 

[mheslep]

I'm Ukrainian. So please, don't b.s. me about "low casualties of Chernobyl".

True, only a few people died from *acute* radiation sickness. No one knows how many people died from non-acute effects of radiation, but they are certainly in the thousands. Children in evacuated families of Pripyat quite often have a "bouquet" of ailments, they are statistically less healthy than other people.

None of these people took the risk of nuclear power *willingly*, unlike miners or say, policemen, who chose their profession knowing the danger.

Ukraine and Belarus will have hundreds of square kilometers of land unfit for permanent habitation for a century to come.

Japan has such land now, too. And it's pure strike of luck (wind direction at the time of accident) that its uninhabitable "nuclear" land is smaller than Ukraine's.

As it is currently managed, nuclear industry almost certainly will have another major incident in not too distant future. "We need no stinking filters on emergency vents" attitude.

That's a narrative designed to end discussion. Here are some evidenced based claims with references to encourage discussion.

In the US where all the coal plants have scrubbers, as of http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/ emissions from plants, not from mining. The non-lethal impact rates from asthma, heart attack, and lost work days are far higher. These rates have since fallen in the US with the reduction in coal use. The mortality rate from plant emissions globally is likely far higher. Those inhaling PM for years were also not willing participates. As for the miners, clearly, absent nuclear power, a large body of workers must mine or drill to provide non-hydro dispatch-able electricity. Offering that miners know the risks of a task without any viable alternative is a thin argument.

Globally, the prevented deaths from nuclear power displacement of fossil fuel combustion has reached http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/

The Chernobyl accident occurred in a http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Power-Reactors/Appendices/RBMK-Reactors/, with a "positive void coefficient", and without containment as it is understood in the west. There are 11 remaining RBMK's in the world, all of them in Russia. They all received major modifications years ago to address PVC and other problems, and will close without replacement (by other RBMK).

With respect to Chernobyl's so called exclusion zone, the plant had three other reactors that were in part operated and manned daily for 23 years after the '86 accident in Unit 4 (i.e. until 2009). A labor force of thousands works in the area performing decommissioning.

Per WHO/UNSCEAR, the Chernobyl accident outcomes:

A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago,...
As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

and

Conclusions
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was a tragic event for its victims, and those most affected suffered major hardship. Some of the people who dealt with the emergency lost their lives. Although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery workers are at increased risk of radiation-induced effects, the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences due to the radiation from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part, they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a few times higher than annual levels of natural background,...

A similar outcome might be obtained from a grossly negligent run and poorly designed industrial chemical plant. Common sense in the face of such an accident demands recognition of the need for well run and designed industrial chemical operations, not facile calls for an end to chemical plants as if they served no purpose.

 

[jim hardy]

As it is currently managed, nuclear industry almost certainly will have another major incident in not too distant future. "We need no stinking filters on emergency vents" attitude.

When Jimmy Carter stopped our breeder program about 1981, much to the consternation of us young nuke workers , i thought to myself:

Actually in one regard he's got the wisdom of Solomon. He sees the need to give civilian Management Science time to catch up with civilian Nuclear Science."

Not surprising, given his Navy background.

I'd love to ask him whether he thinks we've made it.

Anyhow the problems are societal not scientific.

old jim

 

[mheslep]

Assigning wisdom to the fast spectrum breeder cancellation for safety reasons requires the assumption that breeders are somehow more dangerous than light water thermal reactors with no spent fuel solution. Do you believe that's the case?

 

[jim hardy]

Assigning wisdom to the fast spectrum breeder cancellation for safety reasons requires the assumption that breeders are somehow more dangerous than light water thermal reactors

I don't see that connection at all. Wisdom is more realizing one's shortcomings , intelligence is doing something about dangers be they of internal or external origin.

And i don't believe it's true that breeders are more dangerous, indeed liquid sodium needn't even be pressurized..

Remember Three Mile Island was a fresh memory then.

I took Carter's action as recognition that the industry suffered from too rapid growth and too much zeal , resulting in a culture of cavalier overconfidence and haste . Hazards of youth .

The Kemeny report spoke to that

http://www.threemileisland.org/downloads/188.pdf

I took Carter's action as in the spirit
"Let's learn how to properly run these seventy-two reactors we've got right now before rushing headlong into a new generation of perhaps a thousand of them."

In 1986 the Russians punctuated that sentiment with exclamation marks and ! bold ! italic! underline ! at Chernobyl.

It's been thirty six years now since TMI .
Has the industry matured ? Is corporate America ready ?

I can only say we're a lot closer than we were in 1979.
I remain proud of where i worked for we improved greatly.old jim

 

[mheslep]

I agree with much of that and the cautions of Kemeny. What does any of that have to do with killing breeders? Like the Russians now, one can build two or three, no need for thousands.

 

[jim hardy]

What does any of that have to do with killing breeders? Like the Russians now, one can build two or three, no need for thousands.

? That depends on how far ahead one is looking to power civilization. I thought we were looking at a few decades of LWR's , then to breeders for ~500 years.

Hmmmm... it looks like a lot has happened since i got out of school in 1969...

India is focusing and prioritizing the construction and commissioning of its fleet of 500 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactors in which it will breed the required plutonium which is the key to unlocking the energy potential of thorium in its advanced heavy water reactors. This will take another 15-20 years, and so it will still be some time before India is using thorium energy to any extent. The 500 MWe prototype FBR under construction in Kalpakkam is expected to start up in 2014.

In 2009, despite the relaxation of trade restrictions on uranium, India reaffirmed its intention to proceed with developing the thorium cycle.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Thorium/

 

[jim hardy]

Rambling but interesting article here. It looks at energy with a view to mankind's long term needs. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/12/...d-depleted-uranium-and-the-centuries-to-come/

...one can calculate that in 2011, the average continuous power output of all the world’s energy generation systems of all types was 8.1 trillion watts, or, in more familiar power units, 8.1 million megawatts. The per capita average continuous power demand overall for all people on the planet was 2500 watts, roughly the power output of a small American suburban lawn mower; in 1973 that figure was roughly 2000 watts. Billions of people of course, had much less than a lawn mower’s worth of power on average in 2011 (and for that matter in 1973), whereas other people got to use several orders of magnitude more power than a “lawn mower’s worth” of power, driving, for instance, in swell Tesla electric cars by which they express, in unconscious drollery, their “concern” for the environment......

.........

Nuclear energy, and only nuclear energy, has the energy to mass density to be sustainable indefinitely at levels of energy production that involve a balance of human decency coupled to environmental justice.

Fermi – who despite his vast intellect is said to have been no elitist – understood, way back in the 1940’s, that we would require depleted uranium to be made into energy, and well more than half a century later, as we are in crisis whether we see it or not, it is very clear that he was, in recognizing this, handing us a key by which we might save what can still be yet saved at this point.