Generation Professionals Group

The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields. 

14,131 Members


The Economics of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power symbol made out of grass

"Wir Spielen mit dem Feuer" (We're playing with fire), is Peter Ramsauer's opinion of Germany's Nuclear Retreat. More will be said about this later, but first some numbers that you might find useful. If predictions based on present trends can be accepted, global energy use will increase by at least 50 percent in the next 50 years. In addition - if we confine ourselves to 'statics' - then according to Professor Terry Klieg, 15 percent of the electricity that is generated today in the world is accounted for by nuclear, 66 percent by fossil fuels, 17 percent by hydro, and 2 percent by renewables. I've seen different but similar estimates, and these are presented in the book that I have just completed (called ENERGY ECONOMICS: A MODERN FIRST COURSE), but since the Nobel Prize in economics was passed out today, and apparently they forgot to give it to me again, I will not look closer at these numbers until the Nobel Committee meets again and requests a sample of my work.

What we need to deal with is not statics but 'dynamics', and I begin by saying that globally there is no evidence whatsoever that the percent of electricity that will be generated by nuclear will decline, despite lies and misunderstandings to the contrary. I also want to claim that about mid-century, Japan and Germany could be the most nuclear intensive countries in the world, regardless of their present hesitation to employ nuclear, and also the likelihood of an increased efficiency for renewables. For instance, something that will not happen is the percentage of renewables reaching the absurd proportion that the European Union's Energy Directorate regards as desirable for the next decade, and if the 'WAR ON POLLUTION' just declared by the Chinese government becomes a 'World War' (on pollution), the role of nuclear will escalate.

According to the Japanese government, there were no casualties at Fukushima that can be attributed to nuclear failure, which was also claimed by the Swedish diplomat and nuclear expert Hans Blix; and according to the U.S. government, no fatalities at all were registered at Three-Mile Island, although that incident was either a full meltdown or as close to a full meltdown as it is possible to come. As for Chernobyl, the casualty count supplied by the Russian government is not something I repeat because it may be wrong. Finally, there are more than 400 reactors in operation today, and a prediction I accept is that there will be more than 500 in a decade or sooner!

Now for some information supplied by perhaps the most articulate nuclear executive, Malcolm Rawlingson (in Energy Pulse), but which is unlikely to register with economists who lack the ability to apply elementary economic theory to the real world. The firm Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL), together with the Chinese, have constructed two large CANDU reactors at Qinshan (China), both under budget, and each in under 4 years. The conclusion drawn by Rawlingson (and myself I might add) is that this achievement demonstrates what is possible with nuclear technology, and in fact would be common practice in e.g. the U.S. today if decision makers in that country abandoned show-business and learned how to think. My research and lectures in the future will focus on popularizing the construction period of 4 years, and my students must always be prepared to explain the economic significance of construction periods for me and their colleagues whenever they are in my classroom, and that includes putting the relevant algebra on the white or black board.

In citing 4 years (and using the expression under budget once more), I feel the way I felt almost every day after I returned to engineering school after a beautiful 3 year holiday in the American army, and while luxuriating in the memory of how I failed everything my first year (and was labelled hopeless and expelled by the Dean of Engineering), I breezed through the remainder of my engineering education. Congratulations Fred, because that win taught me everything that I needed to know about my future relationship with mathematics, just as the 4 year construction time at Qinshan tells me everything I need to know about nuclear, and would tell everybody else if they were not influenced by the wrong people and/or the wrong publications.

What about the other construction periods that we hear so much about. Ex ante (or before the fact) construction periods of 5 years were mentioned for the 1,600 Megawatt reactor in Finland constructed by the French firm Areva, who signed a contract for a similar reactor at Flamanville (in France). Ex Post, (or after the fact) both of those projects seem to involve at least 8 years instead of the intended 5, while 5 years is still the often mentioned construction period for 4 reactors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that are to be constructed by a South Korean firm. The first is apparently on time and on budget. At the Singapore Energy Week a few years ago, an English gentleman who apparently has a financial interest in solar suddenly fell into a 'tizzy' when exposed to my optimistic opinions about the present construction periods for large reactors, and how the technological improvements on reactors (particularly higher temperatures and closing the fuel cycle) will greatly increase their value, and also the value of renewables by increasing the overall reliability of the electric supply.

He grandly informed me that "they" said the construction period for reactors was 10 years. That sort of half-truth doesn't surprise me any longer, because the two reactors at Hinkley Point in the UK will reputedly cost almost 10 billion dollars each, and since they may not be on line for a decade after construction starts, deserve to be called the most expensive reactors on the face of the earth. Once I would have laughed at the idea of a nuclear facility taking this long to construct, but 10 years covers more than construction - it also covers incidentals like planning, obtaining licenses and loan guarantees, and most important the willingness of governments in the U.S. and many other countries to fight the 'energy wars' with one hand behind their backs! I can also provide an observation by Charles D. Ferguson, president of the Federation of American Scientists, "Depending on reactor design, financing charges, the regulatory process and construction time, the cost of a nuclear facility ranges from 4 billion to 9 billion dollars."

You should make it your business to comprehend that the most pertinent issue for owners and/or managers of nuclear facilities is not the cost of a reactor, but the part that cost plays in an inter-temporal profit maximizing exercise of the type described in the best microeconomics textbook - Microeconomic Theory; A Mathematical Approach - by James Henderson and Richard E. Quandt (1980). Moving from 'ground break' to grid power in 4 years is a superb economic achievement, because it means that recouping the investment cost of the facility begins after 4 years instead of 5 or 6 or 9 or whatever, It also suggests - to me at least - that it is only a matter of time before large reactors can be constructed in 3 years, especially in China and Russia.

Malcolm Rawlingson noted that China put 11 reactors on line in 2013 alone, and there are 30 under construction in that country. The prediction of a total of 100 Chinese reactors constructed in this century has also been bandied about, and needs to be taken seriously, because the energy those reactors can provide will be used to improve the already impressive competitiveness of the Chinese economy, which among other things means financing their demand for foreign energy resources. In addition, Chinese households now pay only a third of the unit price for electricity as is paid in Germany.

Rawlingson also dislikes the term 'nuclear waste', which as he points out is not waste but "a huge source of power for the future, since most fuel bundles burn only a very small amount of the fissile U-235 isotope, which means that a very large amount of energy is still to be found in what has erroneously come to be known as 'waste'." Of course, there will be plenty of fuel for reactors when U-238 can be optimally exploited.


Proof is the title of a trashy film (and stage play) in which a professor - apparently at the University of Chicago, and in the final days of his life - reaches the conclusion that he can supply proofs for some goofy mathematical play-acting that might remind friends and neighbours of his long-lost genius, assuming of course that he can publish this delusory garble in the kind of (mostly unread) 'learned' journals that supply both meaning and dimension to the lives of many academics.

By way of contrast, I neither want nor need a proof of what nuclear has to offer, and if I did I would begin in Germany, where reactors are being turned off at the request of Chancellor Merkel. Here I use some information from a brilliant article (in Swedish) by Björn Lomborg (2014), although the only difference between his observations, and those employed by Yours Truly in my lectures are some numerical results. The next time I teach I will extend his remarks though by harping on the insistence by 139 executives and insiders that Ms Merkel's Energiewende is destructive for German industry, although just as important was Lomborg's contention that household electricity prices in Germany are almost 48% above the European average, despite the enormous subsidies paid by to prevent price rises.

This is what is known in the U.S. as a 'double whammy', since the main impact of this price increase is against low income families, who in one way or another are severely inconvenienced by the German subsidy farce. In reality though we might have a triple whammy, since according to Bill Payne in Energy Pulse (2014), "in the real world the Germans are at 23% renewables and have massive grid stability problems." I am sure that he is correct about the stability/instability issue, although 23% sounds to me like something dreamed up by economists and 'strategists' who believe that that the noble presence of large amounts of renewables on German soil might compensate German ratepayers for the embarrassment of being made fools of by the political process,

A more important observation comes from Jeffrey Michel, an MIT graduate who is an important energy economist in Germany. He says that "not even 10 percent of the transmission lines have been built in Germany that would be required to replace nuclear power by offshore wind generation - mathematically if not with the same reliability." I can add to that. The same economists/strategists referred to above have likely informed Ms Merkel that the way to offset a deficit in domestic electric power is not to rely on wind turbines in the Baltic or the sun shining over the Reeperbahn, but to import power generated by nuclear and fossil fuel equipment in neighboring countries.

The ostensible purpose of the Energiewende was not just to save German citizens from clear and present dangers posed by earthquakes and tsunamis of the type that have not been experienced in that country since the Stone Age, or earlier, but to reduce pollution and demonstrate that nuclear is unnecessary for maintaining the standard of living. Where pollution is concerned, proportionally more coal is now burned in Germany than was the case in the hey-days of the German Democratic Republic (= East Germany). Moreover, the (unspoken) judgment that importing electricity from surrounding countries could offset the relative inefficiency of 'green investments' in Germany was inaccurate, and instead has resulted in the appearance of the kind of 'energy poverty' experienced by many households in the UK, and for which the former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major has blamed the present UK government.

Once again the matter of proof surfaces, and along with emphasizing a 4 year construction period for nuclear in China, you can add the following for what happens when nuclear capacity decreases, but an attempt is made to maintain the national product. Although the largest importer of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the world, Japan is now importing even more LNG, and has also increased its imports of coal and oil in order to generate the energy lost due to shutting down its reactors. What they are doing is replacing nuclear by fossil fuels and not renewables, because unlike Germany they already realize that attempting to replace nuclear by renewables is madness.

Moreover, the Japanese trade deficit in 2013 was the largest in recent memory, and according to an estimate cited by Nick Cunningham, the cost Japan pays for keeping its reactors turned off is 96 million dollars per day. If social costs are included it is more, although I see no reason to claim that this amount is ruinous. Instead I would like to point out that an extra 96 million dollars per day, invested in obtaining more highly skilled graduates from secondary schools specializing in technical subjects, makes a lot of economic sense for a country like Japan - and other countries as well.


But first the lie or misunderstanding of the 21st century, which originated with Rainer Baake, a deputy energy minister in Germany. According to him, "Germany has learned in only 13 years to produce electricity with wind and large solar facilities at the same price as if new gas or coal power stations were constructed." Readers can draw their own conclusions on that contention on the basis of the previous or following discussions, which say something about the price of electricity to German industry and households, although one of the most important things not said is that - according to the Federation of German Industries - the price of industrial electricity has increased about 37%, with billions lost in net exports.

They can also think about the following. China's voracious energy needs are a source of (unspoken) concern for the governments of many countries - countries that have to compete with the Chinese in world markets. The story here is simple: the Chinese miracle was made possible by that 'voracious' use of energy, and without it they would just be another also ran. Try asking yourself where they would be if they had decided to ignore nuclear and instead counted on wind and solar to give their population a decent standard of living. And not just nuclear. China became the world's second-largest net importer of crude oil and petroleum products in 2009, and 2010 the largest global energy consumer. That country's oil consumption growth accounted for one-third of the world's oil consumption in 2013 and the EIA predicts that China will surpass the U,S as the largest net oil importer later this year. How do you like those apples, as they say in Boston!

China might also be breaking records for the consumption of coal, but another country counting on that resource is Germany, where the amount used will increase rather than decrease, even though increasing numbers of environmentalists have started concluding (and complaining) that nuclear might be a better option, and increasing numbers of reports are appearing which state that the German economy could go completely off the rails if the new energy arrangements in that country are not dumped.

I perhaps should also note that German power companies generating electricity with natural gas are losing money because of the manner in which the subsidy farce works, and this is very bad news because a (fast-start) 'backup' is essential for wind and solar due their lack of reliability. I used the expression 'energy poverty' above, which in the case of Germany means that tens of thousands of persons could not pay their energy bills this winter, and apparently had their electricity shut off. Jeffrey Michel has also treated this subject. He confirms that the price of electricity for households in Germany is only exceeded by Denmark and Hawaii. Thanks to the curse of electric deregulation that price is also high in Sweden, and thanks to German imports of electricity it will soon be higher - unless the Swedes smarten up and begin taxing electric exports.

The matter of grid instability is certain to bother my students, but it simply means that the availability and strength of wind and solar power are unpredictable, and having to deal with e.g. frequent overloads on the grid is technically and economically unpleasant. Moreover, in theory - and perhaps in fact - some producers might have to be paid not to produce in order to avoid serious damage to the grid.

I also claimed that the nuclear intensity in Germany and Japan could be the highest in the world at mid-century. The reason is that they have started to receive a lesson in what a nuclear retreat is all about - i.e. what it means - and if they now find this lesson difficult to comprehend, it will become clearer in the future because of what that retreat will eventually mean for the incomes, welfare and lifestyles of many families.


Abraham, Claude and Andre Thomas (1970). Microéconomie: Decisions Optimales dans l'entreprise et dans la nation. Dordrecht (Holland): D. Reidel.
Amaha, Eriko and Stephanie Wilson. 'Japan's Tepco submits new business plan to boost LNG imports'. Platts.
Banks, Ferdinand E. (2014). Energy and Economic Theory. Singapore, London and New York: World Scientific (forthcoming).
______. 2007. The Political Economy of World Energy. London, New York and Singapore: World Scientific.
Henderson, James M. and Richard E. Quandt (1980). Microeconomics Theory: A Mathematical Approach. Tokyo and New York: McGraw Hill.
Lomborg, Björn (2014). 'Tysklands avskräckande energipolitiska exempel.' Svenska Dagbladet. (Sondag, 9 March).
Michel, Jeffrey (2014). Haushaltsstrompreise in Deutschland, 2013. Stencil.
Khaleel, Shehu (2012). 'Post Fushima disaster: the fate of nuclear energy'. Energy Pulse (March 20),
Mittal, Lakshmi (2014). 'Rewrite energy policy and reindustrialize Europe'. The Financial Times (Tuesday, January 21st).
Sovacool, Benjamin K. (2010). 'Questioning a nuclear renaissance'.
Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy (Singapore)

Ferdinand E. Banks's picture

Thank Ferdinand E. for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.


Richard Vesel's picture
Richard Vesel on November 6, 2014
Well done, Fred! A sane vision for the future of nuclear to 2100, where globally, perhaps 200-300 plants may be built, in politically stable countries, with an eye on prudent and cautious spent fuel management, reprocessing and reuse. The economics of such facilities may dictate a new approach, where government may finance and build the initial project, assuming all the risks, and once the facility is up and running, then it is sold, at a profit, to public or private utilities that are qualified to be responsible long-term owner-operators. Such projects are not without precedent, and there is plenty of time to line up potential buyers for an auction-style sale. If a satisfactory minimum bid is not achieved, then the plant profitably remains in the hands of the government until an attractive offer is received. Today's plants are cash cows for their owners, and are being heavily invested in, uprated, and licensed for another 20+ years of operation by the NRC.
Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on November 6, 2014
Thanks Richard, and that business about the government building and then Selling makes sense to me, as long as there is no Conspiracy of buyers. Thanks.
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on November 6, 2014
Agreed all Fred. Though I think the problem you address is insurmountable as long as the voters get their information from the likes of "modern" media [Duh... duh....Squirrel!!].
Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on November 7, 2014
I agree, Len, although ideally voters would avoid ignoramuses and phonies like George W. Bush and Obama. BUT,,,unfortunately, that's what we've got to deal with, and just about everywhere. The interesting thing is that it's not just the media, but also e.g. the academics. Moreover, I agree with Francis Fukuyama that Germany and Japan are the countries that are going to show us something, but when. Germany seems to have lost the plot.
Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on November 8, 2014
Seems to me the economic problems with nuclear plants in the West (US & Europe) lie basically with stupefying over-regulation, out-dated technology and, in some cases, outright bureaucratic/political antagonism. For instance, the former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission was unquestionably anti-nuclear (for crying out loud, the guy was a staff member for adamantly anti-nuclear senator Markey of Massachusetts).

With legions of bureaucrats and mountains of mind-numbing regulations, not too surprising costs are stunningly high and completion schedules nearly a decade. Under such a scenario, you have to ask yourself: Why would any utility company in their right mind want to build a nuclear power plant? The financial risks are enormous and the profit potential pretty remote. Very poor investment.

Advocating that the government (as in the taxpayer) assume the risk strikes me as fundamentally at odds with free-market principles.

To be blunt, if nuclear power cannot compete, then it should go away. Ditto for "green" energy.

PS Richard's observation on "Cash Cows" only works if the nuclear plants are basically paid off or not badly broken. Several nuclear plants have been closed within the last several years because they cannot compete. However, the owners bought previously running plants, paid too much and attempted to sell power that was pricey (or the broken plants were too expensive to fix). Unfortunately, low natural gas prices (as well as government interference, AKA renewable subsidies and mandates) caused the market price of power to be less than the nuclear units production costs (including debt repayment, repairs costs and the desired rate of return).

Also, the "uprate" business has pretty much dried up because the incremental improvement costs are no longer supported by the market price of power. Credit low natural gas prices AND the rapid advancement/improvements of combustion turbine (as in the "competition"). In other words, nuclear's competitors are just plain better.

Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on November 9, 2014
Thanks for your input, Michael, but I wont buy it.

First a dumb president who starts a war on the basis of a lie, and then an ignorant president who keeps talking about 100 years of natural gas consumption at the present level. Top that off with a succession of ENERGY SECRETARIES. who - apparently - are completely and totally hopeless, and no wonder even intelligent folks say things about energy that make no sense at all..

Incidentally, notice the Word 'apparently' because the last two Energy Secretaries actually know as much about the current global energy situation as I do, or more, and if they don't there are persons in their vicinity who would be glad to provide them with a superabundance of facts and details. But unless I am mistaken, the USDOE is filled with folks who know that lies and nonsense are more welcome in the White Houses of Messrs Bush and Obama than the real deal..

If the 2.5 trillion dollars that have been wasted on stupid wars had been use to give the American people what they need, this kind of discussion would not be taking Place, and let me add something really important. I am and will remain a Democrat, but if they insist on nominating presidential candidates who cannot add and subtract, I will just have to ignore my responsibilities.

Malcolm Rawlingson's picture
Malcolm Rawlingson on November 9, 2014
Thanks for the quoting from my previous writings here Fred. I am gratified to know that it does not fall on deaf ears.

Of course nuclear power has its flaws (there are no perfect energy sources) but when compared to the size of the problem we face it is without question the only large scale energy source that can meet the demand.

The Chinese Government clearly sees nuclear power as a major plank in their energy program for two main reasons. Reason one is to clean the air in its cities from the smog arising mostly from coal fired generation of electricity. Reason Two is to make itself energy self-sufficient. Along with the large number of reactors under construction they are also constructing fast breeder technology so that they can produce all the fuel they will ever need in a continuous recycling process.

Once you have energy self-sufficiency you also have political self sufficiency a lesson not yet learned by the west who continue to have their politics influenced by the worlds energy moguls.

Would the US have fought a war in Iraq if not for its dependency on oil? I doubt it.

Nuclear power - for all its many faults - is still in my opinion the only reliable method of producing energy on the scale necessary to provide 7 billion people with a half decent standard of living.


Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on November 10, 2014
Alan Greenspan said that the war in Iraq was about oil, and he should know. Fred Banks said that the war in Libya was about oil, and he was almost certainly correct.

About nuclear, what we need in the US are politicians who can add and subtract, and therefore understand our arguments. It helps if they are honest and are not involved in show business, like a certain person whom I will not name, but whose initials are B as in Barack and O as in Obama.

But once again, honest Energy Secretaries would refuse to support the logic of ignorant presidents or for that matter ignorant bankers lending Money for excessive wind and solar investments. Note the Word excessive. People with better educations than mine, and who may be smarter than I am, want wind and solar and they should have some. Some. but not a lot. They should not be able to do what is being done in Germany, and about 20 percent of the populations in industrial countries want their presidents to approve and copy.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on November 10, 2014
I do not buy the "Iraq war all about oil" argument. In my opinion, was primarily about killing terrorists and setting up an area from which to undermine the influence of the terrorist. That is exactly what occurred until "Barry-the-Incompetent" abandoned Iraq. We are now seeing the results of a bumbling, arrogant fool in the White House, with the terrorists metastasizing all over the region.

The "all-about-oil" crowd is apparently unable to comprehend George Bush's deeply held belief of the need to eradicate the terrorists who attacked the US.

I am also amazed at folks who seem to place nuclear power (or "green energy" for that matter) as immune from competition. Seems to me this invariably leads to poor solutions, whereas a free-market approach inherently leads to much better solutions.

Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on November 11, 2014
Well Michael, I do not know with whom you dine, drink and dance, but I do have some information about Dr Greenspan. Namely, he lives in Washinton, he is not short of Walking around Money, he likes jazz, and his Entertainment expenses are considerably larger than mine.

As for the terrorists that you wanted liquidated, well I happen to Believe that George W. was the best friend of those people, He served as their recruiting sergeant, and I am sure that the first page of your local newspaper gives you the latest news about those gentlemen. Moreover, EVEN IF YOU ARE CORRECT, that war was wrong. It iwas the biggest mistake made by an American president in modern times. and it is Amazing to me to see the criticism leveled at e.g. Mr Putin, when in my book George W. Bush was one of the biggest fools and blunderer in this Century. Everything considered, he probably was the biggest. As the Dean of Engineering at Illinois Institute of Technology said about yours truly just Before I was expelled for poor scholarship, that man was completely hopeless.

As for Barry, blame the voters for that mistake. Yes, democracy being what it is, there is no reason to complain about the election of George W. and Barry. The thing to complain about is why weren't they dumped after their first terms. As a matter of fact, if Kerry had been elected, we might have been spared the curse of Mr Obama. And let me repeat something: if the 2.5 trillion spent on that war had been used for the Children of America, for primary and secondary education, the U.S. would likely be a better Place, or on its way to being a better Place.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on November 11, 2014
Following your line of logic, in World War II we should not of antagonized the Germans and Japanese by killing them. Gee, think of all the money we could have spent on the Children of America if we had not built weapons to destroy the Axis.
Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on November 11, 2014
Sorry Michael, but you are overlooking something here. Japan attacked the US on Dec 7, 1941. On Dec 11 Hitler declared war on the Big PX. If you read German you should read his Declaration of War Speech. If that wasn't Fruitcake, I don't know what was,

About the war, the US had some of the worst generals in the World giving the orders, beginning with General MacArthur and his buddies. As for designing and constructing weapons, ships and planes, American industry performed miracles, and they could do the same today if they keep fools like George W. and Barry O out of the White House. They failed in one respect and that was with the main battle tank, That failure probably cost a million lives.

I will admit though that I may be wrong when I say that we could do the same today. When I Went into the military we were told that the US won wars - in fact, that was what the US was all about. As far as I can tell, it is only a matter of time until the Word win will be declared un-American. Something like Sweden, where you are told to Believe that people who cannot add and subtract have the same brainpower as Swedish nuclear physicists......

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on November 13, 2014
Micheal, the only way to make sense of W Bush and the invasion of Iraq is to understand empire theory. See, it doesn't matter if the country as a whole can benefit from an action, just whether the wealthy in control can benefit. As long as the taxpayers are willing to share the cost of the military equally, the wealthy are perfectly happy to use it for their own purposes.
Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on November 13, 2014
I'd like to put that anothe way, Len. What a rotten piece of luck that the U.S. would get a president like George W. Bush, but something like that can Always happen. But what was going on in the minds of American voters that led them to keep that man in the White House.
Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on November 15, 2014
I never thought that I would recommend an article by the mathematician, finance theorist and Cold Warrior Marin Katusa, but if you have access to the site 321 energy, then you perhaps should take a look at his new article THE LOOMING URANIUM CRISIS. By Cold Warrior I mean that I have tended to Place him among the NUTHOUSERS who Think that Putin is warming up for WW3, but now I suspect that he does not belong there. Is there a looming uranium crisis? Well, I cannot answer that, but what I do know is that governments who Believe that this is possible should Contact Mr Bill Gates and ask him when the reactor he is financing will be ready, and also ask him or his chief nuclear mechanic what that reactor will do where uranium demand is concerned.
Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on November 15, 2014
Ever wonder where the US gets most of it's uranium? Not domestically (17%).

As far as Bush is concerned, I am quite certain the invasion of Iraq was aimed at luring-in the terrorists and killing them while also "nation building". Was it a good strategy? I would have killed the bastards at every opportunity (retribution) and not even attempted the "nation-building". No way in hell we can ever change the Middle East religious fanatics who have been killing themselves, Arabs, Jews and Christians for thousands of years. Less likely to spread, however, when the fanatics can expect death from above at any time and anywhere with no notice as long as they exist. Could moderate Arabs then have a chance to thrive? Maybe.

Ferdinand E. Banks's picture
Ferdinand E. Banks on November 16, 2014
Where the US is concerned, I happen to be a nationalist. As an American Citizen I dont care about what is happening on the other side of the globe. Although it might sound stupid, I Think that eventually Americans will understand the logic in that position, although of course it doesn't make any difference what they understand if they keep electing ignoramuses like Obama.

But at the same time I also like the idea of the US being generous toward the underprivileged, and trying to set an example for other countries. But what the hell does that mean when an American president starts a war on the basis of a lie, and the ignorant next president faces a TV camera and calls Russia a danger to World Peace. Sure, the activities of the Russians on the Eastern borders of the Ukraine dont make sense, but the way to deal with that issue is to invite Mr Putin to a sit-down in the White House where it can be explained to him that there is a better way to carry out his business than the way that he seems to have chosen.

And with reference to my article I would like to repeat that the ÚS performed industrial miracles in the Second World War, and voters should insist that they perform those miracles again where their energy supply is concerned. Of course, voters will have to be told what those miracles were, since neither their University or secondary school teachers bothered to tell them, assuming that those teachers knew, which of course is uncertain.

Malcolm Rawlingson's picture
Malcolm Rawlingson on November 18, 2014
Isn't that the truth Fred. I don't think half the teachers in the US know much about what was done in WW2 let alone the history of the rest of the world. While I am not a US citizen I do have a deep respect for the US and what it stands for. Without our great and friendly neighbour to the south Canada would be a very different place. We in Canada take our security for granted because we know that no-one would dare invade this continent with the US part of it.

It saddens me though to see what the idiots in Washington have done to the country. Mind you it also saddens me to see what the other set of idiots in Ottawa have done to Canada. While we have an electorate that thinks the results of the latest Maple Leaf Hockey Game loss are more important than the Keystone Pipeline or what is going on in Syria then we cannot expect our politicians to be of much higher calibre...and they are not. There is much truth to the saying that a country gets the Government it deserves.

But we must have really screwed things up to deserve this collection of charlatans.


Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »