Portia is asking for nuclear energy in Jamaica

[Assasin]

What do you think?

Jawge you deh bout?

[Willi]

Well someone was pushing the introduction of a pebble-bed reactor in Jamaica few weeks back in a letter to the Gleaner and someone else rebuffed the idea a week or so ago, citing tech and enviro issues.

Do a search and you will see.

[Hortical]

Does she know about the cost to construct a nuclear reactor to produce electricity?

Jamaica needs to develop a comprehensive energy strategy, and more can be achieved thru energy conservation, solar & wind energy.

[Willi]

The energy density of nuclear power is unmatched. However,m there are potential scarcity problems with nuclear fuel and the enviro hazard is phenomenal. is Jamaica mature enough to handle this?

Go read those pebble-bed columns in the Gelaner and make up your mind.

[Hortical]

It will cost billions to build a nuclear reactor, and before that is put on the table, more can be accomplished to reduce our importation of fuel to generate electricity.

[Willi]

Leading sustainable development - How about nuclear energy?

Published: Thursday | April 16, 2009


Vallana Hill, Contributor

No matter how many regional alliances Jamaica enter into, or free trade agreements we ratify - the main thing that will always remain the foundation of survival - is competition. Every balance struck natural or man-made is a result of equal and unchanging competition for resources between more than one organism. For Jamaica to survive in a rapidly-advancing world which embraces open competition through free trade and globalisation, we must change the way we approach our standard mode of operation by first gaining a competitive advantage. In the basic sense, competitive advantage comes three-fold for sustainability:
1. Cost leadership - delivering the same services as competitors at a lower cost.
2. Differentiation - greater services to customers at the same prices as competitors.
3. Focus - concentration on a narrow exclusive competitive segment hoping to achieve a local rather than industry-wide competitive advantage.
Sustainable development
According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, energy is one of the key building blocks of sustainable development. In all countries, it is the fundamental requirement for providing other basic life necessities, such as food, water, shelter and clothing. Without energy, from its simplest forms such as biomass to its more complex counterparts such as fossil fuels or hydro-electricity, society is unable to maintain or improve living standards, meet the basic needs of its citizens or maintain the socio-economic infrastructure necessary for political and economic stability.
It is clear that fossil fuel energy for some time has been a volatile source of energy for small states such as Jamaica, after seeing our fuel bill almost double last year because of world speculation on political happenings far beyond our control and influence. We need a better more stable and efficient source of energy that is environmentally safe, affordable and renewable.
Energy diversification
Recent studies on Jamaica's electricity requirements confirm the need for energy diversification and the necessity for replacement of obsolete plants. The generation cost of these old plants is so high that costly commitments for at least some diversification and plant replacement may well be necessary.
According to Dr Charles Grant in his paper entitled 'Nuclear Power Generation in Small Nations', renewable sources of energy may be inefficient to meet our energy needs: "... In 2002, Jamaica produced 6.3 TWh of electricity, 97.4 per cent of which was generated from oil. Renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, tides and waves do not provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed and our potential for hydropower (118 MW)8 is not sufficient for current demand. The Wigton Wind Farm project in Manchester has 23 wind turbines installed with a capacity of 900 kW each, for a total capacity of 20.7 MW (potential for 70 MW). The wind farm is expected to run at an average capacity factor of 35 per cent, which would supply approximately 62,000 MWh of electricity per year. The use of biomass in Jamaica is in the region of 1.2 million barrels fuel oil equivalent. However, none of the biomass processes are used for electricity generation. Renewable energy sources are, therefore, limited to some 10-20 per cent of the capacity of our electricity grid, so other sources seem necessary to reduce dependence upon fossil fuels."
Possible solution
One solution we can investigate is nuclear energy. Below shows a comparison of the costs of electricity from nuclear fission compared with other energy sources.
Global nuclear generating capacity is growing rapidly: fourteen new power plants were connected to the grid between 2004 and 2007, 35 reactors are under construction, with a further 91 ordered or planned. As of March, 2008, there was a total of 228 reactors proposed worldwide.
Advantages
The advantages of nuclear power are:
(1) The plants do not emit carbon dioxide, nitrogen or sulphur oxides and release much less radioactivity than coal or oil-fuelled plants;
(2) Its enormous energy density is several million times that of chemical fuels. One single pass use a kg of uranium fuel generates 400,000 kWh of electricity, compared to about 4 kWh from oil;
(3) Uranium projections for the future are robust and many countries are seeking new sources;
(4) the operating costs of fission reactors are not very sensitive to fuel prices, doubling the cost of nuclear fuel would increase the price of nuclear generated electricity by five per cent compared with, for example, the effect of doubling the cost of natural gas, which could lead to electricity price rises of 75 per cent;
(5) The industry is at least as safe as is any other of its scale.
Concerns
There remain concerns that include: (1) the long lead time and high capital costs to construct and commission nuclear reactors; (2) 'final' disposal of nuclear wastes; (3) proliferation of nuclear weapons (4) the availability of nuclear-trained persons in the face of the expected global demand.
The new generations of nuclear reactors incorporate several improvements including: enhanced reactor safety; improve nuclear power generation economics; minimise environmental impact; and improve resource utilisation.
The Pebble Bed Reactor
The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a new type of high temperature helium gas-cooled nuclear reactor, that got its name from the type of fuel the reactor runs on - little tennis ball size spheres with a uranium core and a ceramic coating, offering a unique safety mechanism which makes it easy to store the spent fuel, because the silicon carbide coating on the fuel spheres will keep the radioactive decay particles isolated for approximately a million years, which is longer that the activity even of plutonium.
There are opportunities for Jamaica to assess the comparative designs of small reactors but at this stage the pebble bed is nearest to production and is an attractive possibility. This design is claimed to be simpler to operate and maintain, to make extensive use of passive systems for safety and to utilise components that can hardly be compromised by human error. In particular, the design excludes core damage and radioactive releases were an accident to occur. The relatively low power output, relative simplicity, and built in high safety margins, support consideration for [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]application[/COLOR][/COLOR] in Jamaica and the regulatory and licensing processes are likely to be simpler and quicker. South Africa has developed a German technology for a 160 MWe modular unit (PMBR). Chinergy (in China) is preparing to build a somewhat similar 195 MWe unit, and the US is developing another design with 285 MWe modules.
Requirements for starting a nuclear power programme
Even a small nuclear power programme is a major undertaking for Jamaica. It involves relatively large capital sums, significant investment in a sustainable human and technological infrastructure, legal and regulatory support to ensure safety and security, and safeguards against proliferation. Most countries have taken 10 to 20 years between the time that an initial decision is taken to launch a programme and a reactor comes on stream. However, with the introduction of standardised reactors this time may be significantly reduced. Considerations to move forward however, will necessarily take time as what now seems to be the most suitable reactor, has still to be tested under commercial conditions. Yet, even during the preparation for a decision there can be valuable spin-off benefits including the push to do some related work that should be done anyway and is affordable. The MIAS is a non-profit organisation of the University of the West Indies, Pure and Applied Sciences Department, offering analytical, technical and web services and specialised science projects. If you have any question or comments about these articles please email: mias@uwimona.edu.jm or uwi.mias@gmail.com or contact the MIAS Analytical Services Division at 970-2042 or 512-3067 for enquires on services offered.

[Willi]

Alarmist view on nuclear reactors

Published: Thursday | April 23, 2009


The Editor, Sir:
Letter writer Nam Singh has quite an alarmist view of nuclear energy which is, unfortunately, the typical knee-jerk reaction of the majority of the population, until they are familiar with the fact that nuclear energy has done more good for mankind than harm.
It is the controlled use of nuclear energy that has made everyday contributions to mankind's benefit; without it, there would be no early detection and treatments for cancer, microsurgical successes, microwaving of food, cellular phones, DVDs, nanofibers, etc. Hopefully, however, the attitudes of our leaders will be based on knowledge of the facts and they will weigh their decisions from an enlightened viewpoint, utilising the most modern technologies to get Jamaica out of it's deep hole and to the forefront where it belongs. This will only be possible if there is cheap energy. Hopefully also, they do not choose to succumb to the [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]populist[/COLOR][/COLOR]

reaction from the ill- and under-informed.
Singh's viewpoint should be respected, but, at the same time, he is completely ignorant of the advances in technology, especially in the fifth generation nuclear reactors known as PBMRs (Pebble Bed Modular Reactors); or he chose the alarmist view without understanding the article written by Valanna Hill of the University of the West Indies in The Sunday Gleaner of April 12.
It should be emphasised that the article is a contribution from the UWI and there is no positioning to benefit by her, nor by me when I recently proposed the investment in response to the JPS's [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]application[/COLOR][/COLOR] for a rate increase.
As far as safety is concerned, Hill did point out that all the concerns were addressed by the PBMRs, which is considered "idiot proof", meaning that the likelihood of a holocaust is impossible, and that the pellets containing the uranium would be completely harmless before use as well as after it has been cycled.
I am, etc.,
DONALD CHUNG
canjamma@yahoo.com
Kingston 6

[Willi]

Jamaica: Energy policy and strategy
published: Sunday | June 22, 2008


Zia Mian, Contributor
I would like to respond to some of the comments I have received regarding the discussion of ethanol as automotive fuel. The Sunday Gleaner, June 8, article clearly states that the "blend of ethanol beyond 10 per cent-15 per cent requires flexi-vehicles to avoid damage to the fleet". The article did not imply that flexi-vehicles are needed for E-blend below 15 per cent.
Regarding the energy content of E-100 as compared to gasolene, let me draw the readers' attention to a recently published landmark study titled 'A Blueprint for Green Energy in the Americas', which was commissioned by the Inter-American Development Bank. Paragraph C-6.1 on page 44 of the study states that, "E-85 contains nearly 28 per cent less energy per litre than gasolene, while E-100 contains more than 33 per cent less."
Energy content
These data are based on specifications sourced from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. On page 45 of the same study a table titled 'Table 2.1b: Gasolene Litre Equivalents of Biofuels' present the energy content for regular gasolene at 30,145 Btu per litre and for E-100 ethanol at 20,106 Btu per litre.
This translates into relative ethanol efficiency amounting to 66.7 per cent as compared to the energy output from regular gasolene. Thus, one litre of gasolene is equal to one and one half litre of ethanol. The comparative data in this table are sourced from National Association of Fleet Administrators, Inc.
Regarding the economics of converting sugar into ethanol, it varies from country to country. While Brazilian sugar cane yields per hectare are relatively high (about 85,000 kg) and its ethanol production programme has been successful; small sugar producers do need to carefully evaluate the cost/benefit of ethanol production from inefficient operations and their ability to export sugar at special prices (if any).
Agricultural subsidies
In the United States, the so-called 'economics' of ethanol production is driven by very large agricultural subsidies and the fiscal incentives for blending the ethanol into the gasolene. Taxpayers are footing the bill for this programme. Considering transport and other cost factors, claims regarding ethanol's contribution to reducing dependence on imported transport fuels significantly, requires a careful evaluation.
To conclude the series, let me re-cap the energy policy options for Jamaica. They include increased focus on energy efficiency and conservation; incorporating appropriate renewables into the energy supply mix (biofuels, hydropower, solar and wind); ensuring timely erection of adequate power generation capacity to ward off power outages and reliance on high cost [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]diesel [COLOR=orange! important]generators[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]; developing secure and cost-efficient fuel diversification programmes to reduce dependence on high-cost imported oil; embracing new technologies to increase the efficiency and reduce costs (combined cycle, flexi- and diesel-based vehicles, nuclear technology, etc.); developing necessary enabling regulatory and institutional framework to encourage the introduction of new fuels and technologies; and the future financing of the fuel switch and energy conversion infrastructure.
Under threat
Oil consumption in Jamaica is mainly concentrated in bauxite/alumina, power generation and transport sectors. With the cost of oil at unprecedented levels, the cost-competitiveness of Jamaican alumina production is under threat.
The alumina refineries have to decide how soon they can make a fuel switch to reduce the energy cost of production and what would be the financing requirement for such a switch? The options available to them include imported coal and natural gas and the development of associated infrastructure to receive these fuels.
The Government needs to formulate a comprehensive national approach towards the selection of fuel that would fully address: a) the security of supply and stability of pricing concerns; b) the longer-term cost to the economy; c) impact on the global competitiveness; d) environmental considerations and potentially applicable carbon tax and/or credits; e) financing of the necessary infrastructure; and f) long-term risk management.
In the medium term, Jamaica needs to focus on reducing the oil intensity of the economy which has been increasing at 1.4 per cent per annum. The real GDP-generation cost in Jamaica is one of the highest in the developing world.
High heat rates
In the power sector, the emphasis would have to be on reducing generation heat rates and system losses. The use of combined cycle technology should be actively considered. With the commissioning of combined cycle generation units, the country can improve heat rates and reduce the cost of fuel.
In the bauxite/alumina sector apart from fuel switch, co-generation should form part of the comprehensive national energy strategy. In the transport sector a change in lifestyle is required and the importation of gas-guzzling SUVs would have to be curtailed. This would mean introducing measures to encourage the import of high-efficiency smaller vehicles
Fuel choice
In the longer term, the current fuel choice should be seen as an interim step (2010-2025) towards adopting a cost-effective sustainable option. In this series, it was pointed out that the development of pebble-bed modular reactors (PBMR - nuclear technology) is likely to offer cost-efficient solution to the developing economies that require smaller size green energy plants. Jamaica should actively evaluate and monitor the PBMR developments as they progress in South Africa and in many other countries.
The development of appropriate renewables is important. At present renewable energy accounts for only 5.2 per cent of Jamaica's energy supply mix. In the longer term while the role of renewables in the energy supply mix is likely to remain limited; its share in the national energy mix can be significantly increased. In this regard a well-thought-out strategy for the blending of biofuels in to the auto fuels beyond 10 per cent - 15 per cent should be carefully evaluated.
About 40 per cent of the current available generation system capacity is over 30 years old and has high system heat rates. Considering the high cost of fuel, the power sector needs to focus on the retirement of this generation capacity and replace it with more efficient combined cycle units.
A timetable and [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]investment [COLOR=orange! important]strategy[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] should be developed to commission replacement generation capacity on a timely basis. With a switch in fuel supply mix and consideration of nuclear as potential candidate in the longer term, the country also needs to establish regulatory and institutional capacity to deal with new fuel as well as nuclear technology.
Conservation options
Solar water heating, and other conservation options, must remain high on the energy policy agenda. The lessons of demand side management programme must be internalised and a comprehensive programme developed and supported through appropriate financing mechanism.
It is projected that an effective efficiency and conservation improvement programme can reduce Jamaica's oil import bill by US$150 million a year by 2015. An appropriate fuel switch can improve these savings by another US$600 million per annum. Zia Mian, a retired senior World Bank official, is an international consultant on information technology and energy. He may be reached at mian_zia@hotmail.com. Feedback may also be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.

[Willi]

Nuclear energy development

Published: Monday | April 20, 2009

The Editor, Sir:
Vallana Hill's article (of April 16) about nuclear energy clearly shows the way ahead, and how our leaders should be refocusing, especially when the OUR is now being confronted with the JPS's request for a rate increase.
Now that there is a new minister of energy, we hope he will take steps to listen to the technologists whose instructions were ignored by his predecessor once he was promoted to the position.
Clearly, the way of the future for Jamaica to be competitive is by securing a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. The funds which the JPS promises to invest could easily finance a PBMR and produce four times the energy at a tenth of the price, and if the JPS is not prepared to do it, other investors should be allowed to.
In that case, the JPS would concentrate on delivering energy and reducing the losses, and allow net metering which was suggested by Professor Anthony Chen, which would only be fair to the suppliers of power to their grid.
We note also that the graph in the article did not add the use of biomass for energy in the list. This does not mean that energy from this source would not be cost-effective. Biomass may well be more effectively converted than even nuclear, and affordable from an investment point of view, since the byproducts of such a plant would generate income from sale of organic fertiliser, cooking gas, ethanol, recyclable plastics and glass, and the like.
Utilising the over 1.2 million tons of garbage with modular trigenerators costing less than US$120 million for two SAGL Pyrolysis plants would not only produce over 100 Megawatts of energy, but income for the National Solid Waste Management Authority (NSWMA) and a much cleaner Riverton City dump.
I am, etc.,
DONALD CHUNG
canjamma@yahoo.com Kingston 6

[Willi]

Nuclear energy and its by-products

Published: Friday | April 24, 2009


The Editor, Sir:
In Thursday's paper, in response to a cautionary letter from another writer Nam Singh, letter writer Donald Chung referred to Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (PBMRs) as "idiot proof". I would like to point out that, to my knowledge, the only such prototype currently in use is in China, and a PBMR prototype plant was abandoned in Germany because of an accident in which a jammed pellet was damaged by operators trying to dislodge it from a feeder tube.
Conceptually attractive
While the idea is conceptually attractive, the fact is that many concerns still have to be addressed:
a) The radioactive fuel is encased in potentially combustible graphite;
b) The silicon carbide used to coat the graphite to mitigate against combustion is vulnerable to shear and expansion forces and gases such as xenon-133 which are not absorbed in carbon can build up within pebbles, causing them to rupture;
c) What do we do with the radioactive by-products from the PBMR? As Nam Singh pointed out, we either have to store it safely for thousands of years or reprocess/transmute it in a different type of reactor. Is it fair to unborn generations to ask them to deal with the consequences of our polluting activities?
Unfortunately, even solar and wind energy produce some (minimal) local pollution, but we need to look at these renewable energy sources as a priority rather than nuclear energy in any form which simply adds to the global environmental crisis which looms before us.
I am, etc.,
TREVOR BLAIR
tblair_ja@yahoo.com
Irish Town

[Willi]

LETTER OF THE DAY: Cheaper forms of energy for Jamalco and Jamaica

Published: Saturday | April 4, 2009

The Editor, Sir:
Since the prime minister is pondering the supply of cheap energy for Jamalco, I would dare to suggest that he consider one of the new fifth-generation nuclear reactors.
These reactors - known as PBMRs (Pebble Bed Modular Reactors) - can be supplied by our friends in China and South Africa and will produce energy cheaper than any other source. They are fail-safe in that the fission is controlled completely and the spectre of nuclear fallout is virtually impossible.
This aspect should be clearly defined and made public before irresponsible parties try to sound the alarm to an ignorant public. Nuclear reactors have been developed with safety features over the many years since the incident at Chernobyl, and many of the dangers which can be due to human error have been eliminated.
PBMRs are modular and the smallest unit, costing US$400 million, can produce over 400 megawatts energy per hour, which would increase Jamaica's output potential by over 30 per cent. This would more than compensate for the extremely high rates charged to the consumer of almost 10 times the cost by nuclear generation.
The other cheap alternative is coal, which costs more for the energy generated. [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Mining[/COLOR][/COLOR] and side effects of coal-mining results in the loss of thousands of lives each year, which is never recorded. Since we have no coal mines of our own, it would also entail the commitment of sea-going vessels port facilities and land acreage, which could be more beneficially utilised.
Uranium
Uranium, on the other hand, is a more stable market, uses very little space for storage, and the exhausted pellets can be more safely disposed of.
The entire effect would be to reduce the costs of alumina production and if the excess energy is added to the JPS' grid, and the reduction passed on to the consumer, Jamaica would be able to attract investors in production.
Since China considers us a most favourable nation, I am sure that they would be willing to put us at the top of the waiting list for these PBMRs. The result would be true synergism for lasting success.
I am, etc.,
DONALD CHUNG
dontruly@yahoo.com Kingston 6



More Articles from

[Willi]

How to break JPS monopoly

Published: Thursday | March 26, 2009



The Editor, Sir:
In the same way the monopoly of Cable and Wireless on telecommunications was removed to the benefit of consumers, we should open up the field of electricity to benefit Jamaicans in the long term.
Since the JPS is using its monopoly status to threaten not to invest one billion US dollars if it is not granted the increase, the Government may have no option but to give it to the company, but to do so with conditions.
The company's plan to invest one billion dollars to introduce the use of coal and coke technology may have some benefits if the reduced cost of production is passed on to the country. However, this has never been the case in the past and cannot be expected to be in the future of any monopoly.
What the Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) should also do is to allow "netmetering" so other, more efficient, producers of electricity may be allowed to enter the market.
"Netmetering" allows investors to produce electricity to add to the grid provided by the JPS, which would save them the need to invest in coal and coke generators which are neither beneficial to the consumer nor to the environment.
This will also give Jamaica a chance to produce energy from the fourth generation-type nuclear reactors which are completely failsafe and modular. A small pebble-bed modular reactor costs no more than US$400 million and can generate more than 350 megawatts at 2.5 to three cents per KWh, compared to 15-25 cents proposed by JPS, so it it far cheaper than coke and coal which we have no local stocks of and would have to import and dedicate many acres of land to stockpile. This would encourage the bauxite/alumina companies to reopen and diversify their production since the cost of energy would be more competitive internationally. Why can we not compete with other countries when our bauxite is closer to ports and will cost even less to produce and deliver?
Small-scale vertical wind turbines from 4 KWh to 250 KWh can be encouraged and would pay back their costs in two or three years at the current rate at which JPS proposes to charge the consumer. Even solar trigeneration technology could be viable at their high prices charged to consumers.
The diversification of our agriculture to produce microalgae for biodiesel and bio-pharmaceuticals should be encouraged since this is a billion-dollar business in the Far East. With the new Everlast batteries and improvement on nanotechnolgy fibers, we can provide electricity without the use of imported, environmentally-destructive petroleum products.
Jamaica needs to take a quantum leap forward with technology and not tie itself to any monopoly.
Housing concepts can also be improved to provide affordable units using prefabricated houses from China which can withstand Category 5 hurricanes and earthquakes at magnitude 8.0 on the Richter scale. These will reverse the trend of escalation in the prices of houses at a time when we are feeling the effects of the problems in the US economy.
High interest rates regime
President Obama has enough problems on his home front and will not have time to address our high-interest-rate regime which is fattening the banking sector at the expense of the productive sector which should be driving the economy and not vice versa as pointed out by Claude Clarke.
Our solution is to start building family clusters of low-cost houses with their own energy and water supply and introduce the concept of Islamic style banking. Since using money to make money is sinful, our banks should invest in companies to produce profit and be a part of their growth and not just collect interest. This would pay off more in the long run and benefit the productive sectors, rather than use their money to be interest-gatherers and charge enormous amounts for services, and give loans to people who can only dig themselves into deeper holes.
I am, etc.,
DONALD CHUNG
dontruly@yahoo.com
Mississauga Ontario

[Willi]

Energy costs on alumina production

Published: Monday | April 13, 2009


The Editor, Sir:
Donald Chung, in his April 4 letter, made a very valid point on nuclear energy and re-echoes a point made ad nauseam in this newspaper. The experts can check to ascertain the costs, but, subject to correction, I believe that the cost of nuclear energy would make alumina production much more profitable, pushing down the electricity component of the alumina extraction process from 40 per cent to between 15 and 18 per cent.
In addition, the cheap electric power would open new possibilities, like the competitive reduction of alumina to aluminium and the manufacturing of associated by-products. In addition, electric furnaces for high-end alloys and other power-intensive projects could become possible by adding a pebble bed reactor module to the system, as we need it, so not everything would need to be built at one time.
Financing possibilities could be bonds (1) to the alumina producing companies (2) locally, (3) to the design/build/operate contractors, (4) international lending agencies. Processing of the spent nuclear pebbles could be negotiated with the design/build/operate contractors. They reprocess them and for the sceptics, there is much to be learnt online.
For some time now, the cost of processing Jamaican bauxite has been climbing into the realm of uncompetitiveness, so those in charge should act swiftly to make the best of the remainder of the ore we have in the ground. It may even be useful for us to pick up one or two alumina refineries cheaply (on an extended payment [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]schedule[/COLOR][/COLOR]). One thing for sure though, unless we can access cheap power and own some of our local production, Jamaica is going nowhere, fast.
I am, etc.,
STEAD WILLIAMS
sweng19@hotmail.com
Stony Hill
Kingston 9

[Westman]

Why are we on this again? Tell Don1 that this makes me emotional!

I have said this here before many times. A country that does not maintain basic things properly has no business talking about embarking on nuclear energy development! Dont even bother getting to the details about costs for implementation and time to recover costs. Just stick to basics. When we can maintain schools and hospitals, etc at modern acceptable levels then maybe we can think about having a discussion about nuclear energy. It is clean and good but down right dangerous if very careful attention is not given to it every second of every day.

Now me done but me still emotional!

[Jawge]

I agree with this statement:
"When we can maintain schools and hospitals, etc at modern acceptable levels then maybe we can think about having a discussion about nuclear energy. It is clean and good but down right dangerous if very careful attention is not given to it every second of every day."