(S. Aegerter, J. Boone, B. Comby, M. Gay, R. Higgs, E. Jelinski, J. Shanahan, W. Soon) CO2 - nuclear

Initiating message for discussion about manmade and naturally occurring carbon dioxide, man-made global warming, fossil fuels and nuclear power John Shanahan USA August 25, 2020 To: Hans Achermann, nuclear utility executive manager (retired), Walter Aeberli engineering consultant in nuclear industry (retired), Simon Aegerter (physicist), author of "Das Wachstum der Grenzen" Switzerland Cc: Roger Higgs, geologist, UK Scientists, engineers studying the question of man-made global warming and nuclear power Australia, Canada, France, India, South Africa, the UK, the USA Dear Hans, Walter and Simon, In Switzerland, like in all of Europe and North America scientists, elected officials, and the public stand on all sides of the question of man-made global warming. Vast amounts of time by scientists and elected officials and vast sums of money for building wind and solar energy systems are being spent on this rather than more important things.

At allaboutenergy.net, we present articles on all sides of the topic "CO2 from fossil fuels": Alarmists, Lukewarmers, Not the least bit alarmed. See map of the website, page 2 under the heading ENVIRONMENT. These are hotlinks to 863 articles.

Our latest posting is by UK geologist, Roger Higgs. His two page paper has important graphs, data, references with succinct conclusions, click here.

Swiss physicist Simon Aegerter has written a book "Das Wachstum der Grenzen, The Growth of Borders." The title is a reference to the book "The Limits of Growth." He acknowledges the tremendous improvement fossil fuels have brought and the need to respect the environment. He has a concern about a climate tipping point if much more CO2 is produced from fossil fuels. Simon is a good friend of two Swiss friends of mine, 1

Hans Achermann and Walter Aeberli. Hans, Walter and I were involved with Nuclear Power Plant Leibstadt, KKL in the 1970s and 80s. Like all Swiss infrastructure and power plants, KKL operation and maintenance is exemplary.

As a civil engineer, once involved in the nuclear power industry and now an advocate for its continued use, I am concerned that many nuclear power professionals, their professional organizations, and non-nuclear advocates claim that nuclear will help solve the "man-made global warming problem." I have long thought that the "man-made global warming crisis" will be shown to not be a problem and that nuclear professionals will be discredited. Nuclear professionals should be concentrating on problems holding nuclear back rather than spending time with "mascots" like Melty the Polar Bear. I am also concerned with everyone who says that nearly the whole world can be on nuclear power in about fifty years because France and a few other countries did it. Billions of people live in countries with poor economies, poor governments, poor infrastructure, poor support industries, poor education systems, complicated by many languages that have not been used in the modern world. I think it will take several hundred years for the world to establish peace and prosperity to support nuclear power like in France and Switzerland. Thus, claims of man-made climate crises and claims of having nearly the whole on nuclear in fifty years are far from realistic and far from helpful.

I encourage anyone on cc: who is interested to engage Simon Aegerter about his concerns of a man-made climate tipping point from use of fossil fuels and discuss your thoughts in general about the future of nuclear power. Simon fully supports nuclear power and his concerns about the climate are genuine, not just an IPCC or Democratic Party agenda. I encourage India's young environmental and energy analyst Vijay Jayaraj to present his thoughts about India's and China's needs for fossil fuels.

Statements by Simon Aegerter in conversations in 2020 that might be part of the conversation: Simon Aegerter Statement 1 Thanks for pointing my attention to Don Bogard's writings. (It is an amusing coincidence that I too worked in the field of radiogeophysics in my youth). I have read several of the pieces on the list and I must say that I found almost nothing that I disagree completely with. Especially his article „Climate and Global Warming Issues…“ describes a position that is not far from my own. The differences are more in degree than in facts.

Obviously I am a little more worried than he is. I find it highly unlikely that the problem will simply go away or reveal itself as inconsequential. I agree that a lot of damage can be done by taking the wrong actions like trying to replace fossil fuels by nothing. Or believe in the potential of „renewables“ like the Germans do.

Also, I think we can develop nuclear power much faster than Don thinks. It doesn’t take much more than what the French did from 1975 to1988, albeit on a global scale. Look 2

how fast we developed the fossil fuel economy: It was minuscule before 1950 compared to today, just 70 years later.

I am not for alarmism, and no, we should not panic. But we should take the problem seriously. Yes we will have to use fossil fuels for many decades to come, but its use needs to diminish.

What I miss in his arguments is the positive feedback from methane. The thawing of permafrost – exemplified by the collapse of the foundation of an oil tank in Siberias Norilsk – releases methane as does the decomposition of clathrates in a warming ocean.

This possibility gives the whole issue a certain urgency.

Simon Aegerter Statement 2 Here are a few examples for positive feedbacks in the climate system: The foremost is water vapor. The effect that additional CO2 has in the heat balance of the earth is small, but even a slight rise in temperature allows for more water vapor in the air. Water vapour being such a powerful greenhouse gas, it multiplies the effect of CO2. The often cited CO2-sensitivity takes that into account. As you know, that sensitivity has been assumed to be between 1.5 and 4.5 °C for decades. A recent paper (described in the July 24 issue of „Science“) narrows it down to 2.6 to 3.9°C. This is not a feedback with a tipping point, just a reinforcement.

The albedo. The Sea-Ice in the Arctic is disappearing. (see the picture below). Water is darker than ice. There is less snow during a shorter time. Even the greening of the earth makes it darker: Forest is darker than grassland and grassland is darker than desert.

Here too – hardly a tipping point, on the contrary: If all white stuff is gone, the feedback ends.

The oceans. When seawater gets warmer, its ability to dissolve CO2 is reduced. That means more CO2 stays in the atmosphere, thereby enhancing the CO2-effect. Contrary to water vapor, which just enhances CO2 or the albedo, and has a limited effect, this one could run away. However, I don't think that the oceans ever get hot enough to actually shift the equilibrium to a net release of CO2.

Methane. There is methane in permafrost and in clathrates on the continental shelves.

Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but so far, that is irrelevant because the amounts in the air are so tiny – ppb rather than ppm. That could change if the oceans heat up down to where the clathrates sit. That will probably take a long time, but if the process begins in earnest, there is no stopping it. There are a lot of uncertainties here. Recent research suggests that methane that is released at the bottom of the sea hardly ever makes it to the surface, but gets oxidized to water and CO2 on the way up. If true, that would be good news. Instead of the strong Methane, we would get the weak CO2 – but that stays around much longer. Whatever, I think we would have a tipping point, when the higher temperature 3

reaches the surface of the clathrate horizon. The feedback would not stop before all clathrates have disintegrated, but then we would have a temperature difference between now and then like that between the ice age and the Holocene.

The results of these discussions about carbon dioxide, methane, climate tipping points, fossil fuels and nuclear power will be posted on allaboutenergy.net.

It's a pleasure knowing and working with all of you. Don't hold back on criticizing my thinking. I'm here to listen.

Thank you everyone.

John A. Shanahan Civil Engineer Denver, Colorado, USA Email: acorncreek2006@gmail.com

A beautiful Swiss mountain scene with drinking trough.

The climate has been this way in the Alps for centuries. Are we now about to suffer catastrophic man-made global warming with an irreversible climate tipping point?

4

Comment # 1 Bruno Comby, nuclear engineer, Founder-President of Environmentalists for Nuclear, EFN, AEPN France August 26, 2020

EFN contributes to discussion about the environment, mankind, and energy Dear John, dear Hans, Simon and Walter, dear friends, To contribute to this interesting discussion: The French nuclear program was decided abruptly with the unpredicted oil shock at the end of 1973 and early 1974 -> it was a sudden political decision.

The construction program started immediately in 1974. It was considered a top national priority and was completed in January 1999 when the Civaux-2 NPP (Civaux is 2x 1450 MW) was connected to the grid after being delayed a few years.

I happen to remember this date very precisely because on this occasion I was invited on January 7th 1999 to present a lecture and sign a special edition of 1000 copies of my book « Le Nucléaire, avenir de l’écologie » to the 1000 members of the EDF personnel of the Civaux-NPP, to celebrate its second reactor (the last reactor of the French nuclear program) being connected to the grid.

The world is very lucky to have this example of France, illustrating the way to go for the future.

The program was successful: it decreased France’s energy imports from 85% to 47%, it increased our energy independence strongly although France has almost no oil, no coal, and no gas.

As a result, France has had a thriving industrial economy for half a century (until stupid political decisions destroyed it). This nuclear program was slowed down to some extent (but not interrupted) by the election of President Francois Mitterand in 1981 (« la sortie du Nucléaire » was in his political program before his election then but luckily he changed his mind shortly after being elected when confronted to the facts and the second oil shock). The second part of the program was slowed down a little bit and several NPPs initially planned on the Loire river and in Britanny were cancelled, as well as the Thermos project (a small modular reactor for cogeneration of heat and electricity destined to heating large cities as Grenoble and Paris) was halted. The thermos project was halted by Mitterand although the reactor was ready to be built in 1981. The fast neutron program and reactor Superphenix was also slowed down and eventually closed 5

under political pressure in 1997. Nevertheless the program succeeded in building and operating a fleet of 68 standardized PWRs ranging from the 900 MW to 1450 MW. This span of 25 years (1974 to 1999) is the time it takes in a peaceful world for a strongly motivated country like France with good engineers and a favourable context, to build a complete fleet of 68 NPPs on the grid.

In my view what the world needs to do in the future is a similar program but at world level.

This will take longer of course. A half-century seems reasonable if and when a strong political and a more favorable international context will be present. The political will to move forward seems to have vanished for the moment (this will change in due time in the future) except in a few countries such as China, Russia and to some extent India.

Therefore it is clear that completing such a program requires some time : more precisely, a quarter of a century for an individual country requiring a fleet of about 60 GW, even with strong political will, no antinuclear opposition and almost illimited amounts of money (this program was the top national priority).

Yet the example of France also shows the feasibility of such a program.

It is a good example of what the world should do in the future.

The example of France has already inspired and strongly influenced the Chinese nuclear program which will be the world leader for nuclear energy in the future.

Today France has the cheapest and cleanest energy in Europe alongside our Swedish friends: Electricity generation costs twice as much in Germany for German households (per kWh) than it does in France, and it emits 10 times more CO2 into the atmosphere per kWh. Total CO2 emissions of a German citizen are 50% higher than that if a a French citizen.

Yet our (very) stupid politicians are now closing prematurely some of our reactors (the 2 Fesenheim reactors glided in February and June 2020) thinking (a huge historical mistake) that France should ÂŤreduce its dependence on nuclear). This is complete political bullshit: France has no dependence on imported uranium. Our main dependence remains oil and gas imports. Oil for transportation and gas for heating homes in winter.

To move to the next level (nuclear 2.0), France should not close down any nuclear reactors prematurely. It should build 10 more EPR reactors to entirely decarbonize France:

6

- develop electric transportation massively to displace oil. I’ve been driving 100% electric since 2013 with great satisfaction, including long distance travels throughout France. EV technology is becoming mature now, and their range has tripled in about 10 years. We have yet to develop a French national battery industry (a gigafactory such as Elon Musk’s gigafactory in the Nevada desert).

- develop electric heating in winter to massively to displace natural gas imported mostly from Russia.

France will then demonstrate not only that it can decarbonize electricity production (as we have already demonstrated) but that we can decarbonize ENTIRELY a large industrial country such as France.

BEST, enjoy your day.

Bruno

French Nuclear Power Station Penly with two operating units, licensed for four sites.

This enables building the next plants before existing plants are shut down at end of life and continued operation while the retired plants are dismantled. The two operating plants will have the same designs to optimize management, operating, maintenance staff, and spare parts. A simple, brilliant plan that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world. Everyone should follow this minimum planning and management example before use of nuclear power.

7

Comment # 2 John Shanahan, Civil Engineer August 26, 2020

French and Swiss outstanding nuclear programs Bruno, France did itself and the world a huge favor by executing such an outstanding nuclear power program, including unique features of having multiple standardized units to optimize staff and spare parts management and licensing from the beginning double the number of sites approved from what actually would be operating in order to have perpetual operation with smooth transition of retired plants and next generation plants.

Nowhere in the world are these features so excellently implemented. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a plasma physicist to do the wonderful things France has done. But the world must follow France's outstanding example. The world doesn't make cheese as well as France. It doesn't maintain and protect its environment as well as Switzerland and France. The world doesn't work for peace the way Switzerland and France do. Will the world operate and maintain nuclear power plants as well as France and Switzerland?

The world nuclear power industry must solve major problems holding it back. It has not done this at all for forty years. Instead, many nuclear organizations, experts, and advocates have dithered making claims that nuclear power can solve "the" man-made global warming crisis.

France set an important standard for implementing their outstanding nuclear power program in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Now, it is very important for French nuclear professionals, electric grid planners and environmental experts like you to guide the world so we can all get on with nuclear power properly.

Many thanks.

John

8

Comment # 3 Simon Aegerter, physicist, Family Aegerter Swizerland August 26, 2020

Some corrections and clarifications John, Thanks for spreading my words ;-) A couple of remarks: Yes, looking at some parts of the world it is hard to imagine that nuclear plants can and should be built there. But things can change fast sometimes. When I was in China for the first time in May 1980, I would never have thought that this county would be among the leaders in nuclear technology a mere four decades later. Someone has said. „Everybody overestimates what can be done in a few years and underestimates what can happen in a few decades."

I never said that we should build nuclear power because it combats climate change. What I say is: There is nothing else but nuclear power to combat climate change. If there were something better, I would drop nuclear. Forget renewables. They do not provide the necessary base load.

And the storage that would be required to do so simply does not exist and I doubt that it will exist in 40 years.

Oh, and the day we discover that manmade climate change has been a myth I’ll marry Smwwhite.

Thanks, Bruno for your support.

Best to all Simon

9

Comment #4 Willie Soon, Astrophysicist USA August 26, 2020

Concern about the potential of rapid collapse of methane hydrates trapped under the sea floors or coastal slopes This has all been known to be a non-threat even with the pessimistic co2-induced global warming scenario.

Here are some solid readings from Carolyn Ruppel of USGS. This is a long paper with many scientific details. Section 10 conclusions state: On the contemporary Earth, gas hydrate is dissociating in specific terrains in response to post‐LGM climate change and probably also due to warming since the onset of the Industrial Age. Nevertheless, there is no conclusive proof that the released methane is entering the atmosphere at a level that is detectable against the background of ~555 Tg yr−1 CH4 emissions. The IPCC estimates are not based on direct measurements of methane fluxes from dissociating gas hydrates, and many numerical models adopt simplifications that do not fully account for sinks, the actual distribution of gas hydrates, or other factors, resulting in probable overestimation of emissions to the ocean‐atmosphere system. The new generation of models based on ocean circulation dynamics holds the greatest promise for robustly predicting the fate of gas hydrates under climate change scenarios [Kretschmer et al., 2015] and could be improved further with better incorporation of sinks.

In addition, CH4 near the ground/boundary layers is highly reactive and quickly reacts with radicals like OH and even oxygen and quickly get oxidized ...

(Of course there are exceptional times in geological history where the so-called methane clathrate gun hypothesis of Jim Kennett is a viable factor ...)

In addition, you may want to study the notes by https://co2coalition.org/2019/11/26/methane-and-climate/ and this very long but rich and comprehensive assessment we just published on CH4 as greenhouse gas forcing on climate https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/6/1365

10

Comment # 5 Eric Jelinski, Chemical, Nuclear, Mechanical Engineer for Canadian nuclear power plants. Nuclear engineering lecturer, U. of Toronto Canada

The Single Most Important Problem to Solve for Nuclear Power Thank you John Shanahan and David Wojick for your article about ten problems the nuclear power community should solve before nuclear power gets back to full speed again in Europe, North America and then other places around the world.

I’d like to discuss/elaborate on #9. #9 needs to be #1. First and foremost, education in the physical sciences. When I went to grade school in the 1960’s, we called that Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. My high school physics textbook was authored the Physical Sciences Study Committee, Library of Congress #60-13412. The project to create this book was started in 1956 with a grant from the National Science Foundation. It was this book that intrigued me in the study of space flight and also nuclear technology. I eventually chose to work in nuclear as a system engineer at Douglas Point, Bruce, Darlington and Pickering where upon I become manager of outage maintenance and maintenance contracts with oversight of some 400 workers.

From that setting, I need to say that the key to success of any nuclear program is education, and the education needs to be started in grade school and carried through colleges and universities to achieve a mindset about science, trades, and engineering, and, why things need to be exactly connected.

My first 6 months on the job in 1976 was spent in a classroom in class size of 30 multiplied by 8 to cover some ~240 new hires in that year. The purpose was crosstraining to break the silos of disciplines because colleges and university teaching is by department discipline. Thus, the first step in education was to ensure specialists of all fields are enabled to work together, not in silos.

When teaching, we must first be truthful. It is a lie to tell students that the way of the future is the subsidized wind turbines and solar panels because subsidy is not free money. There is no such thing as free anything. Anything declared as free is actually paid for by somebody else, and the ‘somebody else’ is probably you and I, or a donation with an agenda. These things may have niches, and only have niches, where they pay for themselves without subsidies in fiscal competition with alternatives.

Political science courses need to be abolished across all college and universities. That does not mean cancelling humanities courses, or history or current events. But we do not specifically need to spend public money for students, who later become representatives of the public in government to have learned how to brainwash and how 11

to make a lie sound truthful. This is the unfortunate environment we live in today. This is how train wrecks happen and people die, because the mirage fooled them. In Canada, I need to say that it is political science that is destroying our country.

I’ve said about all here. My first real introduction to nuclear was when I was 12 and father took us to this open house at Douglas Point ~1964.

It is important for students to see and be able to touch a nuclear reactor.

It is an idea perhaps that a reactor being shut down at end of life could be safe stated and preserved for public visitors‌ tourism is a big industry to provide things to do to learn passively.

Best, Eric PS: I am scheduled to teach nuclear engineering this winter session January to April 2021.

Eric Jelinski M. Eng. P. Eng. Alumni and Contract Lecturer, University of Toronto Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry Stayner, Ontario, Canada

12

Email: eric.jelinski@utoronto.ca or eric_jelinski@sympatico.ca http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/eric/jelinski "The Future is Nuclear" “Knowing is easy; it is the doing that is difficult. The critical issue is not what we know but what we do with what we know. The great end of life is not knowledge, but action.� Admiral Hyman Rickover

Toronto, Canada, a jewel of the modern world with excellent institutions of learning, and plenty of hydro and nuclear power.

13

Comment # 6 Jon Boone, author on wind and solar energies, environment, nature in general, birds, health USA August 27, 2020

The Single Most Important Problem to Solve for Nuclear Power I would begin any education program with a starter course in music, from which everything else would flow. The idea of breathing in to create tension, the interval between breaths, and then the release of tension through exhalation, all tempered by various rhythm patterns, is the core stuff of pattern and the organizing principal behind art, science, literature, philosophy, and, of course, engineering. It’s the basis for a systematic approach to acquiring sufficient information to create the knowledge necessary for wisdom.

I consider music to be fundamental to an understanding of the working of conscious minds, even more basic than language. Having a disciplined sense of why this is so is prerequisite to the idea of intellectual betterment, assuming “betterment" incorporates the notion of seeing further, wider, and with greater discernment.

Music is the soul of how tension is built (inhalation), held (the interval), and then released (exhalation) as it mirrors the way we breath. Indeed, our very word, inspiration, came out of the Latin—inspirare, which meant “to breathe or blow into.” By the early second millennium in Europe, it conveyed the idea of something influenced, moved, or guided by the divine. It’s one of our most powerful metaphors, the point at which the supernatural and the natural make contact and creative life emerges from God’s breath. Music, as it existentially deploys tension, it’s consideration, and its release, underlies all intellectual endeavor--in the graphic arts, architecture, engineering, literature, poetry, mathematics, sports, even doggerel.

Listen to a Bach fugue, something like his Goldberg Variations, to harken to the way simple chords are orchestrated to become complex tumult and then tamed into perfect resolution. Breath-taking! Pun intended.

In any event, however, consider scanning this link to behold what may be headed our way. Such may be already here.

One of the good things about living in the United States is that, for the most part, the culture has never subscribed to formulaic notions about the unraveling of the future or, indeed, that ”destiny” shapes the future, either for the country as a whole or for that of a single individual. Leadership plays a powerful, even decisive role in the choices made affecting the future. And although effective leadership is tough to define, I believe it is 14

forged out from the fires of experienced struggle and tempered by the acquisition of the kind of knowledge that can inspire wisdom. I can think of nothing that better describes the way the scientific method should be deployed, in the spirit described by the great Richard Feynman.

The claims by nuclear power experts, their professional and advocacy organizations and other spokespersons that nuclear power can help reverse man-made global warming and be a solution for the catastrophic shortcomings of wind and solar power has been one of my central chords over the last dozen years. I have conjured many analogies in an attempt to convey the abject silliness of having nuclear, of all technologies, let alone other forms of conventional generation, enable the renewables du jour. Such a foray into pretentious political PR twaddle can only lead to the energy policy disaster we are experiencing. It engenders a particularly noxious masochism that weirdly makes the nuclear crowd feel good even when things are going bad, conveying a piquant sense of victimhood that always requires redress. For 30 years, this attitude has been the “new normal” for the industry. And its leaders appear deeply mired in the paradigm.

I would add that nuclear’s rhetorical stance as it has attempted to market its wares throughout the West, including the US and Canada and even more recently in France, is more than problematic. By seeking to play footsie with renewables, even stealing natural gas’s thunder by claiming to enable their grid integration (perhaps the stupidest idea imaginable), the industry allows people to think all the world needs is wind and solar. I invite anyone to examine Areva’s boilerplate for wind to see what I mean. The parallel for me is that of getting the world’s most well-trained dog to herd a swarm of drunken fleas.

Truly disgusting, especially if you don’t like masochism….

Jon Boone, artist and author on birds, nature, environment, wind, solar fossil fuels and nuclear energy, health, and government failures. Above are his paintings of Snowy Owl and Avocet. How many have learned so much and offered so much to the public and elected officials.

15

Nuclear advocates, including billionaire Bill Gates, claim nuclear power can solve wind and solar energy’s problems.

Of course, Gates is right about what he has quoted here. But it would be helpful to a fair concept of truth telling if he would be a bit more consistent.

As it is, however, take a look at this boilerplate from Microsoft promising a carbon free company in nine years. Note this, among the many other bulleted nonsense: "Based on this science and math [about global warming], we’re launching today an aggressive plan to reduce Microsoft’s own carbon emissions." It has three broad components.”

"First, we will drive down our … emissions to near zero by the middle of this decade through the following steps: (1) By 2025, we will shift to 100 percent supply of renewable energy, meaning that we will have power purchase agreements for green energy contracted for 100 percent of carbon emitting electricity consumed by all our data centers, buildings, and campuses. We will (2) electrify our global campus operations vehicle fleet by 2030. And (3) We will pursue International Living Future Institute Zero Carbon certification and LEED Platinum certification for our Silicon Valley Campus and Puget Sound Campus Modernization projects.”

The hypocrisy goes beyond schizophrenia. It’s shameless. Still, it gets worse—as it catapults into the realm of pecksniffian sanctimony. Microsoft will feature this PR campaign in its ads, which it will then write off as a business expense. And of course renewables are nothing but tax shelters for corporations like Microsoft in search of mechanisms to avoid paying taxes to increase their profits. Bottom line, all this epistemic bilge is tax free for Mr. Gates & Company. Razzle Dazzle. Daze and Dizzy ‘em. “And they’’ll never get wise.”

Hope this is clear and helpful. The link to the great satirical song from the musical Chicago should be played as background music for any conversation about renewables.

16

17

Comment # 7 Michel Gay, retired French Air Force officer dedicated to promoting respect for the environment and nature and understanding of nuclear power France August 27, 2020 I totally agree with Bruno Comby! See Comment # 1.

Best to all.

Michel Gay www.vive-le-nucleaire-heureux.com (which means "Hourrah for happy nuclear!")

Note: Michel Gay has written many articles about the environment, wind energy, nuclear energy. They are posted them on various sites in France and www.allaboutenergy.net. See 60 articles here.

Mont Saint-Michel, France

18

Comment # 8 Eric Jelinski, Chemical, Nuclear, Mechanical Engineer for Canadian nuclear power plants. Nuclear engineering lecturer, U. of Toronto Canada August 28, 2020

Nuclear Power I read Bruno Comby’s very accurate Comment # 1.

Growing up in Ontario, Canada; I recall the oil shocks of the early 70’s as I was in University of Waterloo engineering undergraduate co-op (work and study) program. The rising prices of oil caused industry to hiccup and to postpone new hiring for several years. However, I managed to get engineering co-op jobs at the back then at the Ebasco branch office in Toronto. Ebasco was a major consulting engineering co out of New York and had about 20% of the market share in utilities and refineries engineering. The jobs that I had landed back then was work on designing systems for several of the US nuclear plants who were in priority mode to get constructed and into operation in response to the oil embargo.

In 1976 I graduated and was immediately hired into Ontario Hydro (now Ontario Power Generation) group of engineers to complete Pickering A, complete construction of Bruce A, new designs for Pickering B and Bruce B and Darlington, about 9GW over a 20 year period.

Today, unfortunately the liberal government in Ottawa has basically shutdown the Alberta oil sands by preventing pipelines from being built. The major source of oil for Canada is imports from countries who sponsor terrorist organizations. This has got to change hopefully soon with a change of government.

Decisions to shut down nuclear can be traced by following the money. Building a nuclear plant costs initially billions and that money is mostly concrete, steel and labour and interest. Therefore, those who benefit are the shareholders in concrete, usually one or two private companies, one or two steel mills, plus some smaller mills for specialty metals such as Zr, trades union members, banks for the interest. And then the fuel supply chain and fuel cost is a tiny component of the life time cost. This leaves out the other shareholders in coal, oil and gas. Of course today, I think mostly in the US, the cost of natural gas from shale is at an all-time low and thus the determinant in decisions whether to new build nuclear.

Each country of course has differing scenarios and politics. But one thing in my opinion, countries that need to import primary energy will always be poorer than those who have surpluses of primary energy available for export. And, another thing, the

19

countries who have energy for export tend to be autocratic dictatorships who grab all the money into the hands of the few who dictate, and they leave their own people poor.

The nuclear advantage that is not appreciated is that pound for pound nuclear provides about 20,000 time more energy without the collateral damage in terms of air pollution and respiratory health. The other advantage of nuclear is that it takes a community of trades people to build and to operate, whereas oil and gas plants have virtually zero related community after a short construction period.

Dream home in Bali paradise. These hunter–gatherers don’t need electricity, kitchen or bathroom! This lifestyle will not cause a climate tipping point. Neither will the modern world with all its conveniences.

20

CONCLUSIONS This discussion includes a sampling of important topics about man-made global warming, climate tipping points, wind and solar energy, fossil fuels, nuclear power, education.

1) Discussions on man-made global warming and irreversible climate tipping points are on pages 1 – 4, 9 – 10. Information on both sides was presented without any resolution of differences.

2) Discussions on wind, solar, fossil fuels and nuclear are on pages 5 – 8, 11 – 19.

Nuclear, fossil fuels and hydro-electric are much better than wind and solar. But in North America and Europe, governments and activists are currently in control of stopping use of fossil fuels and nuclear and forcing wind and solar on everyone.

3) In both cases, (1) and (2), bitter struggles lie ahead. Which way will the world go? a) Alarmists and their forced solutions back to suffering lifestyles of long ago, much smaller world population, and a lot more slavery or b) Modern world with plenty of energy from fossil fuels and nuclear power, many comforts, good health, clean water, clean environment, good education, time for leisure and enjoying nature, and a lot less slavery?

ARTICLES BY DISCUSSION PARTICIPANTS AND SELECT OTHERS

Australia Viv Forbes

Canada Eric Jelinski, Patrick Moore

France Bruno Comby, Michel Gay 21

Germany Kalte Sonne, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Uli Weber

India Vijay Jayaraj

South Africa Kelvin Kemm, Leon Louw

Switzerland Walter Aeberli, Simon Aegerter, Markus Haering

UK Wade Allison, Global Warming Policy Forum, Roger Higgs, Michael Kelly, James Lovelock, Euan Mearns, Andrew Montford, Benny Peiser, Matt Ridley

USA Rod Adams, Calvin Beisner, Don Bogard, Jon Boone, Terry Donze, Paul Driessen, William Happer, Howard Cork Hayden, Kenneth Kok, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, John Shanahan, Willie Soon

VATICAN Pope Francis 22

23