I like the idea it optimises uranium usage to lower waste. It obviously still produces a type of waste, that according to the link still lasts 100 years (I am taking it purely on face value, though, as it doesn't give any citations). Eyeballing other sources, it says IFR produces a waste product that lasts for 211,100 years - Technetium-99. So the costs and complexity of storing that waste still apply.
I'd endorse any reactor improvements that reduce waste, however I refer to the point that upgrading reactors is expensive, maintaining them is expensive, and demolishing them is expensive, to the point there's a no-win scenario in terms of expense. It isn't something either governments (see France) or the nuclear power industry (see the US) can afford to do.
I do hold contention with the claim "Nuclear is the cleanest source of energy with smallest environmental disruption. If affects the least amount of land while generating tiny quantities of waste which are tightly controlled." given it does not supply evidence for the claim, and also does not define which environment(s) it refers. I'd argue the DRC mines are very disruptive.
"Nuclear is among the cheapest sources of energy" is a non-statement because saying it is 'among' the cheapest doesn't mean it is the cheapest source of energy, and implies there are other, either equally as cheap, or cheaper sources. In my opinion the cost factor of the longevity of waste and waste maintenance is never factored into any generation source, and nuclear's price point has been falling behind on-shore wind power as mass manufacturing has lowered costs. There is one other cheaper source than nuclear (pre-Ukraine war) but I do not recall which it is.
"Hydro (which is not scalable) is 66% of the renewable contribution."
According to this source (percentage calculated manually), the percentage is currently 53.8%. If I take it from the year the article is written (2008), it was 85.5%.
Hydro might not be scaleable, but the 'fuel' for it is free, and not subject to export controls, embargoes or sanctions.
"Nuclear power works reliably 24x7: it is independent of the weather and the time of day."
I would argue it isn't 'independent of the weather' because unlike other types of power plant, nuclear plants incur additional expense as they require specific proofing, including flood proofing, earthquake proofing, heat proofing, and, if I might expand, very specific security measures against terrorism. Measures not required at most other types of plant. The implication is their contents are more dangerous and thus require far more weather and environmental protective measures, than say, a wind turbine vulnerable to wind.
In terms of the 24/7 remark, the electrical grid consists of many components. Nuclear plants can handle baseload but they cannot respond to peak power demands fast enough, which is why gas peaker plants are often deployed in countries.
That is to say, human energy usage is time-of-day dependent, hence why the night-rate is off-peak, so the argument it isn't constrained by time-of-day isn't as strong as they think. In-fact, nuclear often has to be paired with pumped hydro storage, which ironically is a type of hydro (I believe a lot of calculations mistakenly factor in pumped hydro storage into hydro generation calculations) in order to attempt to handle peak power.
Pumped hydro storage often can only be deployed in very niche geographical areas (more niche than a dam), and can only supply a limited amount of power for a limited duration depending on the capacity of the upper and lower basins to hold water. It must always be recharged at night when demand loads drop.
That is to say, nuclear power, because of how risky (for a lack of a better word) their systems are, cannot rapidly deploy to meet peak daytime load demands, which require a response time between microseconds to seconds, and requires secondary - often unmentioned - infrastructure to cope. Infrastructure that would undermine their arguments against the risks of hydro, and also put a pin in their declarations it can run 24/7; perhaps, but it can't adapt to peaks and troughs in power demand that occur in this period.
In-fact, there are only three sources I'm aware of that currently can: natural gas (via peaker plants), hydro (both dam and pumped storage), and solar (whose generation almost parallels peak demand consumption during the daytime). You could also include batteries here, but I personally do not think they are a viable tech scaled up, especially at the current cost price, environment cost, and shelf-life, a new type of battery would need to be invented.
There's two hypothetical alternatives but they haven't been used in the real world, which are hydrogen peaker plants and syngas peaker plants. Egypt are developing systems that take advantage of their heat to produce hydrogen for export, however the viability is unknown and I won't pretend it will magically work. Just noting for completeness.
From what I can see of IFR, the usage of liquid sodium poses an explosion risk if exposed to water or air. This to me seems like a flawed choice, given the two main elements either surrounding or in a nuclear reactor is air and water, and there has been an incident involving water coolant somehow interacting with the sodium at the Monju Nuclear Power Plant.
I'd also be wary on a different level - say the plant experienced a catastrophic failure that causes a breach, the sodium in the system will exponentially multiply that hazard because odds are either air or water (in the form of rain) would get in and react viciously with the sodium, causing a sort of cascading sodium explosion tearing apart the entire core (more breaches - more exposure - more explosions).
I think that is more an issue with that particular coolant choice, rather than the overall design, however. If a non-reactive coolant was used, that likely wouldn't be an issue. I like the intention of the design to reduce waste, however for me the issue isn't so much the +100 year waste, so much as the 211,000 and other hundred-thousand year wastes, which burdens our descendants with maintaining those waste sites.
Some interesting points, and I envy how fast you were able to write that, it takes me ages to write something like it. (like, with looking things up and thinking about them)
The wikipedia entry claims about that waste product:
"Technetium-99 and iodine-129, which constitute 6% of fission products, have very long half lives but can be transmuted to isotopes with very short half lives (15.46 seconds and 12.36 hours) by neutron absorption within a reactor, effectively destroying them"
Fast writing comes from years of practice. With the exception of checking key points on new information, most of it is from recall.
If the waste byproduct can be converted entirely to ones with very short half lives, then besides the sodium I have no objections to the design, although I caveat that with the remark I haven't gone over it with a finetooth comb, so it is on the assumption I don't find any other particular glaring issues.
The next problem to solve would be the 'mill tailings' and waste produced during mining and extraction. That is probably going to be harder to solve. My minimum standard would be working out a way to neutralise or meaningfully use the radioactive waste. I'm less concerned with mining in itself because practically all energy sources have mining somewhere in their production or construction stage, although improvements to mining would probably also be beneficial, it isn't a singular industry issue.
Excellent article! On the other hand, public money to build new reactors ain't around anymore and the ones that have it, aren't interested, because there is no money to be made. The other "green" BS hoax is a lot more profitable and nuclear power is really not very green , as you very well explained in this article.
Nuclear power of course is not perfect, but you have to consider that you are dealing with relatively small amounts of fuel and waste, given the energy density is so high. So you work with tons of low-enriched uranium (you don't need the bomb-grade stuff for nuclear reactors) and DU, as opposed to millions of tons of coal and fossil fuels, which are also destructive to mine. (Coal ash is radioactive too, by the way!) If any reprocessing is done on spent fuel, it's a really small amount of stuff that you have to put in long-term storage.
Consider also that there is uranium all around us - naturally occurring in soil, rocks, well water. And it's radioactive - you have been dosed by uranium and its radioactive decay products from the time you were conceived. No, I wouldn't live in a house made of DU, but if the material is used as counterweights here and there, no one is going to get a measurable radiation dose above background as long as they are not right next to it.
The Fukushima reactor was a very old design. Chernobyl was an ancient design, with a flammable material (graphite) used as a moderator. Modern reactor designs are simpler and a lot safer, and it's very easy to monitor them for function and for leaks, as radioactive leaks can easily be detected and quantified. Rad workers closely monitor the dose they receive in real-time. If workers mysteriously "get sick" and they are being monitored, you can easily rule in or rule out radiation dose. In that sense, radioactive materials are much easier to work with than toxic materials, the dose of which is much harder to quantify in real time.
Next do an article on the resulting environmental damage if we all heated our homes with firewood!
Name the fission product isotope(s) and total activity per kg of spent fuel remaining after just 10 years. It's not too impressive.
Again, if you reprocess, you can concentrate all the useless long half-life stuff in a really small volume. (Not all long half-life stuff is useless)
It's not like the waste has to sit on a shelf in a warehouse. It gets put into a secure container, goes into a stable geological formation, deep underground, and you forget about it. You don't have to train the grandkids to go down there with geiger counters to check on it every few years.
Many nuclear plants are ageing. It costs billions to decommission. (This isn't a good thing)
Get the onerous and ridiculous regulations out of the way, and it's not much worse than decommissioning a few coal plants. The Fukushima reactors' design was bad, and is not widely used.
Remember that these plants generate on the order of gigawatts for decades. How much expense per gigawatt-hour to construct and decommission the various energy generation technologies?
Actually, judging by the costs, they are far more complex, and cost a lot more.
We'll just plain disagree with that one. I'll just say, get the corrupt government regulations out of the way, the costs come down fast.
No, [radioactive materials] aren't [easier to work with]. You need special flasks for them.
What kind of special flask? Do you mean something with shielding or that fits inside a shielded container?
The difficulty of working with a rad material (you may be envisioning something different than I am) all depends on the isotope and the activity. The point is, you can use an electronic dosimeter to measure dose in real time, so you know if you're getting zapped, and can stop, or increase distance, or shielding, or change the way you are working with the material. You don't have to find out later on that you got a dangerous exposure via bloodwork or a liver test or something.
Of course I read your article!
I'm sure those lobbyist headhunters are going to be contacting me any time now!!
"Name the fission product isotope(s) and total activity per kg of spent fuel remaining after just 10 years. It's not too impressive."
As the article you haven't read literally says: "Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years"
"Remember that these plants generate on the order of gigawatts for decades"
Which produces waste that lasts on the order of hundreds of thousands of years. Not worth it.
"I'll just say, get the corrupt government regulations out of the way, the costs come down fast."
They don't because safety equipment is expensive. It costs millions for the stainless steel reactor core and it must be defect free. Even on older plants the cost overruns were 241 percent. Which is all mentioned in the article.
"What kind of special flask? Do you mean something with shielding or that fits inside a shielded container?"
It is mentioned in the article - complete with links and images - please actually read it.
"The difficulty of working with a rad material (you may be envisioning something different than I am) all depends on the isotope and the activity."
Enriched uranium, MOX fuel and spent uranium, which all have their hazards.
" The point is, you can use an electronic dosimeter to measure dose in real time, so you know if you're getting zapped, and can stop, or increase distance, or shielding, or change the way you are working with the material"
This will do nothing to stop a leak, especially with inferior safety designs. Please actually read the article.
"Of course I read your article!"
Then how comes you don't know what the flask is, what the material that lasts for 24,000 years is, or what the mainstay costs are? You're parroting overused nuclear talking points which are actually refuted in the article.
"I'm sure those lobbyist headhunters are going to be contacting me any time now!!"
I don't know why you keep saying this. Are you feeling okay?
Just on the last point, it’s because your byline references enraged nuclear lobbyists, implying that only conflicted, determined propagandists will push back on your claims, angered and frustrated by their own intellectual insecurity.
Let’s definitely not learn from someone with actual first-hand knowledge of the industry! Must reflexively defend all assertions and insist that one’s own research is the definitive, final word on the subject!
You're more than welcome to quote any portion of the article and respond to the points raised there. Currently you seem to be quoting points I've seen before and have already addressed, as well as replying to remarks that were never mentioned (you mentioned coal ash at one point, but coal is never mentioned at any point in the article).
For example, you mention government corruption as an issue, but I'm curious what your views are on nuclear industry corruption (TEPCO corner cutting, Kobe steel plant falsifying steel inspection data) as mentioned in the article.
It’s sad when the conversation fails to be productive or fun. I appreciate your research but your default position is to be very defensive. I understand the frustration, however, if you feel that someone hasn’t taken the time to actually read your presentation.
I don’t work for the nuclear “industry” by the way. Just have lots of first-hand experience with rad materials and handling in my career.
We are seeing that all industries are corrupt. Obviously a nuclear industry with no checks and balances would be very dangerous. The biggest check that nuke plants have is, of course, the black eye and internal trauma from every incident, especially the big ones like 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. These are very damaging in the eye of the public, which in general is very hypersensitive and bluntly ignorant about the actual implications of the specific incidents. (How many times have we heard that “glow in the dark” trope) So the nuclear plants are really very self-policing and quite keen (obsessively so) to avoid any actual leak. Which, as I keep saying, is easily detectable and quantifiable and thus difficult to hide.
"Let’s definitely not learn from someone with actual first-hand knowledge of the industry"
The irony is, you berate the byline talking about enraged nuclear lobbyists, then in your (what looks like anger?) at a joke admit you work for the nuclear industry.
It is a bit hard to take the industry seriously when it doesn't read my articles, cherry picks the joke byline and doesn't know what a flask is or the half-life of their own fissile material.
Outstanding work. . I feel informed now. It’s such a contentious topic. . I also feel frustrated! Thanks for stellar reporting.
What about this thing?
https://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm
I like the idea it optimises uranium usage to lower waste. It obviously still produces a type of waste, that according to the link still lasts 100 years (I am taking it purely on face value, though, as it doesn't give any citations). Eyeballing other sources, it says IFR produces a waste product that lasts for 211,100 years - Technetium-99. So the costs and complexity of storing that waste still apply.
I'd endorse any reactor improvements that reduce waste, however I refer to the point that upgrading reactors is expensive, maintaining them is expensive, and demolishing them is expensive, to the point there's a no-win scenario in terms of expense. It isn't something either governments (see France) or the nuclear power industry (see the US) can afford to do.
I do hold contention with the claim "Nuclear is the cleanest source of energy with smallest environmental disruption. If affects the least amount of land while generating tiny quantities of waste which are tightly controlled." given it does not supply evidence for the claim, and also does not define which environment(s) it refers. I'd argue the DRC mines are very disruptive.
"Nuclear is among the cheapest sources of energy" is a non-statement because saying it is 'among' the cheapest doesn't mean it is the cheapest source of energy, and implies there are other, either equally as cheap, or cheaper sources. In my opinion the cost factor of the longevity of waste and waste maintenance is never factored into any generation source, and nuclear's price point has been falling behind on-shore wind power as mass manufacturing has lowered costs. There is one other cheaper source than nuclear (pre-Ukraine war) but I do not recall which it is.
"Hydro (which is not scalable) is 66% of the renewable contribution."
According to this source (percentage calculated manually), the percentage is currently 53.8%. If I take it from the year the article is written (2008), it was 85.5%.
https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
Hydro might not be scaleable, but the 'fuel' for it is free, and not subject to export controls, embargoes or sanctions.
"Nuclear power works reliably 24x7: it is independent of the weather and the time of day."
I would argue it isn't 'independent of the weather' because unlike other types of power plant, nuclear plants incur additional expense as they require specific proofing, including flood proofing, earthquake proofing, heat proofing, and, if I might expand, very specific security measures against terrorism. Measures not required at most other types of plant. The implication is their contents are more dangerous and thus require far more weather and environmental protective measures, than say, a wind turbine vulnerable to wind.
In terms of the 24/7 remark, the electrical grid consists of many components. Nuclear plants can handle baseload but they cannot respond to peak power demands fast enough, which is why gas peaker plants are often deployed in countries.
That is to say, human energy usage is time-of-day dependent, hence why the night-rate is off-peak, so the argument it isn't constrained by time-of-day isn't as strong as they think. In-fact, nuclear often has to be paired with pumped hydro storage, which ironically is a type of hydro (I believe a lot of calculations mistakenly factor in pumped hydro storage into hydro generation calculations) in order to attempt to handle peak power.
Pumped hydro storage often can only be deployed in very niche geographical areas (more niche than a dam), and can only supply a limited amount of power for a limited duration depending on the capacity of the upper and lower basins to hold water. It must always be recharged at night when demand loads drop.
That is to say, nuclear power, because of how risky (for a lack of a better word) their systems are, cannot rapidly deploy to meet peak daytime load demands, which require a response time between microseconds to seconds, and requires secondary - often unmentioned - infrastructure to cope. Infrastructure that would undermine their arguments against the risks of hydro, and also put a pin in their declarations it can run 24/7; perhaps, but it can't adapt to peaks and troughs in power demand that occur in this period.
In-fact, there are only three sources I'm aware of that currently can: natural gas (via peaker plants), hydro (both dam and pumped storage), and solar (whose generation almost parallels peak demand consumption during the daytime). You could also include batteries here, but I personally do not think they are a viable tech scaled up, especially at the current cost price, environment cost, and shelf-life, a new type of battery would need to be invented.
There's two hypothetical alternatives but they haven't been used in the real world, which are hydrogen peaker plants and syngas peaker plants. Egypt are developing systems that take advantage of their heat to produce hydrogen for export, however the viability is unknown and I won't pretend it will magically work. Just noting for completeness.
From what I can see of IFR, the usage of liquid sodium poses an explosion risk if exposed to water or air. This to me seems like a flawed choice, given the two main elements either surrounding or in a nuclear reactor is air and water, and there has been an incident involving water coolant somehow interacting with the sodium at the Monju Nuclear Power Plant.
I'd also be wary on a different level - say the plant experienced a catastrophic failure that causes a breach, the sodium in the system will exponentially multiply that hazard because odds are either air or water (in the form of rain) would get in and react viciously with the sodium, causing a sort of cascading sodium explosion tearing apart the entire core (more breaches - more exposure - more explosions).
I think that is more an issue with that particular coolant choice, rather than the overall design, however. If a non-reactive coolant was used, that likely wouldn't be an issue. I like the intention of the design to reduce waste, however for me the issue isn't so much the +100 year waste, so much as the 211,000 and other hundred-thousand year wastes, which burdens our descendants with maintaining those waste sites.
Some interesting points, and I envy how fast you were able to write that, it takes me ages to write something like it. (like, with looking things up and thinking about them)
The wikipedia entry claims about that waste product:
"Technetium-99 and iodine-129, which constitute 6% of fission products, have very long half lives but can be transmuted to isotopes with very short half lives (15.46 seconds and 12.36 hours) by neutron absorption within a reactor, effectively destroying them"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
Fast writing comes from years of practice. With the exception of checking key points on new information, most of it is from recall.
If the waste byproduct can be converted entirely to ones with very short half lives, then besides the sodium I have no objections to the design, although I caveat that with the remark I haven't gone over it with a finetooth comb, so it is on the assumption I don't find any other particular glaring issues.
The next problem to solve would be the 'mill tailings' and waste produced during mining and extraction. That is probably going to be harder to solve. My minimum standard would be working out a way to neutralise or meaningfully use the radioactive waste. I'm less concerned with mining in itself because practically all energy sources have mining somewhere in their production or construction stage, although improvements to mining would probably also be beneficial, it isn't a singular industry issue.
Excellent article! On the other hand, public money to build new reactors ain't around anymore and the ones that have it, aren't interested, because there is no money to be made. The other "green" BS hoax is a lot more profitable and nuclear power is really not very green , as you very well explained in this article.
Nuclear power of course is not perfect, but you have to consider that you are dealing with relatively small amounts of fuel and waste, given the energy density is so high. So you work with tons of low-enriched uranium (you don't need the bomb-grade stuff for nuclear reactors) and DU, as opposed to millions of tons of coal and fossil fuels, which are also destructive to mine. (Coal ash is radioactive too, by the way!) If any reprocessing is done on spent fuel, it's a really small amount of stuff that you have to put in long-term storage.
Consider also that there is uranium all around us - naturally occurring in soil, rocks, well water. And it's radioactive - you have been dosed by uranium and its radioactive decay products from the time you were conceived. No, I wouldn't live in a house made of DU, but if the material is used as counterweights here and there, no one is going to get a measurable radiation dose above background as long as they are not right next to it.
The Fukushima reactor was a very old design. Chernobyl was an ancient design, with a flammable material (graphite) used as a moderator. Modern reactor designs are simpler and a lot safer, and it's very easy to monitor them for function and for leaks, as radioactive leaks can easily be detected and quantified. Rad workers closely monitor the dose they receive in real-time. If workers mysteriously "get sick" and they are being monitored, you can easily rule in or rule out radiation dose. In that sense, radioactive materials are much easier to work with than toxic materials, the dose of which is much harder to quantify in real time.
Next do an article on the resulting environmental damage if we all heated our homes with firewood!
"but you have to consider that you are dealing with relatively small amounts of fuel and waste"
...which have to be stored for 100,000 years.
"The Fukushima reactor was a very old design"
Many nuclear plants are ageing. It costs billions to decommission. (This isn't a good thing)
"Modern reactor designs are simpler and a lot safer"
Actually, judging by the costs, they are far more complex, and cost a lot more.
"radioactive materials are much easier to work with than toxic materials"
No, they aren't. You need special flasks for them.
Did you... even read my article?
...which have to be stored for 100,000 years.
Name the fission product isotope(s) and total activity per kg of spent fuel remaining after just 10 years. It's not too impressive.
Again, if you reprocess, you can concentrate all the useless long half-life stuff in a really small volume. (Not all long half-life stuff is useless)
It's not like the waste has to sit on a shelf in a warehouse. It gets put into a secure container, goes into a stable geological formation, deep underground, and you forget about it. You don't have to train the grandkids to go down there with geiger counters to check on it every few years.
Many nuclear plants are ageing. It costs billions to decommission. (This isn't a good thing)
Get the onerous and ridiculous regulations out of the way, and it's not much worse than decommissioning a few coal plants. The Fukushima reactors' design was bad, and is not widely used.
Remember that these plants generate on the order of gigawatts for decades. How much expense per gigawatt-hour to construct and decommission the various energy generation technologies?
Actually, judging by the costs, they are far more complex, and cost a lot more.
We'll just plain disagree with that one. I'll just say, get the corrupt government regulations out of the way, the costs come down fast.
No, [radioactive materials] aren't [easier to work with]. You need special flasks for them.
What kind of special flask? Do you mean something with shielding or that fits inside a shielded container?
The difficulty of working with a rad material (you may be envisioning something different than I am) all depends on the isotope and the activity. The point is, you can use an electronic dosimeter to measure dose in real time, so you know if you're getting zapped, and can stop, or increase distance, or shielding, or change the way you are working with the material. You don't have to find out later on that you got a dangerous exposure via bloodwork or a liver test or something.
Of course I read your article!
I'm sure those lobbyist headhunters are going to be contacting me any time now!!
"Name the fission product isotope(s) and total activity per kg of spent fuel remaining after just 10 years. It's not too impressive."
As the article you haven't read literally says: "Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years"
"Remember that these plants generate on the order of gigawatts for decades"
Which produces waste that lasts on the order of hundreds of thousands of years. Not worth it.
"I'll just say, get the corrupt government regulations out of the way, the costs come down fast."
They don't because safety equipment is expensive. It costs millions for the stainless steel reactor core and it must be defect free. Even on older plants the cost overruns were 241 percent. Which is all mentioned in the article.
"What kind of special flask? Do you mean something with shielding or that fits inside a shielded container?"
It is mentioned in the article - complete with links and images - please actually read it.
"The difficulty of working with a rad material (you may be envisioning something different than I am) all depends on the isotope and the activity."
Enriched uranium, MOX fuel and spent uranium, which all have their hazards.
" The point is, you can use an electronic dosimeter to measure dose in real time, so you know if you're getting zapped, and can stop, or increase distance, or shielding, or change the way you are working with the material"
This will do nothing to stop a leak, especially with inferior safety designs. Please actually read the article.
"Of course I read your article!"
Then how comes you don't know what the flask is, what the material that lasts for 24,000 years is, or what the mainstay costs are? You're parroting overused nuclear talking points which are actually refuted in the article.
"I'm sure those lobbyist headhunters are going to be contacting me any time now!!"
I don't know why you keep saying this. Are you feeling okay?
Just on the last point, it’s because your byline references enraged nuclear lobbyists, implying that only conflicted, determined propagandists will push back on your claims, angered and frustrated by their own intellectual insecurity.
Let’s definitely not learn from someone with actual first-hand knowledge of the industry! Must reflexively defend all assertions and insist that one’s own research is the definitive, final word on the subject!
You're more than welcome to quote any portion of the article and respond to the points raised there. Currently you seem to be quoting points I've seen before and have already addressed, as well as replying to remarks that were never mentioned (you mentioned coal ash at one point, but coal is never mentioned at any point in the article).
For example, you mention government corruption as an issue, but I'm curious what your views are on nuclear industry corruption (TEPCO corner cutting, Kobe steel plant falsifying steel inspection data) as mentioned in the article.
It’s sad when the conversation fails to be productive or fun. I appreciate your research but your default position is to be very defensive. I understand the frustration, however, if you feel that someone hasn’t taken the time to actually read your presentation.
I don’t work for the nuclear “industry” by the way. Just have lots of first-hand experience with rad materials and handling in my career.
We are seeing that all industries are corrupt. Obviously a nuclear industry with no checks and balances would be very dangerous. The biggest check that nuke plants have is, of course, the black eye and internal trauma from every incident, especially the big ones like 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. These are very damaging in the eye of the public, which in general is very hypersensitive and bluntly ignorant about the actual implications of the specific incidents. (How many times have we heard that “glow in the dark” trope) So the nuclear plants are really very self-policing and quite keen (obsessively so) to avoid any actual leak. Which, as I keep saying, is easily detectable and quantifiable and thus difficult to hide.
"Let’s definitely not learn from someone with actual first-hand knowledge of the industry"
The irony is, you berate the byline talking about enraged nuclear lobbyists, then in your (what looks like anger?) at a joke admit you work for the nuclear industry.
It is a bit hard to take the industry seriously when it doesn't read my articles, cherry picks the joke byline and doesn't know what a flask is or the half-life of their own fissile material.
Maybe you meant “cask” instead of “flask”?
No. Flask. Actually read the article.
Maybe I'll get hired as a lobbyist now!! Anyone know of any "no-vax" positions open?