tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post2434362763791480904..comments2024-03-29T05:46:24.412-05:00Comments on The Grumpy Economist: Nuclear power and growth John H. Cochranehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04842601651429471525noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-70977700655569869202022-12-04T18:27:09.028-06:002022-12-04T18:27:09.028-06:00A realistic output for an average 1 gigawatt nucl...A realistic output for an average 1 gigawatt nuclear plant is 8 million MWh per year. In 2019, TES was 606 EJ (69% is final consumption), and that translates to 21,042 plants needed to power the world. Yucca Mountain only stores about 77,000 tons of waste, but such a scale of production would be creating millions of tons of radioactive waste. It costs a fortune to store the material, and we don't know of many stable geological formations. The lifetime costs would be tremendous. See Coldwater Creek, Missouri to see the thousands of cancers caused by radioactive waste from the Manhattan Project. A recent review of the literature confirmed the cancer risk from even low dose ionizing radiation. Besides proliferation risks, nuclear plants make a country extremely vulnerable to devastating military attacks. As Blair Fix and others have pointed out repeatedly, oil is not forever. Furthermore, the EROEI of alternatives are all much worse than traditional sources. As reported by Steve Krivit, fusion is a total joke and has never even come close to breaking even. The planned MIT ARC reactor is estimated to produce much less than a fission plant. The only solution is using a lot less energy. Economists should talk to physicists and mathematicians every once in a while.MD Coryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05342743632013663077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-59701140470326873182022-12-04T03:50:17.876-06:002022-12-04T03:50:17.876-06:00THERE IS NO HOPE W/O RUSSIAN GAS !
LOOK AT THE ED...THERE IS NO HOPE W/O RUSSIAN GAS !<br /><br />LOOK AT THE EDF DISASTER IN FRANCE <br /><br />EDF IS DOOMED !<br /><br />A 50 BILLION USD DEBT <br /><br />A 31 BILLION USD LOSS,DUE TO BUYING POWER, IN BULK FROM EU, TO SELL AT LOWER RATES TO RETAIL, DUE TO POWER OUTAGES <br /><br />A 11 BILLION USD LOSS DUE TO MACRON RETAIL ENERGY PRICE CAPS <br /><br />26 OF ITS 56 BWR AND PHWR, ARE DOWN !<br /><br />THERE IS "NO PROBLEM" OF "EDF’s nuclear reactor restart programme."<br /><br />EDF HAS MADE 1 MONUMENTAL BLUNDER ! EDF ENGINEERS TINKERED WITH THE WESTINGHOUSE DESIGNS - WITH THE AIM OF REDUCING COSTS ! THAT CAUSED SCC (STRESS CORROSION CRACKS) IN PIPE WELD POINTS, AT THE ELBOW,WHICH ARE CLOSE TO THE NUKE CORE !<br /><br />THESE PIPES ARE PART OF THE SIS - WHICH INJECT BORATED WATER INTO THE CORE,TO COOL DOWN * SHUT DOWN THE REACTOR ! THE MOST CRITICAL COMPONENT OF A STANDBY SECURITY MODE IN CASE THE PRIMARY COOLANT SYSTEM FAILS ! SCC IS NOT CAUSED BY THERMAL STRESS AND CANNOT BE DETECTED BY ULTRASOUND<br /><br />EDF MISSED THIS DETECTION FOR > 10 YEARS ! DIS-ASS-TER !THAT IS THE NATURE OF SCC - IT REQUIRES MINUTE & EXTENSIVE EXAMINATION <br /><br />ON TOP OF THAT EDF HAD A LABOUR STRIKE - AT THE "RIGHT TIME" & PUTIN WAR "AT THE "RIGHT TIME",& A SEVERE WINTER,AFTER A SEVERE SUMMER !dindooohindoo<br /><br />ON TOP OF THAT THE SCC NEEDS MANUAL REPAIRS DUE TO RADIATION LIMITATIONS - AND EDF HAS SHORTAGE OF SKILLS. THEY NEED TECHNICIANS FROM WESTINGHOUSE AND ROBOTS (WHICH ARE IN SHORT SUPPLY)<br /><br />THIS SCC REPAIR WILL TAKE FROM 5-12 MONTHS + TIME FOR FUEL LOADING !<br /><br />SO FRANCE IS SET TO FREEZE IN WINTER !<br />samir sardananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-49379055132732666152022-02-04T11:14:56.526-06:002022-02-04T11:14:56.526-06:00texas solar incentives If you live in texaws, you ...<a href="https://nusolarpower.com/texas-solar-incentives-and-rebates/" rel="nofollow">texas solar incentives</a> If you live in texaws, you can get a rebate cridet tx.Alex Hillshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17283501829321275664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-27619707623602626062021-05-04T16:26:07.163-05:002021-05-04T16:26:07.163-05:00Unknown,
An old engineer once told me, you can ne...Unknown,<br /><br />An old engineer once told me, you can never make something completely idiot proof because God is always producing bigger idiots. Sounds about right to me.FRestlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09440916887619001941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-90597945312332914862021-05-04T16:25:35.979-05:002021-05-04T16:25:35.979-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.FRestlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09440916887619001941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-48871511678650610542021-05-01T18:57:14.814-05:002021-05-01T18:57:14.814-05:00"passive safety reactor (e.g. Thorium molten ..."passive safety reactor (e.g. Thorium molten salt or other Gen 3, Gen 4, or Gen 5 designs) simply cannot experience the catastrophic failures of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima."<br /><br />Depending on the design and the specific type, you may be right that the wouldn't fail in the same way, but they can fail differently. Admiral Rickover wasn't a fan of sodium and I haven't seen anything to show he was wrong. Look at the first USS Seawolf, or Fermi 1. <br /><br />The best book to move someone's attitude closer to the airline model I think is " Atomic Accidents: A History of Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters: From the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima" by James Mahaffey. It's a history of the unclassified atomic accidents, history, not anti-nuclear and it's very well written. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04940722690936818415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-37010938602514961902021-04-28T19:23:36.020-05:002021-04-28T19:23:36.020-05:00https://www.outsideonline.com/2416503/cuyahoga-riv...https://www.outsideonline.com/2416503/cuyahoga-river-fire-2020-1969FRestlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09440916887619001941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-28325539928929376682021-04-28T19:23:22.376-05:002021-04-28T19:23:22.376-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.FRestlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09440916887619001941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-2046715057957000362021-04-28T07:15:20.181-05:002021-04-28T07:15:20.181-05:00FRestly, I suggest you to study the five reference...FRestly, I suggest you to study the five references on how to deal with a big nuclear accident I linked in my comment of 25 April, 10:00 pm and the recent WHO reports and World Nuclear Org report on the Chernobyl accident.Peter Langhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10919992952312460225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-29094760411424065092021-04-27T11:37:14.089-05:002021-04-27T11:37:14.089-05:00"US construction costs exploded in the 1970s...."US construction costs exploded in the 1970s. "<br /><br />US Construction costs of all types of public (and publicly funded) construction exploded in the 1970s, thanks largely to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. That means that it's also true of US construction costs of non-nuclear power plants as well (though that can shift the ideal mix of what gets built even if all costs increase.)John Thackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15269867695937765049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-59619315433846854752021-04-27T04:06:11.163-05:002021-04-27T04:06:11.163-05:00Peter,
"Definitely not. There is no valid re...Peter,<br /><br />"Definitely not. There is no valid reason to declare areas uninhabitable after major nuclear accidents."<br /><br />Seriously?!?! And next you are going to tell me there were no valid reasons to extinguish the burning nuclear fuel with sand and boron at Chernobyl and there are no valid reasons to encase the destroyed reactor with a concrete sarcophagus at Chernobyl?<br /><br />"The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that...there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident.”<br /><br />Because 350,000 people were evacuated? Because the destroyed reactor was encased in concrete? Because of everything that was done to mitigate the after effects of the explosion?<br />FRestlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09440916887619001941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-46076863880622639262021-04-27T04:04:47.112-05:002021-04-27T04:04:47.112-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.FRestlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09440916887619001941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-21465052249687027062021-04-25T22:07:59.102-05:002021-04-25T22:07:59.102-05:00The figures in my comment of 24 April used the 201...The figures in my comment of 24 April used the 2016 Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) for the USA. I've updated them using the 2020 VSL for the USA:<br /><br />Technology US$/MWh<br />Coal 174<br />Oil 418<br />Natural Gas 46<br />Biofuel/biomass 139<br />Solar (rooftop) 5.1<br />Wind 1.7<br />Hydro 0.058<br />Nuclear 0.001<br /><br /> In the USA and Europe electricity generation with coal causes 150,000 more deaths per TWh than nuclear, natural gas 40,000 more and wind 1,500 more.Peter Langhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10919992952312460225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-17251056421809388572021-04-25T22:01:28.847-05:002021-04-25T22:01:28.847-05:001.2 Chernobyl Accident 1986
(Updated April 2020)
...1.2 Chernobyl Accident 1986<br />(Updated April 2020)<br /><br />• The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.<br /><br />• The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the environment, with the deposition of radioactive materials in many parts of Europe.<br /><br />• Two Chernobyl plant workers died due to the explosion on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation syndrome.<br /><br />• The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that, apart from some 6500 thyroid cancers (resulting in 15 fatalities), “there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident.”<br /><br />• Some 350,000 people were evacuated as a result of the accident, but resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing.<br /><br />The conclusions of this 2005 Chernobyl Forum study (revised version published 2006) are in line with earlier expert studies, notably the UNSCEAR 2000 report which said that “apart from this [thyroid cancer] increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.” There is little evidence of any increase in leukaemia, even among clean-up workers where it might be most expected. Radiation-induced leukemia has a latency period of 5-7 years, so any potential leukemia cases due to the accident would already have developed. A low number of the clean-up workers, who received the highest doses, may have a slightly increased risk of developing solid cancers in the long term. To date, however, there is no evidence of any such cancers having developed. Apart from these, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said: “The great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”<br /><br />Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx<br /><br />Video: ‘Experts talk about the health effects of Chernobyl’ https://youtu.be/PZUvoeIArDM<br /><br />Deaths<br />2 during the explosion<br />28 in the 30 days following the accident<br />15 due to thyroid cancers since the accident<br />19 more emergency workers died 1987–2004<br />64 total<br /><br />References <br /><br />WHO – ‘Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes – Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Health”<br />https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241594179<br />https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/who_chernobyl_report_2006.pdf<br /><br />WHO – 1986-2016: CHERNOBYL at 30 https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/1986-2016-chernobyl-at-30 <br />Peter Langhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10919992952312460225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-47911331980978029642021-04-25T22:00:35.559-05:002021-04-25T22:00:35.559-05:00Definitely not. There is no valid reason to declar...Definitely not. There is no valid reason to declare areas uninhabitable after major nuclear accidents. <br /><br />Thomas, P.; May, J. Coping after a big nuclear accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.09.013<br /><br />Thomas, P.J. Quantitative guidance on how best to respond to a big nuclear accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.026<br /><br />Waddington, I.; Thomas, P.; Taylor, R.; Vaughan, G. J-value assessment of relocation measures following the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 16-49.<br />https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.03.012<br /><br />Waddington, I.; Thomas, P.; Taylor, R.; Vaughan, G. J-value assessment of remediation measures following the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accidents. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 16-49.<br />https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.003<br /><br />Yumashev, D.; Johnson, P.; Thomas, P. Economically optimal strategies for medium-term recovery after a major nuclear reactor accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.08.022<br /><br />Peter Langhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10919992952312460225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-31329648267528215822021-04-25T08:04:36.473-05:002021-04-25T08:04:36.473-05:00Peter,
"No deaths due to radiation or radioa...Peter,<br /><br />"No deaths due to radiation or radioactive contamination from Three Mile Island of Fukushima. Around 60 to 70 known deaths from radiation or radioactive contamination from Chernobyl, and perhaps 100 to 200 others that have not been identified."<br /><br />It's not just the human deaths that occurred immediately after the explosion.<br /><br />"The Exclusion Zone covers an area of approximately 2,600 km2 (1,000 sq mi) in Ukraine immediately surrounding the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant where radioactive contamination from nuclear fallout is highest and public access and inhabitation are restricted."<br /><br />The entire state of Delaware is only about 2500 square miles in size. Imagine having to declare half a state totally uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years.<br /><br />Or worse, the entirety of New York City (Manhattan, Bronx, Long Island, Brooklyn, etc.) is only 302 square miles. Imagine trying to tell about 8.4 million people that they have to abandon everything.FRestlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09440916887619001941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-18822560775785582422021-04-24T12:12:40.100-05:002021-04-24T12:12:40.100-05:00Pro nuclear articles from the last couple of days:...Pro nuclear articles from the last couple of days:<br /><br />Podcast 146: Michael Shellenberger on Nuclear Power, Progressive Hypocrisy on Energy Policy, and His New book, ‘Apocalypse Never’<br /><br />https://quillette.com/2021/04/23/podcast-146-michael-shellenberger-on-the-case-for-nuclear-power-progressive-hypocrisy-on-energy-policy-and-his-new-book-apocalypse-never/<br /><br />Quillette founder Claire Lehmann talks to author and activist Michael Shellenberger about how environmental alarmism and ideological blind spots often prevent us from having a rational discussion about the best way to address climate change while growing national economies.<br /><br />"Climatists for Nukes" By Robert Zubrin | April 24, 2021 https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/book-review-the-dark-horse-climatists-for-nukes/<br /><br />"The Dark Horse: Nuclear Power and Climate Change, by Finnish writers Rauli Partanen and Janne Korhonen, is a noteworthy exception. It is a fine and truly competent work making the case for nuclear power now, as it really is. There’s no use of fakery to justify decades of environmentalist sabotage of the nuclear industry with specious claims that PWRs are unsafe systems imposed on the world prematurely by the maniacal U.S. Navy captain Hyman Rickover, or other such nonsense. Instead, they take no prisoners, showing how the PWR, conceived by Rickover as the power source for the submarine Nautilus in 1954 and made the basis for the commercial nuclear industry worldwide ever since, was, and remains, a very sound engineering choice."Fat Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09554029467445000453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-34733678671915807562021-04-24T03:43:24.555-05:002021-04-24T03:43:24.555-05:00Nuclear power is and always has been the safest wa...Nuclear power is and always has been the safest way to generate electricity. In the USA and Europe electricity generation with coal causes 150,000 more deaths per TWh than nuclear, natural gas 40,000 more and wind 1,500 more.<br /><br />Nuclear could become the cheapest way to generate electricity. Were it not for the unwarranted fear of this technology that was generated by the anti-nuclear power protest movement starting in the 1960’s, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. <br /><br />The cost of nuclear power can be reduced by removing regulatory impediments. Internalising the externality costs of all energy technologies would further increase nuclear’s competitiveness and, therefore, its deployment rate and rate of cost reduction.<br /><br />The negative externalities of energy technologies can be largely internalised by taxing or subsidising them in proportion to their health impacts. The health impacts of electricity generation technologies can be internalised by either taxing technologies in proportion to their health impacts or subsidising those with lower impacts in proportion to the impacts of the technologies with the highest health impacts.<br /><br />If each technology was required to pay compensation for the annual cost of the deaths it causes in the US, the estimated amounts each would have to pay per MWh are:<br /><br />Technology US$/MWh<br />Coal 144<br />Oil 346<br />Natural Gas 38<br />Biofuel/biomass 115<br />Solar (rooftop) 4.2<br />Wind 1.4<br />Hydro 0.048<br />Nuclear 0.001<br />Peter Langhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10919992952312460225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-15485359600441661852021-04-24T03:31:53.527-05:002021-04-24T03:31:53.527-05:00No deaths due to radiation or radioactive contamin...No deaths due to radiation or radioactive contamination from Three Mile Island of Fukushima. Around 60 to 70 known deaths from radiation or radioactive contamination from Chernobyl, and perhaps 100 to 200 others that have not been identified. All the other deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima were due to the upheaval in peoples lives caused by the forced evacuations.Peter Langhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10919992952312460225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-57448860371884085492021-04-23T15:36:18.912-05:002021-04-23T15:36:18.912-05:00The pervasive issue is one of communicating safety...The pervasive issue is one of communicating safety. Nuclear power like flying feels super risky but is actually super safe. Being in a car feels super safe but is actually the #1 cause of death between 18-40. <br /><br />Why do we trust new airlines but not new nuclear plants? It probably has to do with monopolies -- airlines wouldn't be around if their PR was as bad as the nuclear industry, but most nuclear projects are monopoly contracts using a private-public partnership. <br /><br />We should also encourage the public to think about the problem in a different way. If tomorrow we found 100x our current supplies of both coal and thorium, we could build unlimited power plants with either. After all, we can agree future generations will need more energy than we do, especially around the world.<br /><br /> In the coal world, we will have hundreds of thousands more cases of asthma, COPD, and cancer, along with the existential threats of global warming and limited coal supply. <br /><br />In the thorium world, we have the potential for a small number of plant employees to be exposed to a small dose of radiation that will likely be harmless. The passive safety of the plant eliminates the risk of a meltdown. Which do you choose? Derek Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339495248348279682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-52800779737973466072021-04-23T15:30:03.389-05:002021-04-23T15:30:03.389-05:00Sure, some of the best non proliferation designs (...Sure, some of the best non proliferation designs (gen 4, gen 5) are 10-20 years away, but there's no reason the US couldn't build a bunch of passive safety (gen 3) plants within 5 years if the NRC were funded exclusively based on their kilowatt generation. <br /><br />Your argument has been made for 70 years, that we can't build better plants because we haven't seen better plants built yet, but in the information age it's a weak premise. Derek Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339495248348279682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-53156177860626197142021-04-23T15:27:56.112-05:002021-04-23T15:27:56.112-05:00I've never once heard an argument that anythin...I've never once heard an argument that anything except a much cheaper energy solution would decarbonize the economy, which is why you often read about a carbon tax (especially one funding public carbon sequestration projects) as being the only effective tool.<br /><br />Realistically we as humans are going to scale up every mode of energy production at the same time, which means we'll need double or triple the amount of energy later to recapture the carbon we didn't avoid burning along the way. <br /><br />This type of discussion also ignores slash and burn practices, since trees are nature's carbon sequestration system. Derek Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339495248348279682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-50845322206212269762021-04-23T15:25:18.313-05:002021-04-23T15:25:18.313-05:00@Frestly you make a great point that the cancer (f...@Frestly you make a great point that the cancer (from radioactive heavy metals) and respiratory diseases caused by coal plants are "out of sight out of mind" whereas our government spent 50 years telling us that deadly radiation would fall from the skies at any time. <br /><br />We'd have a different view of things if "cold war nuclear education" had discussed exactly how people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and included practical steps about "sweeping up fallout and keeping water on hand" instead of pretending that you'd survive a nuke under your desk. Derek Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339495248348279682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-51312081129153146072021-04-23T15:20:38.969-05:002021-04-23T15:20:38.969-05:00Great overview of a great blog post reviewing a gr...Great overview of a great blog post reviewing a great book. It should be pretty clear to anyone capable of understanding basic science that a passive safety reactor (e.g. Thorium molten salt or other Gen 3, Gen 4, or Gen 5 designs) simply cannot experience the catastrophic failures of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima.<br /><br />As the HBO show Chernobyl pointed out, that reactor design was fundamentally unsafe but didn't blow up any other reactors (more detail is contained in the book the show was based on). Indeed, even the specific accident almost certainly wouldn't have happened (despite the "scram" off button being an "on" button) if they hadn't decided to run the test with no preparation in the middle of the night after a shift change.<br /><br />But the fundamental design shift in reactor design to passive safety without the possibility of a meltdown hasn't been broadly highlighted. <br /><br />It seems clear from the current discussion that there's a catch-22 of regulation preventing the building of new reactors that would prove the new technologies that would reduce regulation. <br /><br />The analogy to aviation is spot-on. In the US, we either need those specific changes to the NRC, or we're just going to hemorrhage money on energy until we see every other country in the world generating carbon-free energy for cheap.Derek Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16339495248348279682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-582368152716771238.post-82700585491077952832021-04-23T13:48:13.041-05:002021-04-23T13:48:13.041-05:00The great Hoover web team tried, reports
"I...The great Hoover web team tried, reports <br /><br />"I tried posting a link from the Grumpy blog and your John Cochrane site on Facebook and had no issues. I also had a few members of my team try and they had no issues. I tested using the Facebook share widget that you have at the bottom of each post as well as just posting the link in my status and had no issues – screenshots attached.<br /> <br />I think your use may have some issue with their browser or Facebook profile."<br /><br />Let me know if still not working, or specifics. I do want to know if I get blocked by the Tech Titans. <br />John H. Cochranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04842601651429471525noreply@blogger.com