Where's the Magic Switch? Guest Post by Howard Shaffer about the Grid

Where's the Magic Switch?

Panasonic Electric Drive bike chain

In March 2012, Vermont Yankee’s contract with Vermont utilities ended.  Ever since then, plant opponents have said that Vermont no longer uses any power from the plant.  The plant opponents have a certain conception of how the grid works.

Is there a switch somewhere that shifted at the stroke of midnight, March 21?  Did this switch send the electric current from Vermont Yankee to other places, while the plant continued at full power?  This would be something like a valve in a municipal water system.

There is no switch.  Electric current doesn’t flow like water.

The Source of  Confusion

The confusion arises because the electric power industry talks about current and power flow as if it were like water.  We talk as if the current from a particular plant could be identified, just as water could be identified with a little food coloring.

A Helpful Picture

To get a picture of what is going on physically, think of the electric power circuit connecting all the supplying plants and all the loads using power--think of them as all connected together by a giant bicycle chain.  All the suppliers and all the loads are connected to the chain by sprockets.  There are spare sprockets for suppliers and users who are not on the grid at the moment.

Each supplier and each user has a meter that shows how much they are supplying or using.  In this system, the chain needs to run at an almost constant speed.  In the U.S., it runs at 60 hertz (cycles per second for us old-timers). On this big chain, each supplier and user knows what they are doing, and they know the chain's speed.

No user can say: “My power is coming from that supplier over there, or those suppliers.”  All any supplier can say is: “I’m supplying my power to the chain (grid)."  All any user can know is: "I am getting my power from the chain (grid)."

Supplying Power, Using Power, Paying for Power

This can be maddening to explain.

Let's start with supplying and using power. The language has gotten scrambled by the way the chain system is used and paid for.

Some users are taking power all the time, some only part time.  Some suppliers provide power all the time, some only part time.  The chain must run at a nearly constant speed, and any supplier might break down and quit at any time.

To keep the chain going, the other suppliers must have some extra capacity to make up for the loss, at least for a short time.  In addition, the manager of the chain needs to be able to tell other suppliers to start when needed.

If the chain manager can’t get enough suppliers started and supplying, the chain will slow down (brownouts and low frequency).  In severe shortages some users may have to be disconnected from the chain (dropped load, rolling blackouts).  In the worst case, the chain stops (blackout).

Paying for Power

All the suppliers need to be paid.  All the users need to pay for what they get.  The chain owner and manager needs to be paid too.

Different kinds of supply and use cost different amounts.  If you are a supplier who is always ready to start supplying if another supplier breaks down, it costs money to stay ready.  The same is true if you back up a supplier that is only available for a few hours a day.  If you are a supplier who promises to stay ready to do backup, you usually get paid more.

If you are a user and know how much you want to use over time, it is cheaper for you to have a contract with certain suppliers.  Then these suppliers are  “on the chain” for you.  If you don’t have such a contract, you take the “chain’s price”-- a complicated average price from all the suppliers.

Careless Descriptions

People in the utility industry say: “X utility has a contract with Y plant for so much power.”  In reality the contract is for Y plant to supply power to the chain while X utility is using power from the chain.  Since everyone in the utility industry knows that power is put on the grid (on the chain), not sent specifically to a user, the shorter expression ("has a contract for so much power") came to be used.

The shorter expression was OK until the public wanted to know more.  Then the short expression caused confusion about how the physical system actually works.

Big Ben at Midnight

The Midnight Accountant

If you are a user, and your contract with a supplier ends, the chain will keep you going.  The chain doesn't know about your contract.  The chain just keeps moving, and you keep taking power off the chain the same way you did before.

However, when your supplier contract ends, you must pay the chain’s price. This price includes the higher cost "stay-ready" suppliers.

On March 21, at midnight Vermont Yankee kept right on powering the chain (grid).

No physical switch shifted.  The accountants shifted -- the billing.  At midnight, Vermont utilities no longer paid specifically for Vermont Yankee.  Vermont Yankee put power on the grid, and they took power off the grid, same as before.  However, at midnight the utilities began to pay specifically for other suppliers: Seabrook for example.  They pay the chain (grid) price when they don't have enough contracts with suppliers. Some of Vermont Yankee’s power is mixed in that price.

The accountants arrange the pricing, but the power to move the bicycle chain (grid) in Vermont was the same after midnight as before midnight.  The work of the accountants changed at midnight, but the work of the power plant continued.

-----

Howard Shaffer is a Licensed Professional Engineer in nuclear engineering in Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.  He has a Bachelor's in Electrical Engineering from Duke, and was a nuclear submarine officer. Subs have their own ac-dc grid. Later, he was startup engineer for EBASCO when they designed and built Vermont Yankee.  From Vermont, he went  to the Ludington, Michigan Pumped Storage plant as Lead Startup Engineer.  When pumping, that  plant draws 2040 MW, which is twice the power that all of Vermont uses.  Working with this pumped storage unit, Shaffer  learned a great deal about grid operations.  After Michigan, Shaffer went to MIT and received a Masters in Nuclear Engineering.  He then continued his career with assignments in plant startup and plant support.  He has been active for many years in nuclear public outreach, including service on the Public Information Committee of the American Nuclear Society.

Welcome to New Blogs from Nuke Roadie and Milton Caplan Plus a Link to My Post At ANS Nuclear Cafe

Two Great New Blogs

Nuke Roadie: The first blog, Nuke Roadie, was started this month by Nuke Roadie.  Nuke Roadie is known to many of us in the nuclear blogosphere for his blog comments, Facebook page, and twitter feed @nukeroadie.  Nuke Roadie is a contract worker in the nuclear industry. (Yeah, you might have guessed that.) I have appreciated his excellent comments on my blog and other blogs.  I have been following him on FB and Twitter for years. I am delighted to see his new blog!  I have added it to the Yes Vermont Yankee blog roll.

MZConsulting Blog: The second blog, Milton Caplan MZConsulting Blog, is not a new blog.  I had just never encountered it before.  Milton Caplan commented on my blog post at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  This led me to check out his company's blog.  MZConsulting is a Canadian company, consulting in nuclear energy, and Mr. Caplan is chair of the World Nuclear Association Economics Working Group.  You can read a little more about Caplan here. As you could expect, these blog posts are thoughtful and authoritative. I have added this blog to my blog roll.

The Search for Nuclear Happiness at ANS Nuclear Cafe

On Tuesday, I posted at ANS Nuclear Cafe on my methods for seeking happiness while supporting nuclear energy.  The Search for Nuclear Happiness includes my favorite techniques to support both nuclear energy and my own personal satisfaction.  One technique involves brownies--- or actually, coffee-and-brownies.  Well, actually, it's not about the brownies, it's about getting together with other supporters! I believe supporters of nuclear energy have a Brownie Deficit, because we don't hang out enough together.  Nuclear opponents are constantly getting their groups together for this and for that.  Such meetings energize them.

Meetings with our pro-nuclear friends can energize us.

Eat brownies, enjoy your friends, and read pro-nuclear blogs!

The NRC Wants YOU! (to share your opinion of their social media outreach)

The NRC wants your opinion of their social media outreach efforts.

A consultant for the NRC contacted me a few weeks ago and asked me for my opinion of the NRC's social media outreach efforts, such as the NRC blog, YouTube channel and twitter feed.  I obliged by giving them a phone interview.  I don't know how they picked people to interview, but I think that my blog was part of the selection process.

Two days ago, they asked me if I could publicize their wider efforts to gather opinions of NRC's social media outreach.  Specifically, they asked me to publicize a link to an opinion-survey form.  Here's the link to their form:  Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Use of Social Media.

Share your opinion. Your name will not be submitted to the NRC, but your opinion will form some part of a final report to the NRC.

This is a chance to communicate with the NRC about their outreach attempts, so I encourage people to submit the form.

A Book I Loved: THORIUM: Energy Cheaper Than Coal by Bob Hargraves

Disclosure

First of all, let me acknowledge that I know Dr. Robert Hargraves and have worked with him on various energy projects, such as co-teaching the Energy Safari course last fall, and founding the Coalition for Energy Solutions.  In the acknowledgements at the end of THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal, Hargraves thanks me and my husband, George Angwin (among others) for editorial reviews of an earlier draft of the book.

I wanted to say this upfront, because I think this is a terrific book, and I would think the same if I didn't know Bob Hargraves at all.  This is not just a book about thorium reactors. It's a book about energy policy and energy choices.  Even if you don't care a bit about thorium, you will benefit by reading this book.

You can buy the book at Amazon: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.

Hargraves also has a useful website about this book: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.  In this website, he includes the chapter headings, giving you an idea of the sweep of this book.  A partial list of chapters:

• why we need energy (energy and prosperity)
• analysis of energy sources 
• the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor LFTR
• safety 
• sustainability 
• energy policy

Cheaper than Coal and why it matters

The idea behind this book is not fear.  It is not about doom from existing nuclear plants, or even from global warming. The title tells much of the thesis: nuclear energy can be cheaper than coal.  Why is this important?

Prosperity and birth rate,  from Hargraves

Coal was the fuel that brought the industrial revolution and made Western nations prosperous. Now that Western nations are prosperous, we are beginning to turn away from coal, at least to some extent.  However, many developing nations are following the Western path to prosperity: "We'll start with coal."  If the wealthy countries wag their fingers at the developing world about coal, they quite rightly get fingers wagged back at them: "When our people are even half as prosperous as your people, we will enjoy a conversation with you about optimum energy sources.  Until then, you rich guys, don't be such a bunch of hypocrites."

Throughout the book, Hargraves emphasizes that nuclear power (specifically LFTRs) can undercut the price of coal, or the price of cheap natural gas. Hargraves stresses that carbon taxes are not going to be a global solution to the problems of fossil fuel use. LFTRs can be inexpensive and they produce almost no greenhouse gases or air pollution. They can be a large part of the solution.  People all over the world will attempt to lift themselves out of poverty.  Hopefully, people will use nuclear energy instead of coal, and thereby make a better world for all of us.

Technologies Reviewed

Fossil or nuclear?  Are those really the choices?

For those who may say: "We don't need fossil or nuclear, we can do everything with renewables" Hargraves has a well-researched answer.  The book includes almost 100 pages of "doing the numbers" on renewables, and showing they are not a solution for a modern society's energy needs.

One feature of the Hargraves book is that he estimates costs for the different renewable technologies, and explains his estimates.  David MacKay's excellent book, Sustainable Energy--without the hot air, also analyzes renewable technologies. However, MacKay's book mainly asks whether the renewable technologies will provide enough energy for society (without using all the land for energy production). Hargraves estimates the costs, because, after all, the book is titled: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.  Hargraves knows that people will choose inexpensive energy to lift themselves from poverty to prosperity.  Cost matters.

Though Richard Martin's book Superfuel was all about LFTRs, the technology of LFTRs was not particularly well-expounded in that book. In THORIUM, there are over 100 pages about LFTRs. The information includes charts and illustrations, description of the different varieties of LFTR, information about the technical challenges that LFTRs have overcome, and about many of the technical challenges remaining.  I don't know anywhere else you could obtain this information so clearly and concisely. The information is out there, no doubt, in thorium forums and papers (and Hargraves references these).  But if you want a quick-course on LFTRs, not a personal-research-project on LFTRs, this is the book for you.

Hargraves also reviews other types of advanced reactors: Integral Fast Reactors, pebble beds, etc.  All sections of the book contain very helpful illustrations (and lots of them) and references. The list of references and bibliography is truly impressive.

Technology Overstated?

I can hear it.  Somebody is going to say that I have been taken in by a paper reactor.  Do I know that the LFTR will work? Do I know that the LFTR development task section of Hargraves' book (pages 227-247) lists all the necessary tasks? Do I know that all the development tasks, listed or not, will be completed?  Of course not. I don't know these things, and neither does Hargraves, and neither does anybody else. I also know that materials development work is often much harder than it looks at the beginning.  LFTR development is not certain.

Molten Salt FLIBe

However, several advanced reactor concepts are in development at this time. New types of reactors will be developed in the near future.  In my opinion, the Hargraves book makes an excellent case for expanded work on the LFTR.

My One Gripe

Early in this post, I said:

This is not just a book about thorium reactors. It's a book about energy policy and energy choices.  Even if you don't care a bit about thorium, you will benefit by reading this book.

As a matter of fact, that statement also expresses my one major problem with the book.  The sections on energy policy, renewables and costs are top-notch (as are the sections on advanced reactors).  The energy policy sections should interest every citizen and every policy maker.  But will  the average citizen or policy maker pick up a book about advanced reactors?

I think that this book consists of two fine books packed in one cover:

• a book on energy choices and energy policy 
• a book on advanced reactors, especially the LFTR  

Of course these two topics are related, but putting them in one book makes a rather thick book (470 pages). Though it is well-written and well-illustrated, I think its size alone is a bit intimidating.

I urge you to buy it.  You can read the whole thing and enjoy it. Or you can just read the sections of interest to you and use the rest as reference.

In either case, this book is a major achievement, and should be on the bookshelf of people interested in energy in general, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and advanced reactors.  In other words, it will be helpful to pretty much everybody.

Reminder: You can buy the book at Amazon: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.

Note: The book cover is by Suzy Hobbs Baker of Popatomic Studios.  I am on the board of directors of Baker's not-for-profit, and I love her work.

119th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

The 119th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers is here today at Yes Vermont Yankee!  I am so pleased with the great blog posts in this Carnival.

I just recently added a set of Share This buttons at the right of the blog.  Please use them to spread the word of the Carnival. Facebook, email and Twitter are right up-top. The Plus button gives you many more choices, such as Stumble-Upon, Reddit and Pinterest. It's easy to spread the word. Just click the button!

Now, on to the Carnival.  To me, a major theme of this Carnival is the difficulty of communicating about nuclear energy.

Fukushima Communication
Let's start with an important Fukushima report and video at ANS Nuclear Cafe

Video interview with ANS Special Committee on Fukushima Co-Chair: Michael Corradini

Dr. Michael Corradini

The leadership of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) commissioned the American Nuclear Society Special Committee on Fukushima to provide a clear and concise explanation of what happened during the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and offer recommendations based on lessons learned from their study of the event.

Dr. Michael Corradini is president of the ANS, and he is also co-chair of the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima. In this video,  Dr. Corradini provides an update on the Special Committee’s work, including the release of the committee’s final report. He also announces as an embedded topical meeting on Fukushima that will take place at the upcoming 2012 ANS Winter Meeting in San Diego, Nov 11-15.

Health Communication

At Atomic Insights, Rod Adams asks why radiation health professionals are so reluctant to talk about radiation hormesis.

Radiation Protection Profession – Hiding Health Benefits of Low Level Radiation (aka Hormesis)

Rod shares some comments from an experienced group of professionals about the reluctance of radiation protection professionals to discuss hormesis. Ted Rockwell, who was troubleshooter at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project and later served as Admiral Rickover’s technical director when Naval Reactors developed the first nuclear powered submarine (USS Nautilus) and the first commercial light water reactor (Shippingport) provided the first comment.

Aside: Ted's background information is provided to show that he is not only deeply experienced in nuclear energy and its associated radiation, but he is also a rather mature 90 years old and still going strong.

Energy Communication

At Neutron Economy, Steve Skutnik discusses the role of cultural signaling in the energy discussion.

Cultural Signaling and Energy

At the Neutron Economy, Steve Skutnik asks the question of how much cultural signaling factors play a role in energy politics. Specifically, how much of support for energy sources like coal (and likewise, renewables) come more from that they say about the values and identities over more rational study of environmental and economic trade-offs?

(Skutnik starts his discussion with a look at why the Friends of Coal plate is the most popular custom license plate in Kentucky.)

Economics Communication

Quite a few  interesting posts  in this category.  

Nuclear Costs

Let's start with Brian Wang at Next Big Future, examining anti-nuclear bias in a Guardian assessment of nuclear power costs

Guardian Analysis of Nuclear Power has the Typical Bias

Brazilian Oil Platform Wikipedia
Expensive equipment

A Guardian UK analysis of nuclear power has the usual bias. Oliver Tickell's analysis has - At a construction cost of about US$10 billion per reactor, we would need to dedicate US$110 trillion, or about two years' gross world product, while also providing for long-term liabilities to replace the new fossil fuel generation for expected energy demand growth. However, about 90% of the reactors will be built in or by China, South Korea, Russia and India. The costs will be two to four times less.  In total the costs for nuclear energy to replace all additional fossil fuel for the next 35 years would be more in range of $30 trillion. The analysis is not complete because the comparison of costs needs to look at the costs for the alternatives of wind, solar and other power generation. Wind has the problem that if wind was the sole basis for new power generation it would a warming effect as well.

In a related link Wang points out the oil and gas capital expenditures are currently at more that $1 trillion ( US $) per year.

Fuel Choices

Customs officers 
 Inport controls in action

At Idaho Samizdat, Dan Yurman and Andrea Jennetta report on fuel choices and small modular reactors.

LWR SMRs Have Fuel Advantages

Yurman and Jennetta assess fuel choices for SMRs in terms of assess time to market and export control issues. Thorium reactors face a challenge of proving their competitive advantage in terms of total cost of doing business.

Advertising Campaigns
In Yes Vermont Yankee, I describe a possible advertising communications campaign for Indian Point.

The Subways of New York and Indian Point

Indian Point could advertise on the New York subways, since they provide part of the power for the subways. I thought of some neat ads for them. This post had many hits, and attracted some of the "usual suspects" from the New York area in the comment stream.  Should I be glad I have a new set of readers? (just a joke)


Education and Communication
The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology
The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology: Who should the audience be?
American Nuclear Society's CNST

At 4Factor Consulting Blog, Margaret Harding talks about the Center for Nuclear Science and Technology that ANS is creating to help with education. Two speeches given at the ANS-UWC put the idea in her head that the CNST should be doing more to education journalists and local governments. In the end, what are YOU doing to educate your community?

ANS Young Members
New chair for the Young Members Group at ANS

Introducing ANS Young Members Group Chair Gale Hauck

Gale Hauck

At ANS Nuclear Cafe, American Nuclear Society Young Members Group (YMG) Secretary Elia 

Merzari caught up with new YMG Chair Gale Hauck and asked her to 

introduce herself and upcoming plans for the ANS YMG.

Politics and Communication
Gail Marcus discusses Harry Reid and Bill Magwood
Harry Reid insulted NRC Commissioner Bill Magwood.  Allison Macfarlane would be re-appointed Commission Chair by Obama if he is re-elected.  How is this all going to play out?

More on Reid and Magwood

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus has a follow-up to her previous discussion on Harry Reid's comments on NRC Commissioner Bill Magwood a few weeks ago.  She reflects on a comment the earlier blog received, which speculated that, if President Obama is reelected, he will want to reappoint Chairman Allison Macfarlane, but it will prove impossible because there will be no Republican with which to pair her nomination.  Gail follows that train of thought and considers the various possibilities.

Nuclear History: SYLCOR Continued




Moving away from communications issues, we look at nuclear history with Will Davis of Atomic Power review.

SYLCOR Western Office:  Part 3

In the latest SYLCOR historical retrospective installment, we learn about SYLCOR's specialty in fuel elements in text and photos, and see a particularly unusual type of fuel element made by this company for a special situation.  Many interesting illustrations are included.


Technology of Uranium Extraction
For our final Carnival entry, we get away from communications into straight technology.  Brian Wang reports that the technology for extracting uranium from seawater has improved.  Costs for seawater extraction are getting closer to land-based costs.

Uranium from seawater idea boosted with shrimp shells

At Next Big Future, Brian Wang reports  that uranium from seawater technology has been improved. 'Although these trials proved the principle of uranium extraction from  seawater, the cost was prohibitively high - perhaps around $260 per  pound. This compares badly to today's most economic mines on land, which produce uranium at around $20 per pound, while resources at higher  costs up to about $115 per pound have already been identified that would last more than a century.' And: The ACS summarised the session saying that the new techniques might reduce the cost of uranium from seawater to around $135 per pound.

Enjoy the Carnival!

Read it! Follow the links!  Tweet it! Facebook it!  (Buttons at top right for your linking pleasure.)

Have fun and spread the fun!

Two Upcoming Events: VSNAP and ANS

The First Meeting: VSNAP Meeting on September 10 in Vernon

VSNAP is the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the July 9 meeting of VSNAP: my post at ANS Nuclear Cafe describes the meeting. Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel: Safety Again!  The discussion was about safety, safety and safety.  The panel spoke as if the lawsuit hadn't happened.

The July meeting was in Montpelier, and poorly attended.  The next meeting will be at Vernon Elementary School at 6 p.m. on September 10.  I expect it to be well attended, because Vernon is near Massachusetts and many people come up from Massachusetts to protest the plant.  Many protesters live in Brattleboro, near Vernon, but even more seem to come from Massachusetts.

Liz Miller
DPS Commissioner

I suggest you come to this VSNAP meeting if you can, but remember that the opponents shout, carry signs, wear funny clothes and masks, and basically enjoy a good round of street theater.  As I wrote about the NRC meeting in Brattleboro, these meetings can be intimidating.  NRC Public Meeting In Brattleboro: The Politics of Intimidation. However, as Howard Shaffer has often said: "Nobody has ever actually hit me."

Also, the VSNAP panel is opposed to Vermont Yankee, and the crowd is opposed to Vermont Yankee.  Therefore, this meeting should be comparatively subdued.  It will be subdued compared to the behavior at an NRC meeting--that's what I mean by "comparatively subdued."

So I do encourage you to attend.

The Panel and The Plant

In June, Liz Miller lost a lawsuit against the NRC.  Miller is the chairperson of the VSNAP panel,  and she is Commissioner of the Department of Public Service (DPS). DPS had joined a local intervenor to sue  the NRC. In their lawsuit, DPS and the intervenor hoped to force the NRC to rescind Vermont Yankee's license. Their suit was based on a water quality permit issue. DPS and the intervenor lost in court.

More recently, Miller  asked the NRC to increase their scrutiny of Vermont Yankee until the NRC's work meets DPS standards for nuclear oversight.  The NRC has been reported as "cool" to her request.

Go to the meeting anyway

For nuclear supporters, this meeting will be fun if you're a masochist.

It turns out that I am invited to a reception that evening, and I won't be at the VSNAP meeting.  I will be devastated to miss it (not really!). Howard Shaffer plans to attend the VSNAP meting.

Why go?  Sheer masochism?  No.  There are reasons to go.

With any luck you might be able to convince the newspapers covering the meeting that the plant has supporters as well as ...um....detractors. Another reason  to attend is that some people from the plant are required to come to these meetings, and they like to see a friendly face in the crowd. You can be that friendly face. Also, Liz Miller is a dedicated plant opponent, but she is also a very nice person who tries to be fair to everyone who speaks.  Her behavior is another pleasant part of the meeting.

The Second Meeting: ANS Meeting in Connecticut on September 13

On the other hand, if you aren't a masochist you will enjoy attending the American Nuclear Society (ANS) Connecticut Region meeting on the evening of September 13.  As a matter of fact, I can guarantee you will enjoy the meeting, because Howard Shaffer and I will be speaking on "how to be a pro-nuclear activist."

This dinner meeting is a regularly scheduled meeting of the ANS, a professional society.  Such meetings are generally not announced to the public: they are only for society members. Guests are welcome, however, by pre-arrangement.  If you are interested in attending, please email me at mjangwin at gmail and I will put you in touch with the meeting organizers.

I hope you can come.  It will be a chance for Howard and me to come south from Vermont and see some of our supporters from Connecticut and other "points South."

Thorium Update: The SuperFuel Reviews

SuperFuel, the book, and THORIUM, the book

In June, I reviewed Richard Martin's book SuperFuel in this blog.  It wasn't exactly a positive review, as you can tell by the title of my post; SuperFuel, a Book I Wanted to Love.

On Monday, I received my copy of Dr. Robert Hargraves book THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.  I plan to review it within a few days.

However, before I did that, I thought I would pull together other reviews of the SuperFuel book in one place, if only for reference when I review Hargraves book.

Here's my annotated list of reviews of the book, SuperFuel.

Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee
Superfuel, a Book I Wanted to Love
Review summary: This book is full of factual errors. It also spends much time bashing the existing nuclear energy industry. People in favor of light water reactors are "the nuclearati." Rickover is compared to Stalin.  I didn't like the book.

Rick Maltese at ThoriumMSR
Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source, by Richard Martin reviewed
Review summary: A positive review of the book. The review concentrates on  the promise of thorium and how that promise was de-railed.

Rod Adams at Atomic Insights
Rod Adams has four separate posts concerned with this book.  Two are podcast interviews.

There are Three Superfuels: Uranium, Thorium and Plutonium

Review summary: Fighting amongst nuclear fuels? Why do this, when the world is still dominated by fossil fuels?

Identifying Antinuclear Slants in Richard Martin's Superfuel
Review summary: This book considers thorium the only safe reactor, and talks about the "nuclearati" as "tone-deaf" for pointing out that their technology is safe. Richard Martin may be a fossil fuel wolf in sheep's clothing.
Podcast: Kirk Sorensen Co-Founder FLIBE energy
Podcast summary: Mostly positive discussion of alternative ways of using fission energy and being a nuclear entrepreneur.
Podcast: Richard Martin and Kirk Sorensen: Is Thorium Superior to Uranium?
Podcast summary:   Somewhere about fifteen minutes into the podcast, I stopped listening. Martin was saying that facts don't convince people, so the good safety record of current reactors doesn't matter very much (I am paraphrasing).

I am not good at listening to podcasts: I am very visual-oriented.  When I begin to get irritated, I'm outta there.

As usual, the comments on all Adams' posts are a treat to read, especially the comments on his blog posts (as opposed to his podcasts). His thorium posts have forty and more comments apiece!

Will Davis at Atomic Power Review
Review: "Super-Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Resource for the Future."
Review summary: This is a thoughtful book about alternate technologies and deserves a place on the bookshelf. Davis expected more of a rah-rah, airhead book and was pleasantly surprised with this book.

Bob Apthorpe at Overscope
Review: SuperFuel by Richard Martin
Review Summary: A balanced review, pointing out errors and also pointing out where the description of reactor types is excellent.  Overall, however, Apthorpe can only recommend a few chapters of this book as error-and-bias-free enough to be worth the reader's time. He recommends other books instead.
Note: For those of you on Twitter, you know Apthorpe as Arclight.

Guest Post by David Archibald at Watts Up With That
Book Review of SuperFuel
The reviewer points out that the book is full of "howler" errors, but is also useful and interesting.  He is particularly pleased with  the discussion of reactor development history, particularly about Rickover and Weinberg.  The reviewer also says that Martin is a "warmer" ( a person who believes that climate change is taking place) and that hurts the book.

Conclusion

I have been meaning to put this post up for weeks.  Really.  Having received the Hargraves book, I wanted to get this post out of the way.  I have now cleared the decks for the Hargraves review.

I have given my opinion of the gist of each of these reviews.  I hope this was helpful.  I welcome comments (and corrections) from the reviewers themselves or others.