Pick up almost any book about nuclear energy and you will find that the prevailing wisdom is that nuclear plants must be very large in order to be competitive. This notion is widely accepted, but, if its roots are understood, it can be effectively challenged. //

There have now been 110 nuclear power plants completed in the United States over a period of almost forty years. Though accurate cost data is difficult to obtain, it is safe to say that there has been no predictable relationship between the size of a nuclear power plant and its cost. Despite the graphs drawn in early nuclear engineering texts-which were based on scanty data from less than ten completed plants-there is not a steadily decreasing cost per kilowatt for larger plants.

It is possible for engineers to make incredibly complex calculations without a single math error that still come up with a wrong answer if they use a model based on incorrect assumptions. That appears to be the case with the bigger is better model used by nuclear plant planners.

For example, one assumption explicitly stated in the economy of scale model is that the cost of auxiliary systems does not increase as rapidly as plant capacity. In at least one key area, that assumption is not true for nuclear plants.

Since the reactor core continues to produce heat after the plant is shutdown, and since a larger, more powerful core releases less of its heat to its immediate surroundings because of a smaller surface to volume ratio, it is more difficult to provide decay heat removal for higher capacity cores. It is also manifestly more difficult, time consuming and expensive to prove that the requirements for heat removal will be met under all postulated conditions without damaging the core. For emergency core cooling systems, overall costs, including regulatory burdens, seem to have increased more rapidly than plant capacity. //

nuclear power is no different conceptually than hundreds of other new technologies.

The principle that Ford discovered is now known as the experience curve. . . It ordains that in any business, in any era, in any capitalist competition, unit costs tend to decline in predictable proportion to accumulated experience: the total number of units sold. Whatever the product (cars or computers, pounds of limestone, thousands of transistors, millions of pounds of nylon, or billions of phone calls) and whatever the performance of companies jumping on and off the curve, unit costs in the industry as a whole, adjusted for inflation, will tend to drop between 20 and 30 percent with every doubling in accumulated output.

George Guilder Recapturing the Spirit of Enterprise Updated for the 1990s, ICS Press, San Francisco, CA. p. 195 //

The Adams Engine philosophy of small unit sizes is based on aggressively climbing onto the experience curve. If a market demand exists for 300 MW of electricity, distributed over a wide geographic area, traditional nuclear plant designers would say that the market is not yet ready for nuclear power, thus they would decide to learn nothing while waiting for the market to expand.

In contrast, atomic engine makers may see an opportunity to manufacture and sell 15 units, each with 20 MW of capacity.

conducting the interview at the CIA facility is an interesting decision. Why not question him at DOJ or FBI HQ? //

DOJ and the FBI HQ are in Washington DC. CIA Headquarters is in Langley, Virginia.

If you are geographically challenged, you can read the distinction as “United States District Court for the District of Columbia” v. “United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.” If John Brennan offered any false answers to the investigators during the interview, the venue for that “false statement” crime is in the EDVA, not in DC federal court. //

let’s take a moment to address the whole “Target” v. “Subject” v. “Witness” construct the press is so happy to report about.

Labeling an individual a “target” has a clear meaning in federal criminal prosecutions. It refers to someone about whom the prosecutor believes there is already sufficient admissible evidence to seek an indictment from a grand jury, and obtain a conviction at trial. The investigation is ongoing, but the grand jury already has identified a “target” for eventual prosecution.

When you receive a “Target” letter it advises you that a federal grand jury has already received evidence upon which criminal charges may be issued in the future. It advises the “Target” that they should seek counsel, and if they cannot afford counsel they should contact the Federal Defender’s Office in their district for legal representation. Once they have secured counsel, their lawyer should contact the prosecutor to discuss the matter.

The purpose behind a “subject” letter is merely to instill fear in the recipient and to “encourage” them to talk about others before others talk about them — as information from others might push them closer to the “target” category. Unwitting lawyers think there is meaning behind the “subject” designation but there is not. Fear is a great motivator. “Doing unto others before they do unto you” is sort of a universal maxim among the idiot criminal class.

So if you are not a “target” — meaning there isn’t sufficient evidence at this time to charge you with a crime — then by default you are a “witness.”

But “witnesses” can, and often do talk themselves into being “targets” during such interviews. That was the purpose of the interview, Mr. Brennan, not because you have some wonderful insights to provide Mr. Durham and his investigators to make their job easier.

One important distinction between “target” and “witness” that is not well understood, but might be in play here, is that it is against DOJ policy to issue a grand jury subpoena to someone who is already a “target”.

A grand jury subpoena is a court order, under threat of contempt, to appear and answer questions under oath without the presence of counsel. If a person is already a “Target”, the subpoena intrudes upon their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and to be represented by counsel while undergoing “custodial” interrogation — they are under subpoena after all. Witnesses before the grand jury are allowed to assert their Fifth Amendment right, but it forces them to assert that right before the grand jurors considering charges against them. The government is not allowed to call a criminal defendant to take the stand in his trial and force him to assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in front of the jury. It is deemed prejudicial, and suggest to the jury that the defendant has something to hide. The same principle applies to calling a “Target” in front of a grand jury and forcing them to assert their right to remain silent in front of the grand jurors without counsel present.

So, if John Brennan isn’t at least a potential “target,” why was he not called to explain historical events to the grand jury? //

John Durham and his team did not come to the decision to interview Brennan over the course of eight hours for the purpose of “filling in the blanks” on “events that are under review.”

The purpose of the interview was to get Brennan to confirm or deny information that others have provided up to this point about Brennan, and what he instructed others to do.

John Brennan was placed into a perjury trap yesterday because he’s shown himself willing to perjure himself in the past in order to evade scrutiny.

Yesterday, the ability to avoid the trap was completely within his control — all he had to do was tell the truth. For the most part, Durham’s investigators knew the truth.

John Brennan doesn’t come from a world of objective “truths” and “lies”. For Brennan, the “truth” is always malleable to fit his needs at any given moment.

That’s CIA tradecraft. He sees himself as a master of such “dark arts” based on his decades in DC. Others have long viewed him as a clown.

That’s why, as a prosecutor, you save a liar like John Brennan for last. He can’t help you because you can’t rely on what he tells you.

So your interview is not done for the purpose of helping your case.

And you do it in Virginia and not DC because of what you plan to do next.

Strictly speaking, children are not completely immune to infection, but they are ‘almost immune.’ Children are highly resistant to danger from COVID-19. //

“Total U.S. COVID cases” refers only to those who have tested positive for the virus. The word “case” is mentally associated with the word patient and implies that a case is someone who is sick. This is incorrect and a main reason for our national overreaction to the virus. To avoid the confusion and panic that 5 million “cases” generates, the number should be reported as “Total U.S. positive COVID-19 tests.”

Furthermore, the actual number of Americans infected with COVID-19 is certain to be much higher than 5 million, as only those with symptoms are typically tested. According to a small study of asymptomatic volunteers in Santa Clara County, Calif., the number of untested asymptomatic COVID infections could be 50 to 85 times greater than reported total cases. //

The term “COVID deaths,” currently at 166,090, is another misnomer. The majority of these deaths are people who died with the virus, not because of it. Most of those who died likely succumbed to their pre-existing life-threatening medical conditions such as diabetes, immune compromise, heart or kidney failure, and chronic lung disease. Often the deceased who also tested positive for COVID-19 had two or more of these conditions. //

the CDC reported 142,164 total deaths attributed to COVID-19. Forty-five of these deaths, 0.03 percent, were children. In other words, the likelihood that a child infected with COVID-19 will survive is so far 99.97 percent. //

Most vaccines currently available against other viral illnesses do not match the apparent natural resistance that children exhibit to COVID-19. The seasonal flu vaccine is usually 40-60 percent protective and the VPD-VAC Varicella (chicken pox) vaccination is effective in 82 percent of patients. Only the spectacular 99 percent protection achieved by polio vaccination approaches the 99.97 percent of childhood near-immunity to COVID-19. //

Deane Waldman, MD MBA, is Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Pathology and Decision Science

A review of "Pan Am: The Board Game" from someone who is both an aviation geek and a board game fanatic. Is this game worth getting?

Quite early on, Lufthansa was clear that it would be removing five Boeing 747s from its fleet in…