Almost half of Engineer readers think that a UK-developed small modular reactor would be a better option than the current deal to build and operate a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.
With over 700 responses to our poll and a lively comments section with over 50 contributions, the decision to allow EDF to build a new twin-reactor nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset with China supplying a significant proportion of the finance is clearly one that still arouses strong feelings among Engineer readers. A very large majority of respondents agreed that the government’s last-minute decision to delay committing to the deals agreed by former Chancellor George Osborne represented a good chance to rethink the project, with only 11 per cent saying that the deal should go ahead as per the existing agreements. The largest group, 48 per cent, thought that UK-developed small modular reactor would be the best option for the UK’s nuclear future (presumably abandoning the entire EPR strategy in the process) while 19 per cent though the deals could be reworked to give more opportunities for UK industry. The next group, 13 per cent, thought new nuclear build should be abandoned altogether, while 8 per cent thought China’s roe in the project needed to be renegotiated. Just 2 per cent declined to choose an option.
Please continue to send us your opinions on this topic.
Torn between develop our own (best) but also renegotiate China’s role. I suspect they are only there for the finance! If all they do is help this then fine, but if they are installing and developing technology then they shouldn’t be involved in sucha critical piece of utility infrastructure. Without electricity we do not have any modern technology.
Build cheaper BWR in half the time of EPR.
Why don’t we just building a barrage across the seven?
Firstly it’s Severn, at least get the name of the ecosystem you want to destroy right. Secondly as I have just indicated that scheme will destroy globally important wetlands and is an ecologically totally destructive. The world is not just here for humans to destroy, thinks about the bigger picture. The real answer of course is to control our population so we don’t need so much power but sadly no politician will ever stand up and say that because of the belief in the right to breed ourselves into extinction. As engineers and scientists we should be looking at the true route causes and addressing them not indulging in short term patches.
Some very valid points here Neil, many of which are considered in The Limits to Growth, commissioned by thew Club of Rome in 1972. Exponential population growth + diminishing resources is an unsustainable paradigm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
One point of note. No politician will support population control because as China & the western world in the 1930s has shown it is ethically utterly abhorrent.
Luckily in many developed nations the fertility rate has already fallen below replacement levels. Increases in population there being primarily linked to increasing life expectancy of those already alive and secondarily immigration. For the world as a whole number of children per woman is closely linked to female literacy, per capita income & access to contraception. Hans Rosling is a demographer who illustrates this quite well & certainly worth a google for anyone interested in demographic trends.
You seem to forget that the climate is changing so the whole environment is going to change anyway. It is estimated that the amount of suspended solids will drop and so the waters will support a lot more species. When that happens you get a whole load more species willing to hang around. so overall it is a better solution than building nuke. Plus it should last 100 years and have no downside on decommissioning. Plus it allow flood control to the upper reaches of the severn, which will be come more common as we get ever increasing rain intensity and rising sea levels over that hundred years.
What would a nuke offer; hotter sea water, no net benefit to wildlife, and a load of toxic waste that will need to be looked after for ever more. Plus the nuke costs are growing out of control thus offering no benefit to the public. So I would go for a barrage or the more preferred mini barrages any day.
The plan is to build tidal lagoons in the Severn estuary. I think they’re going to build one in Swansea first.
Lets do the Wash as well, and Morecombe Bay, we could probably put a barrage across the Irish sea between Stranrear and Larne , with a few locks in it to accommodate the passage of shipping traffic. that would be a great way of linking Great Britain and Ireland by road so two birds with one stone. In fact if we were really clever we could put another across St George’s channel and eventually get the remainder of the Irish sea to silt up then we could turn it into polders with the Flow between the Northern Atlantic and the Western approaches forming the drainage canals , we could nearly double the land area of the UK and Ireland at a stroke.
Too radical?
Renewables are important and will become increasingly so but we will always need a base steady supply available and nuclear fits the bill and the possible damage it can do is minimal to what Mega structural changes to the environment do to ecosystems. Arguably even the Chernobyl disaster has produced a vast wildlife preserve which might even prove in the long run to have done more good than harm
Because 1) For the same cost we could purchase a CCGT plant that would produce 35 times as much electricity that would be one third cheaper. 2) We despoil a great area for the stone to build the barrage. 3)The can only build it providing they are subsidised to the hilt.
Oh, and who bailed out the British Nuclear after the power industry was privatised…..the public…..no company producing nuclear power can stand on its own two feet. Plus it hasn’t factored in clean up costs nor can it get insurance…..etc. The whole industry is a nightmare of a farce being paid for by the public.
Because it will silt up in a few years, this is how the Dutch claim land from the sea.
I’m no power generation expert, but I have two questions:
1. When nuclear generation was in its infancy in the 1950s – 60s, we seemed to be able to build UK nuclear stations pretty successfully, and they served us well. Why is it that, now that nuclear engineering is much more mature, do we seem unable to repeat that performance?
2. Coal-fired power stations need a benefit of scale in order to be competitive. Do the same economics apply to nuclear, or should we be looking for a more distributed solution installing, for example, larger numbers of small marine reactors as used in submarines?
UK smr the only sensible way to do it. The only way that we can truly control it and earn revenue for the UK
I fully support Nuclear New Build, but there are several proven nuclear reactor options out there that are perhaps not so powerful or as efficient as the proposed AP1000 or EPR reactors, such as the South Korean APR1400 or even the current Sizewell B design. But they are infinitely cheaper to build and have a proven generation record.
The current Sizewell b design would no longer comply with safety requirements for new build. The AP1000 is the updated version of this design, incorporating passive safety features, and is planned for Horizon’s project in Cumbria.
It’s a good idea, but unfortunately our poll-making software doesn’t allow it.
This ‘deal’ was always far too risky, both technically and especially politically – and too expensive. It’s time we remembered how to stand on our own two feet rather than begging from anyone who has some cash to spare. lets develop the modular solution, (perhaps using thorium?), it’s a product we could sell across the world.
Use vast quantities of shale gas via existing gas network and build 10-15 gas powered generation units for half the money whilst developing other systems for generation such as solar and tidal
It may be the only way to make Government look at SMR is to get / force a Parliamentary debate. We must not again leave it until too late to take a look at what a UK developed SMR industry could offer. My initial guess is that the costs can be got to become comparable by economies of scale. Generated power can be on-line in quite short time scales. Generation capability can be located in more and suitable areas. Eg. a unit could be installed in the Shetlands for local supply. We could kick start a whole new industry for the UK that can also be an export earner. Let’s at least take a look!
Great to see the majority are for the UK to develop our own solution. I would love to think we still have the skills (latent as they may be) to build our own. The government should at least look seriously at this possibility. Assuming the pole remains so positive, the results should be passed on to Downing Street ASAP. You never know………
Noticing that my contribution on this topic has been deleted, I assume that Mr Nathan like Mr.Wade is following the line of censoring all contributions that question the religion of “Climate Science”: how sad.
You’re more than welcome to question the widely accepted climate science Jack, so long as you have some peer reviewed scientific evidence of your own to back up your arguments. Spurious claims about green conspiracies, however, will not be published.
Hear Hear
Peer reviewing is used by the pure science community, it is rarely used by engineers. Science is open to question, interpretation and debate at all levels and disagreement with a consensus is not proof that an argument is incorrect.
The conspiracy level of popular press, the BBC and many technical journals in refusing to allow the issue of climate change to be discussed other than by advocates is a scientific disgrace and will be judged by history not by me.
We’re talking about science here Jack, and the scientific community, so peer-reviewed evidence is the benchmark. The reason the popular press no longer entertains climate change deniers is because the scientific debate (for all reasonable people) has been settled. The evidence is overwhelming, and claims to the contrary invariably come from those with vested interests, or the tin-foil hat brigade, who would have us debate the accepted science ad infinitum rather than take action to remedy the issue. The blatantly obvious has been obfuscated by deniers for too long. Provide some peer reviewed evidence contrary to that accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, or move on.
In the short term (10-15 years) UK needs additional generating capacity to avoid the real risk of power shortages and Hinkley C will go some way to meeting that need, but it seems sensible to review the exact terms of the deal. The timescale for development of SMR to practical commercial use is way beyond that but there is no reason why that development could not proceed in parallel with the construction of Hinkley C – the two are not mutually exclusive.
The reason why there is no UK manufacturing capability to build nuclear stations is that after privatisation of the electricity supply industry there was no government support for the price of power from nuclear stations, ignoring the strategic long term value of these so no new stations were built after Sizewell B in the late ’80s/early ’90s and the manufacturing capability went elsewhere.
Great to think we could develop our own SMR in the 10 years we seem to be giving the consortium to build the established build. (is there a penalty if they are late?). Fantastic if we can promise to have the production SMR designed and built in a similar time frame. I suspect it is fantasy to develop and build a new production level SMR solution in 10 years. Not to mention at the cost already declared. We need new energy supplies about 5 years ago. The current time frame is not just too little too late, its too little, way too late. (not to mention over priced for the electric it supplies).
Whats worrying is that it took 10 years to complete the public inquiry before build for Sizewell B after it was agreed as the site and design.
A previous poll on this subject brought I thought an excellent response from someone working in the industry who said – ‘Stop building new designs!’
His thrust was that existing designs (with small modifications) are well understood technically and operationally so there is very little risk in building more the same.
I voted to build a UK SMR but are there no existing SMR designs that can be bought off the shelf? It seems those who properly understand the subject favour LFTR s.
I have to comment by asking myself ” would I spend my money on a project proposing a technology which is not only not proven, but which has an existing record of massive project overruns and without yet getting one to operation”, my answer is I would not and I would not appreciate the government spending my money on such a scheme . I agree we need a percentage of nuclear and agree with the comments made by others about existing technolgies and building it ourselves ; it is time we resurrected our own expertise just as we had before and if this means spending a little more then I would rather see my taxes paid to benefit the longer term status of uk engineering than go into the pockets of foreign companies or countries. Much of the knowledge must still exist within our nuclear processing industries as they are today. Has the government or its advisors even considered this option or is the decision to buy from abroad a reaction to the fact that the decision to build nuclear has been left too long in the making..
Well done Neil. The elephant in the room needs to be brought to everyone’s attention ASAP !
Get Theresa to have a chat with Elon Musk.
His domestic power banks will smooth out demand for years to come.
Meanwhile we should look again at Thorium as our solution.
Hinkley Point C and similar projects mean major costs and problems left for future generations. Are the costs of de-commissioning and managing radioactive wastes being considered? Generating electricity from nuclear fission may soon be old technology. Put the effort into fusion R&D (ITER) and renewables, – that would be both sensible and responsible. The UK has surely made enough expensive mistakes in recent weeks.
The last dinasoar? The Chiese are getting very interested in Thorium. It is not quite true that Thorium is unproven, the Americans had one running quite successfully in the 1960s, the technology for which they are currently giving, gratis, to the Chinese. In the 10, or will it be 20, years it will take to build Sizewell C we could be on the fourth generation of Thorium.
Has no one considered the massive amount of energy that our rivers flowing down to the sea could yield. Surely a very large number of small water driven generators would provide a greater security of power. Bring back the CEGB so we can control our own power generation instead of relying on French nationalized companies and other foreign suppliers. I am also a Severn Barrage fan
I would interested to know if there is a solid technical reason why Rolls Royce can’t make land-based versions of the small nuclear generating plant they already make in small quantities for submarines. They are proven and safe enough for people to live next to. One or several of these modular power generating sets sited inside redundant coal-fired power-stations would take advantage of:- Proven designs; Re-use of brownfield sites; Generating close to where the demand is; Use of existing grid connections etc. What’s not to like? I must be missing some big snag, but what is it?
I whole heartedly agree!!
I voted ‘Develop a UK SMR solution’, but there is a problem. Developing a solution requires foresight beyond the 5 years between elections (look at the knee-jerk situation in Germany post-Fukushima, this has cost investors millions).
We need to develop a cross party energy strategy, for decades to come in order that best value for the consumer and the planet can be balanced without policy swings every few years scaring off domestic investors. If a cross party agreement cannot be reached, then an independent panel of experts can do it.
China needs the Hinckley deal. The French need the deal. We don’t need this, especially the poor consumer, even worse the taxpayer.
Lets just look at the numbers
Hinkley point C
Cost – £21bn
Output – 3200MW (7% of output or 6 million UK homes)
Jobs – 5400
Over the pond Tesla have just opened their Gigafactory. When at full capacity will provide
35GWh.
Gigafactory
Cost – $5bn (£3.5bn)
Output 35GWh – cost of 10kw pack = £3000 approx
£21bn – £3.5bn = £17.5bn/£3000 = Powerwalls in 5.8 million homes
Jobs – 4000+
By using battery storage we would reduce the need for peak power supply.
Off peak power would charge the packs overnight at off-peak times and deliver during
the day when needed. We could easily reduce peak power by 7%, and in the process
deliver a distributed smart grid. This is the future, not Nuclear power.
Take the money and go and see Elon.
Why are we letting these Westminister engineering illiterates make such important decisions ,every one knows they dont want engineering to thrive in this country by the trail of unsupported and given away poducts ,they admit they cant run a national railway in this country ,why on earth would you let them decide on such a crucial and potentialy dangerous piece of kit .
Bill – see pages 55 and 56 of the late Professor Sir David MacKay’s 2009 book “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” (free to download at http://www.withouthotair.com) where he estimates the amount of hydroelectric power that could be generated from rainfall in the UK. His estimate of the plausible practical limit was 1.5 kWh/day per person and would have required a seven fold increase in hydroelectric power generation.
Surely the time has come for what we have traditionally always been very good at: “A good old British compromise”. This would consist of modest pilot schemes in carefully selected areas, urban and rural, onshore and offshore, for all the available options that fit within the time we have available – admittedly, not very long. Inevitably, some schemes might fail, but a more honest and pragmatic approach is also needed to add to the costing of this business model: the true cost of Co2 damage to current and future generations. This mixed-energy model would also create thousands of new jobs where they are most needed and provide ammunition for an energetic export drive, based on HVM (high-value-manufacturing) at a time when UK plc badly needs to resume its world status in this vital sector. It seems doubtful that a “final solution” (i.e. just one best system) would emerge, and 2-4 would avoid over-dependence on only one energy source, where flexible supply is so obviously needed. We should also take a very hard and dispassionate look at the flagrant over-use of energy where it can be avoided e.g. motorway lighting when a speed restriction at night might be an acceptable alternative.
My vote for careful, well-informed, re-negotiation.
Nuclear is the way forward. However I do not believe one gigantic unit of untried and test design is the practical answer. SMR are the solution to a dynamic infrastructure where the future load centres are difficult to predict. SMR can be built within the UK and/or Europe they are intrinsically or inherently safe by tested design. the SMR can be located close to load centres and loss of one or two plants (terrorism) would not be a catastrophic. Currently SMR in the UK are small 10MWe each, however China and one or two other countries have nearly doubled this per unit. (many hands make light work). 60 to100MWe would not be impractical and could be built in a lot less time, low financial risk, factory built. I vote SMR.
Yes it’s true: old Solid Fuel based Nuclear technology, such as Hinkley C, should be put on the scrap heap as it does not make a good case for itself in perpetuating a process that’s a legacy of world war & cold war where a single purpose formed it’s implementation & regulation – weapons grade plutonium and the inherent risk for proliferation.
But here’s where a revolutionary Liquid Fuel based Nuclear technology, based on Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (MSR), is head and shoulders above the rest to help make the difference with climate change. If you want a more effective, energy dense way to produce reliable base-load energy and put the brakes on climate change the Nuclear Industry needs to become truly civil minded and tear itself away from its steam driven past. It is this lock-in to the past that perpetuates the flawed solid fuel based Nuclear fuel technologies … with their inherent limiting efficiency (near as dammit 0% of fuel used – and why so many see this as unreasonable due to the obvious wastes). Physiological inertia and business culture entrench the status-quo. What engineer would continue with such a contrived process to ensure safety for such a low yield burnup efficiency as a return on all the efforts?
By investing in the development of Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) technology that uses the more abundant Thorium the very clear advantages a MSR can bring – such as reducing the Plutonium waste -will become apparent (see Molten Salt Reactor in wiki). This also mentions Britain’s exploration of the technology by AERE around the same time as ORNL in the states – both running out of funds at about the same time in the early 70’s … coincidence! Note that MSRs footprint lend themselves to the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) format discussed elsewhere from their reduced containment requirements of working at 1 atmosphere pressure.
At a time where climate change is very much on the agenda it’s almost as if simplifying the current ‘steam driven’ Nuclear Technology with its flawed solid fuel system and safety critical high pressure water (steam) systems should be higher up on the agenda. One of the main issues with solid fuel is when Xenon gas is produced as a fission by-product … this plays havoc with solid fuel based reactors – ‘poisoning’ the reaction process (this was overlooked and led to the disaster at Chernobyl). The Xenon out gassing compromises the cooling efficiency to become the main reason for limiting the fuel life from stress fractures and potential effect on the Zirconium clad fuel rods. These so called ‘spent’ fuel rods then have to be replaced – otherwise it may affect the fuel rod – being the first level of containment. Another major flaw is the tendency for Zirconium to draw oxygen away from surroundings when things get too hot … resulting in Hydrogen gas. Having to vent this (never a good idea with radioactive isotopes around) is required to reduce the containment vessel pressure – but this led to an explosive atmosphere build up in the reactor halls with eventual explosions at each affected reactor in Fukushima.
This should be where the comparison to the slicker Molten Salt Reactor that allows almost 100% burnup while working at safer atmospheric pressure, as well as more thermally efficient operation (Brayton compatible), cannot melt down … it’s already in a fluid state … in a scram condition it can only become cool and end up as solid. This should be understood as the obvious next step in the Nuclear technology strategy. Using an MSR based on a Thorium fuel (LFTR – Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor) in a thermal spectrum reactor seems to have many advantages and should be the ideal option to pursue. The guys at ORNL would shut down on Friday for their weekend break and restart on Monday without any hitches. What engineer would not jump at the chance to improve the burnup yield efficiency to such an extent while using such an inherently safe process?
While entrenched in the past technology there appears a conundrum where the appeal of far-fetched future technologies sits more comfortably than those within easier reach. It would seem the moon-shot for Fusion Reactors and the sun-shot for solar grabs the headlines (and the funding) where a blind spot exists for the more practical step of a ‘walk-away’ safe, more efficient, proliferation resistant, waste reducing, MSR Thorium based Fission Reactor … that requires no huge input power to initiate & control it … just real commitment to invest as this is far too important an issue to depend only on the good intentions of charitable organisations, such as the Alvin Weinberg Foundation, to progress!
The time for a down-to-earth-shot is long overdue.
Seems to me that politics and economics get in the way of engineering common sense. We should give the engineering experts a proper voice and develop the best long term energy solution for the UK, I don’t think the Hinkley Point proposal is the right solution, and a mix of generating technologies with more emphasis on renewables sits better with me. Perhaps we could save more energy and reduce the need to generate more. I think Hinkley Point is too expensive and not a good deal for the UK consumer.
Once again, as an absolute novice in this area, I am humbled by and delighted to read of the sheer professionalism exhibited by so many fellow Engineers who clearly know what they are talking about. The two extremes described -energy for ever for nothing! and primed ‘dirty bombs’ within our society (so we will NOT need some loony in the East (or West) to let one off deliberately) is surely a massive deterrant! I can assist in the design and provision of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological protection systems and suits: which according to many, we may soon need (to keep warm?) Joking apart, I am sure that were the Engineers (who in the end will have to design, build and operate (and if required correct?) whatever is decided upon to have the pivotal contribution in the decision, we would get it right. (or left?) But the likelihood of that? zero!
A bit late I fear, but scrap the trident program and relocate the resources to industrial power.
The UK could then design/build/finance ourselves which will provide an industrial future
For inward investment translate as selling the family silver
No company or Country has “invested” in another primarily for the good of the recipient.
Like everyone else I have strong opinions on this subject, as can be seen elsewhere on this website. However, I am not a nuclear engineer, physicist or energy generation expert, and my views are no more valid or pointless than any other. What I would like is to hear from someone who is, or was, involved with the design, construction and/or operation of an existing UK nuclear power plant, to learn what an industry insider thinks of not only the Hinkley C debacle but also what we could do to make up for the closure of many power stations across the country
After years of dithering and procrastination the UK need extra generating capacity to come online within the next 10-15 years. Is the EPR or the current deal the best way to do that? No but pulling back at the last moment and dithering for another 5 years would be mad.
In the long term developing a UK SMR or approving better foreign designs is the best solution but we need to get building now not in 20 years time. I certainly hope that Hinkley C will be the only EPR (as it stands) built in the UK with designs like the AP1000 or ESBWR being better near term solutions but at the moment EDF and the EPR are the only game in town.
As for Chinese investment? As much as their lack of respect for intellectual property and fondness for industrial espionage concern me they are little different in that respect from the Americans. At the end of the day there isn’t a remote control in China to simply switch Hinkley off.
There are a number of comments/claims that could do with some technical clarification.
The current generation of large water cooled reactors have been developed in this way for a reason. To keep costs down the core needs to be compact and with a high energy density, hence water cooling. The earlier Magnox/AGRs used gas cooling and were considerably larger, requiring more material to construct and leaving more active material to decommission. The benefit of the gas cooled reactors was online refueling which allowed low burnup times and the production of weapons grade plutonium.
The larger reactors also require proportionately less shielding material, partially due to the well-known surface area/volume scaling problem, and also that doubling the radiation flux does not require double the shielding thickness but only the addition of one additional half value layer which may only be a few centimeters of concrete.
SMRs will require proportionately more shielding material and hence cost. This could be reduced by installing them underground, but this then removes the seismic protection that is gained by ‘floating’ the nuclear island on a large reinforced concrete raft. SMRs also require proportionately more safety and security systems than a single unit, especially if they are distributed around the point of end use rather than clustered. Security costs are effectively the same for a 20MW unit as for a 1600MW unit, the perimeter is not much larger. Although various levels of ‘intrinsic’ safety are claimed for the worst case backup generators etc are still required for normal problems and shutdowns.
There are certainly applications for SMRs, but they are unlikely to be competitive with the current GW sized units for large grid applications.
Thorium is also frequently mentioned, sometimes just as the fuel and sometimes in conjunction with Molten Salt Reactors. Thorium can certainly be burnt in modified versions of the current reactors but until uranium becomes too expensive there is no real incentive to develop this although the Indians are doing some work. Thorium also does not stop the manufacture of nuclear weapons, U233 formed by neutron capture by Th232 is an excellent bomb material.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx
Although an experimental MRS was operated in the USA there are very significant materials problems to be addressed, especially the graphite separators to allow the reactor to breed. Some of the issues are addressed here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx
Best regards
Roger
” The real answer of course is to control our population so we don’t need so much power but sadly no politician will ever stand up and say that because of the belief in the right to breed ourselves into extinction.” Or encourage smoking (with poorer filtration of toxins) and other deliberate methods of ‘cutting-off’ life at some point: that point surely calculated when full payment has been made into the pension system but no dividend is to be taken out? Cowardly New World?
If it should eventually be decided that the UK will withdraw from the Hinkley C project it would be a pity if the consortium partnership and promised financing could not be put to good alternative use.
How about dusting off the Desertec concept and using the promised funds to build some massive concentrated solar thermal power stations in the North African deserts using heliostat mirrors and molten salt or heat transfer pellets for energy storage to allow 24 hrs per day power generation and installing some HVDC power transmission lines across the Med to enable power in excess of local needs to be exported to the European grid?
China is building a CST plant in the Gobi desert so should already have experience of designing these plants with resilience to sand storms.
Perhaps EDF could focus their attention on building the HVDC system including the submarine lines and modifications to the French and UK grids.
Perhaps the U.K. glass industry with a history of innovation and excellence in this area could invest in plants to make the many thousands of acres of mirrors required.
There might even be some redundant but well maintained and serviceable steam turbine power generation sets from closed or soon to be closed UK coal fired power stations that could be salvaged and reused to improve the project economics.
Pie in the sky or a small step in the right direction?
These later comments propose and require absolute co-operation between large areas of ‘the world’ and the technologists and engineers in each area (and yes, I will allow you some *ankers as well!) who would be responsible for delivering such. This would be automatic if those trained and active in manipulating Nature’s Laws have sway: because we are all (wherever we operate) guided and governed by a simple premis. Break one of these and both detection and punishment are immediate and automatic. Sadly, at present those who merely manipulate man’s puny laws (different in every State, nation and Society: wait I forgot, some grocer’s daughter told us 25 years ago that there is no such thing!) to so to retain power, not for the benefit of us all on this minor planet! There will be Pie in the sky for you and I, bye and bye
I whole heartedly agree this makes sense on all levels!!