Evaluation Form 08.Doc: Fill & Download for Free

How do organizations use flow charts?So, be sure to keep things simple ! All manner of organizations use flow charts to: Define a process. Standardize a process. Communicate a process. Identify bottlenecks or waste in a process. Solve a problem . Improve a process. For example, software developers can use them to work out how the automated and manual parts of a process join up.Flow Charts - Problem-Solving Skills From MindTools.comFlow Charts: Identify and Communicate Your Optimal ProcessSee all results for this questionHow do you add activity to flowchart?In the Installed, Common Items node, select Workflow. Select Activity from the Workflow list. Type FlowchartNumberGuessWorkflow into the Name box and click Add. Drag a Flowchart activity from the Flowchart section of the Toolbox and drop it onto the Drop activity here label on the workflow design surface.How to: Create a Flowchart Workflow | Microsoft Docshttp://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/windows-w…See all results for this questionHow do you use Oval in flow chart?Oval: Used as the terminator shape, indicating the start and end points of a process. Hovering over any of the shapes in the drop-down menu displays a text bubble showing the shape’s purpose. Let’s go ahead and insert our first shape. Back at the shapes menu, select the shape you’d like to use in the flow chart.How to Create a Flowchart in WordHow to Create a Flowchart in WordSee all results for this questionHow do you draw a flow chart?You can also use them to define and analyze a process, build a step-by-step picture of it, and then standardize or improve it. To draw a flow chart, identify the tasks and decisions that you make during a process, and write them down in order. Then, arrange these steps in the flow chart format, using the appropriate symbols.Flow Charts - Problem-Solving Skills From MindTools.comFlow Charts: Identify and Communicate Your Optimal ProcessSee all results for this questionFeedbackHow Do I Evaluate Workflow?https://digital.ahrq.gov/.../workflowtoolkit/HowDoIEvaluate…· PPT file · Web viewHow do I evaluate workflow? Goals of a flowchart Five steps Step 1: Select processes Step 1: Select processes (cont.) Examples of clinic workflows Those with * come from : http://healthit.ahrq.gov/portal/server.pt/document/897942/tool_-_know_your_processes_pdf Step 1: Select processes (cont.) Step 2: Create preliminary flowchart Step 2: Flowchart symbols Create these …How to create an awesome workflow diagram — and why you ...How to create an awesome workflow diagram — and why you need one | CacooWhat Are Workflow Diagrams Useful for?Workflow Diagram vs. Data Flow Diagram vs. FlowchartWhen Should You Use One?What Do The Symbols and Shapes Mean?Essential Components of A Workflow DiagramDifferent Types of Workflow DiagramsFinal ThoughtsTo create a workflow diagram, you’ll first need to conduct a workflow analysis. This is essentially a deep dive into your team or organization’s current way of completing tasks, including the order in which work is completed and the responsibilities of different employees.The data you collect will help you layout your initial workflow diagram. Whether your goal is to standardize certain processes, identify project-critical jobs, or locate weaknesses and bottlenecks, visualizing your workflow...See more on cacoo.comVideos of How Do You Evaluate Workflows Using Flow Charts?Happy Thanksgiving from an expert face-stuffer7:57How to Make a Flow Chart in Excel - Tutorial136K viewsJul. 2, 2018YouTubeYAcosta Solutions4:32Build A Flow Chart from Text1.1K viewsSep. 9, 2014YouTubeAgile Designer6:26FlowChartsAI - Create Smart Flow Charts, Questionnaires, Forms, Workflows & Dyna…183 views5 months agoYouTubeFlowCharts AI8:01Do you really need to design training? Ask this flowchart.40K viewsMay 7, 2013YouTubeCathyMooreLearningDesignSee more videos of How Do You Evaluate Workflows Using Flow Charts?Flow Charts - Problem-Solving Skills From MindTools.comFlow Charts: Identify and Communicate Your Optimal ProcessTo draw a flow chart, identify the tasks and decisions that you make during a process, and write them down in order. Then, arrange these steps in the flow chart format, using the appropriate symbols.How To Design Your Ideal Workflow - 2020 Guide - Vdio ...How To Design Your Ideal Workflow - 2020 Guide - Vdio Magazine 20202020-06-01 · In practice, individual business processes are rather confusing, undocumented – and unadapted to real needs. Flow chart-flow diagram is a type of diagram that represents the flow of work or process. The flowchart shows the steps as shapes of various types of graphic shapes and their order by…”Check this site out for further learning:https://www.itseducation.asia/deep-web.htmAll the best to you. Cheers.What are workflow diagrams and flowcharts?Workflow diagrams, data flow diagrams, and flowcharts all involve various shapes and arrows. And they all require the reader to move through them from left to right and/or top to bottom. But they all do slightly different things. A flowchart leads you through a series of actions, things, or choices involved in making a complex decision.How to create an awesome workflow diagram — and why you ...How to create an awesome workflow diagram — and why you need one | CacooSee all results for this questionHow do you use Oval in flow chart?Oval: Used as the terminator shape, indicating the start and end points of a process. Hovering over any of the shapes in the drop-down menu displays a text bubble showing the shape’s purpose. Let’s go ahead and insert our first shape. Back at the shapes menu, select the shape you’d like to use in the flow chart.How to Create a Flowchart in WordHow to Create a Flowchart in WordSee all results for this questionWhat is an example of a flow chart?Some flow charts may just have an arrow point to another arrow instead. These are useful to represent an iterative process (in Computer Science this is called a loop). A loop may, for example, consist of a connector where control first enters, processing steps, a conditional with one arrow exiting the loop, and one going back to the connector.Standard Flowchart Symbols and Their Usage | Basic ...Standard Flowchart Symbols and Their Usage | Basic Flowchart Symbols and Meaning | Workflow Diagram Symbols and MeaningSee all results for this questionWhat is a workflow diagram?A workflow diagram (or workflow) is a visual way for your business analysis to show how work gets accomplished.How to Use Workflow Diagrams in Your Business Analysis ...http://www.dummies.com/business/business-strategy/how-to-u…See all results for this questionFeedbackHow to Evaluate Workflows by Flowcharting - BPI - The ...How to Evaluate Performance of Machine Learning Models - BPI - The destination for everything process related...2020-08-10 · This type of audit trail is useful for evaluating workflows and for regulation compliance. When you use a flowchart, the goal is transparency. Terminology used in the flowchart should be kept as simple as possible to prevent any potential confusion. Then, it should be standardized and used consistently for optimum effect.How to Use Workflow Diagrams in Your Business Analysis ...How to Use Workflow Diagrams in Your Business Analysis Report - dummies...A workflow diagram (or workflow) is a visual way for your business analysis to show how work gets accomplished. Workflows are composed of a set of symbols that show how various workers accomplish tasks and interact with each other, as well as how information (data) flows through the business area.Videos of How to Evaluate Workflows Using Flow Charts?Happy Thanksgiving from an expert face-stuffer2:35How to Use Flow Charts37K viewsApr. 22, 2015YouTubeMindToolsVideos7:57How to Make a Flow Chart in Excel - Tutorial136K viewsJul. 2, 2018YouTubeYAcosta Solutions6:45Design and animate a flow chart in PowerPoint - How to create a flow chart ✔108K viewsMay 17, 2017YouTubeandrew pach • PowerPoint and …5:44How to Create a Flowchart in 5 Minutes | EdrawMax2.5K views2 months agoYouTubeWondershare EdrawSee more videos of How to Evaluate Workflows Using Flow Charts?How to create an awesome workflow diagram — and why you ...How to create an awesome workflow diagram — and why you need one | CacooWhat Are Workflow Diagrams Useful for?Workflow Diagram vs. Data Flow Diagram vs. FlowchartWhen Should You Use One?What Do The Symbols and Shapes Mean?Essential Components of A Workflow DiagramDifferent Types of Workflow DiagramsFinal ThoughtsTo create a workflow diagram, you’ll first need to conduct a workflow analysis. This is essentially a deep dive into your team or organization’s current way of completing tasks, including the order in which work is completed and the responsibilities of different employees.The data you collect will help you layout your initial workflow diagram. Whether your goal is to standardize certain processes, identify project-critical jobs, or locate weaknesses and bottlenecks, visualizing your workflow...See more on cacoo.comHow To Design Your Ideal Workflow - 2020 Guide - Vdio ...How To Design Your Ideal Workflow - 2020 Guide - Vdio Magazine 20202020-06-01 · In practice, individual business processes are rather confusing, undocumented – and unadapted to real needs. Flow chart-flow diagram is a type of diagram that represents the flow of work or process. The flowchart shows the steps as shapes of various types of graphic shapes and their order by…”

They are too gullible. As a nuclear engineer I saw that when millions of Italians opted against Nuclear power stations in referendums. They didn’t understand that such matters should be left to the real experts and not to ordinary people: referendums are nonsense in such cases. Such benighted antinuclear choice is at the base of all difficulties Italy is facing at present especially concerning the balance of payments with the foreign countries.I am a French citizen now and I know that French bashing is very popular in all countries where Big Oil and Big Coal control the press. The French government is one of the few governments that do their homework: building safe nuclear power stations that are a real solution of the greenhouse effect problem and France even provides energy for other European countries. Solar and Wind can help but are not a global solution: GOOGLE “Murks in Germany” and read about the solar-wind fiasco in Germany. Very remarkable are the Russians who try to force us to buy their mineral oil and on the other hand sell Chernobyl technology reactors to INDIA and CHINA. Big Oil and Big Coal strategy is clear now: great financing of Wind-Solar research in the universities which creates an army of professors who push for Wind-Solar. This goes on since sixty years ago and we see little results: it helps but it doesn’t solve the global warming problem. In the meantime we are pulled into one gulf war after the others and risk some real nuclear risks: those of proliferation and conflagration. When will western governments display a more responsible attitude? When will the peoples get more truthful and up to date information about nuclear power stations and nuclear energy production risks? Remember that almost nobody died at Fukushima and on the other hand tens of thousands people die of car accidents every year with little echo in the press: why can we accept cars and not accept reactors? Buildings and dams killed 20000 people in Japan because of the tsunami and this is all but ignored by the press: why does the press only insist on Fukushima where almost nobody died? Isn’t that strange? Aren’t Big Oil and Big Coal working on that? Until the people of the world keep believing that Wind-Solar is an alternative they can go on burning and approaching the moment we are all cooked.Quoting Michael Shellenberger on “Der Spiegel”:The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant ToMichael ShellenbergerContributorEnergyI write about energy and the environment···“The Energiewende — the biggest political project since reunification — threatens to fail,” reports Germany's largest news magazine.DER SPIEGELOver the last decade, journalists have held up Germany’s renewables energy transition, the Energiewende, as an environmental model for the world.“Many poor countries, once intent on building coal-fired power plants to bring electricity to their people, are discussing whether they might leapfrog the fossil age and build clean grids from the outset,” thanks to the Energiewende, wrote a New York Times reporter in 2014.With Germany as inspiration, the United Nations and World Bank poured billions into renewables like wind, solar, and hydro in developing nations like Kenya.But then, last year, Germany was forced to acknowledge that it had to delay its phase-out of coal, and would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction commitments. It announced plans to bulldoze an ancient church and forest in order to get at the coal underneath it.After renewables investors and advocates, including Al Gore and Greenpeace, criticized Germany, journalists came to the country’s defense. “Germany has fallen short of its emission targets in part because its targets were so ambitious,” one of them argued last summer.“If the rest of the world made just half Germany’s effort, the future for our planet would look less bleak,” she wrote. “So Germany, don’t give up. And also: Thank you.”But Germany didn’t just fall short of its climate targets. Its emissions have flat-lined since 2009.Now comes a major article in the country’s largest newsweekly magazine, Der Spiegel, titled, “A Botched Job in Germany” ("Murks in Germany"). The magazine’s cover shows broken wind turbines and incomplete electrical transmission towers against a dark silhouette of Berlin.“The Energiewende — the biggest political project since reunification — threatens to fail,” write Der Spiegel’s Frank Dohmen, Alexander Jung, Stefan Schultz, Gerald Traufetter in their a 5,700-word investigative story (the article can be read in English here).Over the past five years alone, the Energiewende has cost Germany €32 billion ($36 billion) annually, and opposition to renewables is growing in the German countryside.“The politicians fear citizen resistance” Der Spiegel reports. “There is hardly a wind energy project that is not fought.”In response, politicians sometimes order “electrical lines be buried underground but that is many times more expensive and takes years longer.”As a result, the deployment of renewables and related transmission lines is slowing rapidly. Less than half as many wind turbines (743) were installed in 2018 as were installed in 2017, and just 30 kilometers of new transmission were added in 2017.Solar and wind advocates say cheaper solar panels and wind turbines will make the future growth in renewables cheaper than past growth but there are reasons to believe the opposite will be the case.It will cost Germany $3-$4 trillion to increase renewables as share of electricity from today's 35% to 100% between 2025-2050AG ENERGIEBINLANZENDer Spiegel cites a recent estimate that it would cost Germany “€3.4 trillion ($3.8 trillion),” or seven times more than it spent from 2000 to 2025, to increase solar and wind three to five-fold by 2050.Between 2000 and 2019, Germany grew renewables from 7% to 35% of its electricity. And as much of Germany's renewable electricity comesfrom biomass, which scientists view as polluting and environmentally degrading, as from solar.Of the 7,700 new kilometers of transmission lines needed, only 8% have been built, while large-scale electricity storage remains inefficient and expensive. “A large part of the energy used is lost,” the reporters note of a much-hyped hydrogen gas project, “and the efficiency is below 40%... No viable business model can be developed from this.”Meanwhile, the 20-year subsidies granted to wind, solar, and biogas since 2000 will start coming to an end next year. “The wind power boom is over,” Der Spiegel concludes.All of which raises a question: if renewables can’t cheaply power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, how could a developing nation like Kenya ever expect them to allow it to “leapfrog” fossil fuels?The Question of TechnologyThe earliest and most sophisticated 20th Century case for renewables came from a German who is widely considered the most influential philosopher of the 20th Century, Martin Heidegger.In his 1954 essay, “The Question Concerning of Technology,” Heidegger condemned the view of nature as a mere resource for human consumption.The use of “modern technology,” he wrote, “puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be extracted and stored as such… Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium…to yield atomic energy.”The solution, Heidegger argued, was to yoke human society and its economy to unreliable energy flows. He even condemned hydro-electric dams, for dominating the natural environment, and praised windmills because they “do not unlock energy in order to store it.”These weren’t just aesthetic preferences. Windmills have traditionally been useful to farmers whereas large dams have allowed poor agrarian societies to industrialize.In the US, Heidegger’s views were picked up by renewable energy advocates. Barry Commoner in 1969 argued that a transition to renewables was needed to bring modern civilization "into harmony with the ecosphere."The goal of renewables was to turn modern industrial societies back into agrarian ones, argued Murray Bookchin in his 1962 book, Our Synthetic Environment.Bookchin admitted his proposal "conjures up an image of cultural isolation and social stagnation, of a journey backward in history to the agrarian societies of the medieval and ancient worlds."But then, starting around the year 2000, renewables started to gain a high-tech luster. Governments and private investors poured $2 trillion into solar and wind and related infrastructure, creating the impression that renewables were profitable aside from subsidies.Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk proclaimed that a rich, high-energy civilization could be powered by cheap solar panels and electric cars.Journalists reported breathlessly on the cost declines in batteries, imagining a tipping point at which conventional electricity utilities would be “disrupted.”But no amount of marketing could change the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy.Efforts to export the Energiewende to developing nations may prove even more devastating.The new wind farm in Kenya, inspired and financed by Germany and other well-meaning Western nations, is located on a major flight path of migratory birds. Scientists say it will kill hundreds of endangered eagles.“It’s one of the three worst sites for a wind farm that I’ve seen in Africa in terms of its potential to kill threatened birds,” a biologist explained.In response, the wind farm’s developers have done what Europeans have long done in Africa, which is to hire the organizations, which ostensibly represent the doomed eagles and communities, to collaborate rather than fight the project.Kenya won't be able to “leapfrog” fossil fuels with its wind farm. On the contrary, all of that unreliable wind energy is likely to increase the price of electricity and make Kenya’s slow climb out of poverty even slower.Heidegger, like much of the conservation movement, would have hated what the Energiewende has become: an excuse for the destruction of natural landscapes and local communities.Opposition to renewables comes from the country peoples that Heidegger idolized as more authentic and “grounded” than urbane cosmopolitan elites who fetishize their solar roofs and Teslas as signs of virtue.Germans, who will have spent $580 billion on renewables and related infrastructure by 2025, express great pride in the Energiewende. “It’s our gift to the world,” a renewables advocate told The Times.Tragically, many Germans appear to have believed that the billions they spent on renewables would redeem them. “Germans would then at last feel that they have gone from being world-destroyers in the 20th century to world-saviors in the 21st,” noted a reporter.Many Germans will, like Der Spiegel, claim the renewables transition was merely “botched,” but it wasn't. The transition to renewables was doomed because modern industrial people, no matter how Romantic they are, do not want to return to pre-modern life.The reason renewables can’t power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could.Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment."Quoting Rod ADAMS of , Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.Nuclear energy makes a cameo appearance in Jeff Gibbs’s Planet of the HumansNuclear energy makes a cameo appearance in Jeff Gibbs's Planet of the Humans - Atomic InsightsApril 24, 2020 By Rod AdamsMichael Moore and Jeff Gibbs teamed up to produce a piercing, controversial, gut punching documentary titled Planet of the Humans. Partly as a result of the global closure of theaters, and partly as a result of wanting to make an impact on the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, they released their film for free on Youtube.It’s worth watching. I watched it once straight through and have enjoyed spending additional hours reviewing and clipping key highlights.Like many Moore films, this one has a cast of white-hatted scientists and activists opposing black-hatted billionaires, bankers, corporate leaders and politicians. In what may be upsetting to some, this film’s black-hatted group includes the leaders of numerous major environmental groups including the Sierra Club, 350.org: A global campaign to confront the climate crisis, and Riverkeepers.Michael Brune of the Sierra Club, Al Gore, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from Riverkeepers are all shown as being willing recipients of contributions, donations and outright payments from billionaires including Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Jeremy Grantham, and the Koch Brothers, corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, and investment banks like Blackrock and Goldman Sachs.By implication, it also highlights the huge sums of money involved in the process of moving more material faster and farther. One component of the money churning process includes the inevitable need to replace machinery and infrastructure after its useful life is over.What we know that ain’t soThe narrator seems genuinely shocked to learn that much of what he has been taught about alternative energy isn’t true. Wind, solar and biomass aren’t successfully replacing fossil fuels or reducing human environmental footprints.Instead, they are dependent on fossil fuel-derived materials and fossil fuel powered machinery. Wind turbines and their towers are massive and have lifetimes measured in small numbers of decades. Solar panels covering vast quantities of land produce an inadequate amount of power, especially on cloudy days and during winter months.Even solar thermal energy plants like Ivanpah promise much more than they deliver. The mirrors are failing, and the power conversion system needs to routinely burn a large quantity of natural gas in order to keep systems warm and ready to run once the sun comes up.Physically large collecting systems for diffuse power sources require massive material inputs, and they don’t least very long. When they no longer function, the areas that were scraped clean to house the equipment are virtually unusable wasteland that no longer supports much life.Biomass and biofuels receive special animosityA substantial portion of the film is spent documenting the ways that burning biomass for electricity isn’t sustainable or carbon-neutral despite all of the messaging to the contrary.These scenes also document the forest industry’s generally successful efforts to influence perceptions of their industry. Often, those efforts have included creative carbon accounting as well as targeted contributions to non-profit groups willing to accept money in return for greenwashing.Those influence efforts include lobbying for subsidy programs or for redefining terms to qualify for already existing subsidy programs.The film credits Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org: A global campaign to confront the climate crisis, for helping to encourage a wave of interest among college students and administrators for converting on-campus coal furnaces to biomass burning furnaces.The evidence supporting this thesis is straight from the horse’s mouth in the form of video clips of McKibben speaking at Vermont’s Middlebury College in 2009. He lauds the opening of the the college’s new wood chip-burning boiler.McKibben: What powers a learning community? As of this afternoon, the easy answer to that is wood chips. It’s incredibly beautiful. To stand over there and see that big bunker full of wood chips. You can put any kind of wood in, you know oak, willow, whatever you want. Almost anything that burns we can toss it in there if we can chip it down to the right size.McKibben has taken offense at the way Planet of the Humans portrays him and his organization. He claims that his position on biomass burning has changed dramatically in the decade since he lauded his college’s wood chip-burning furnace. That change happened as soon “as more scientists studied the consequences of large-scale biomass burning”.He even claims that he and his organization have been attacked by the biomass industry as a result of negative pieces written in 2016, 2019 and 2020.But that defense is weak, especially considering a different scene in the movie where Gibbs gives McKibben ample opportunity to state his current position on biomass.Gibbs: I’d like to see us come out against any burning of trees for clean energy.McKibben: Alright, go ahead and do it. Although I confess I stoke my wood stove almost every night of the winter, so I’m not really the right person to ask.Gibbs: But that doesn’t mean it’s green energy for power plants.McKibben: I don’t know. That’s not what today is about.Dialog from “Planet of the Humans” time stamp 1:08:20Emphasis on human prosperity and population as part of problemBetween scenes depicting both environmental devastation and the financial flows that enable established infrastructure and materials interests to continue doing what they do best, Gibbs talks with scientists and activists to find out if there are any solutions.Almost unanimously, those interviewed experts suggest that humans are the root of the problem. They emphasize how our numbers have expanded almost geometrically since we began exploiting fossil fuels. They also decry our collective and individual desires for mobility and material goods.It’s easy to get the impression that since renewables have issues that are similar to those that handicap fossil fuels, the only path available is reducing both populations and standards of living.Though I may be guilty of seeing what I want to see, I caught a brief flash indicating that the filmmakers might be hoping for a more optimistic sequel.An alternative with a uniquely useful set of attributesAs a nuclear fission expert and enthusiast, I could not help wondering when Gibbs and Moore were going to address my favorite fossil fuel alternative.Finally, an hour and 22 minutes into the hour and 40 minute movie, nuclear energy made a 6 sec cameo appearance.But immediately after noting that GE produces both nuclear energy and wind turbines, the documentary moves on to show a GE spokesperson extolling the virtues of converting biomass – especially seaweed – into liquid fuel.A critical viewer might wonder why a corporation with a seven decade-long history of selling nuclear energy systems is more interested in talking about its interest in biofuels than in marketing advanced developments in nuclear energy.As shown in the film, corporations, billionaires and banks that have successfully educated customers about the virtues of wind, solar or biomass have ignored nuclear energy. None of the interviewed activists or scientists mentioned a desire to consider using nuclear as an alternative to both fossil fuels and the more heavily popularized renewables.Perhaps it is because nuclear fission, using elemental fuels that contain several million times as much energy as a similar mass of fossil fuels or biomass, changes everything.What’s so different about fission?Fission doesn’t depend on a massive infrastructure of ships, pipelines or railcars. Its conversion equipment is rarely exposed to the weather and its shielding and external hazards protection enables structures, systems and components that last many decades.Fission provides a virtually unlimited source of power to enable humanity to flourish while gradually shrinking our environmental footprint.Aside: Commodity businesses like energy don’t like anyone to know that accessible supplies are virtually unlimited. That knowledge doesn’t support high prices. End aside.Fission isn’t wildly popular, especially among people and corporations that have prospered by moving vast quantities of extracted or harvested material rapidly through supply lines that span the globe.Nuclear fission power also isn’t popular among nihilistic scholars who consider Albert Camus to be an inspiring visionary.People in the “peak oil” wing of Malthusian thinking almost purposely ignore fission. They forget that M. King Hubbert’s 1956 paper titled “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels” was the seminal paper that inspired their worried projections.That paper included a virtually ignored pair of graphs that should have been the source of incredible optimism among thinking people. But some studiously avoid any and all causes for optimism, especially when it comes to respect, growth and development of their fellow human beings.This optimistic – scary to multinational petroleum interests – pair of graphs were on the last slide in a March 1956 presentation by M. King Hubbert to the American Petroleum InstituteAt least one other reviewer for Planet of the Humans thought about nuclear energy while watching a film that barely mentions it. Here is a quote from Peter Bradshaw’s piece in The Guardian about the film.I found myself thinking of Robert Stone’s controversial 2013 documentary Pandora’s Promise, which made a revisionist case for nuclear power: a clean energy source that (allegedly) has cleaned up its act on safety and really can provide for our wholesale energy needs without contributing to climate change, in a way that “renewables” can’t.Gibbs doesn’t mention nuclear and – a little lamely, perhaps – has no clear lesson or moral, other than the need to take a fiercely critical look at the environmental establishment. Well, it’s always valuable to re-examine a sacred cow.“Planet of the Humans review – contrarian eco-doc from the Michael Moore stable”by Peter Bradshaw, published April 22, 2020 by The GuardianGibbs’s single mention of nuclear was apparently so brief that Bradshaw missed it.I believe the film offers two clear choices, one overt and one that is barely visible.1. We can continue on our present path of depending on massive extractive industries. That path will end – whether we like it or not – with either reduced prosperity, reduced human population, or both.2. We can reject the lessons we have been carefully taught by people with vested interests and develop a truly different kind of power source. Nuclear fission is here and available, but rich and powerful interests see it as a serious threat that must be fought, ignored or both.But fission opposition backers are billionaires and we aren’t.As far as I know, there isn’t a single Atomic Insights reader that has to worry about having millions or billions of dollars worth of existing capital that will lose most of its value in a fission-powered world.We can see a much brighter future ahead.*********************************************************Update: (April 26, 2020 at 06:00 am) It seems that I was wrong about the possibility that Gibbs and his colleagues might have purposely left out nuclear because they want to introduce it in a sequel as a better path forward. Commenters like Meredith were right, Michael Moore, Jeff Gibbs and Ozzie Zehner, the creators of Planet of the Humans, simply don’t like humans and the well-powered society that we have created.Here’s the proof.In case you don’t want to take the time to watch, here is a summary of the individually expressed positions on nuclear energy.Moore has been fighting nuclear energy since the 1970s and calls it “madness”.Zehner became worried about nuclear energy as a result of his research into issues related to slurry tanks at Hanford. He believes it is almost impossible to separate weapons development from atomic energy development. He also believes nuclear power plants are enormously expensive because of the amount of material required to build the plants. He also believes that building and running the plants requires the efforts of “an enormous number of PhD scientists.” He states there is a significant, unattributed carbon and energy footprint associated with the education system required to produce those scientists and engineers.Gibbs is worried about the use of concrete and steel in nuclear power plants, the environmental impacts of uranium mining, thorium hype, micro plastics, pollution at Mount Everest, whaling, fish and soil depletion, and pollution in Antarctica produced by the small contingent of scientists there. (I realize that most of that list has nothing to do with nuclear energy, but Gibbs groups them all together in his antinuclear rant.) End Update.FacebookTwitterRedditBufferEmailFiled Under: Alternative energy, Biomass, Clean Energy, Climate change, Solar energy, Wind energyAbout Rod AdamsManaging member at Nucleation Capital, LP.Atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. Financial, strategic, and political analyst. Former submarine Engineer Officer. Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast. Resume available here.Quoting James Conca:Amid COVID-19, Deep Borehole Disposal Of Nuclear Waste Marches ForwardJames ConcaContributorEnergyI write about nuclear, energy and the environment···The pandemic has certainly slowed America and the world to a crawl. But we will get back to some form of a working society, hopefully with a better perspective on what’s important. The temporary drop in carbon emissions from the lockdown of industrial and commercial activities around the world is one example, and has shown what is possible by decarbonizing society.For that, nuclear power is essential. And nuclear waste must be dealt with, relatively quickly and easily, which it can be. There are not that many reasonable paths forward, and deep borehole disposal is one of them.Elizabeth Muller, CEO of Deep Isolation, announced the completion of a Post-Closure Safety Analysis for their concept of deep borehole disposal of nuclear waste. Deep Isolation is a company out of Berkeley that is working to dispose of nuclear waste in deep boreholes in the Earth’s crust, safer and at a lower cost than existing strategies.Schematic of a deep horizontal drillhole repository. A vertical access hole is drilled to depth, ... [+]DEEP ISOLATIONA Post-Closure Safety Analysis investigates and quantifies the safety and operation of the total system, and is required by law before any attempt at licensing.Today In: Energy·People May Be Spread Among Cargo For Social Distancing On Planes·Supply Chain Faces Up To Challenge Of Low Oil Price World·Duke Engineer Focusing On Robotics Sees Oil And Gas At The Forefront Of TechnologyTheir Safety Analysis indicates that spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors can be safely disposed using this method, and that it is viable in a wide-range of scenarios and conditions, as long as the repository is properly sited and carefully characterized, constructed, operated, and sealed.The safety analysis also indicates that the long-term safety would more than comply with the regulatory maximum annual dose requirement of 10 mrem per year (0.1 mSv/yr) to an individual at the surface drinking potentially contaminated water from a well over the waste at some time in the distant future. This dose limit governs all nuclear repositories and clean-up sites.PROMOTEDUNICEF USA BRANDVOICE | Paid ProgramCelebrating Earth Day Amidst COVID-19Civic Nation BRANDVOICE | Paid ProgramYes, You Can Request More College Financial Aid—Even During A PandemicGrads of Life BRANDVOICE | Paid ProgramCOVID-19 widens the Opportunity GapThe time scale covered by the analysis starts with repository closure, contains the thermal period (when things are still hot), and then extends to ten million years, an amazingly long time that covers any dose, even if anything significant got out.The overall disposal system for spent nuclear fuel (see figure) includes a single or an array of deep horizontal drillholes bored into the host rocks using off-the-shelf directional drilling technology.Individual nuclear fuel assemblies are encapsulated in customized, corrosion-resistant canisters, which are placed end-to-end into the relatively small-diameter, cased and potentially backfilled horizontal disposal sections of the drillholes.The deep borehole disposal process begins with a vertical access hole drilled and cased from the surface through confining geologic units to a point a few hundred meters above the target repository depth.The hole and surface casings are to guide the drilling and to protect freshwater aquifers. Below the kickoff point, a smaller-diameter hole is drilled that gradually curves until it is nominally horizontal. The radius of curvature is large enough to avoid any impedance during casing installation and waste canister emplacement. After the casing in the curved section is cemented in place, a final smaller-diameter drillhole continues near-horizontally for a few hundred meters to several kilometers.The horizontal repository portion has a slight upward tilt that provides additional isolation, and isolating any mechanisms that could move radioactive constituents upward. They would have to move down first, then up, something that cannot occur by natural processes deep in the crust.For larger-diameter canisters, the horizontal section may be drilled in two stages: a first small-diameter stage for characterization and testing of the disposal section followed by a reaming operation to create a diameter large enough to house the canisters.This casing is also cemented in place, potentially with monitoring systems embedded or attached to it, which communicate real-time data about the repository condition to the surface during the pre-closure and evaluation periods.About 10 drillholes are required to dispose of the waste from operating a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant over about 30 years. Globally, there are over 450,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that await disposal, or re-use in future fast reactors, followed by disposal of that waste. And there is currently no operating disposal solution for either.Radiation release for the 3 most important nuclides, (I-129, Cl-36, Se-79) with a fault intersecting ... [+]DEEP ISOLATIONTo say these analyses are complicated is an understatement of astronomical proportions. Refer to the report for details, but it models the key radionuclides over space and time, under different conditions, with and without through-going faults, with and without canister breaching, all at different depths, temperatures and pressures.The figure above is an example of these analyses. It shows that, even under the worst conditions, radioactivity releases are a thousand times less than the normal background radiation of anywhere in America. Normal background in America is over 300 mrem/yr (3 mSv/yr), and is above even the top of this graph.The idea of deep borehole disposal for nuclear waste is not new, but Deep Isolation is the first to consider horizontal portions of the wells as well as vertical, and is the first to actually demonstrate the concept in the field showing that the technology is not just theoretical. The field demonstration occurred last year when it placed and retrieved a waste canister from thousands of feet underground.As geologists, we know how many millions of years it takes for anything to get up from that depth in the Earth’s crust, especially in tight rock formations like shale. And we have plenty of tight rocks in America.So what better way to use this technology than to put something back into the Earth that you want to stay there for geologic time. “We’re using a technique that’s been made cheap over the last 20 years,” says Muller. “We could begin putting this waste underground right away.”Like all leading climate scientists, Muller understands that the world must increase its use of nuclear energy to seriously address climate change or succeed in any Green New Deal, and knows that solving the nuclear waste problem is essential.Indeed, when queried, the “waste issue” is all that most people really worry about.Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn.James ConcaI have been a scientist in the field of the earth and environmental sciences for 33 years, specializing in geologic disposal of nuclear waste, energy-related research, planetary surface processes, radiobiology and shielding for space colonies, subsurface transport and environmental clean-up of heavy metals. I am a Trustee of the Herbert M. Parker Foundation, Adjunct at WSU, an Affiliate Scientist at LANL and consult on strategic planning for the DOE, EPA/State environmental agencies, and industry including companies that own nuclear, hydro, wind farms, large solar arrays, coal and gas plants. I also consult for EPA/State environmental agencies and industry on clean-up of heavy metals from soil and water. For over 25 years I have been a member of Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund and many others, as well as professional societies including the America Nuclear Society, the American Chemical Society, the Geological Society of America and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.Quoting QUORA about Chernobil:If Chernobyl was declared uninhabitable for 20,000 years due to radiation, how come the forest thrives there and the wild animals have returned?Let’s parse out the two core facts of this statement:1.Chernobyl was declared uninhabitable for 20,000 years due to radiation2.The forest and wild animals are alive there.The question is: can these be true at the same time?Yes. In Fact #1, you will note the verb is “declare”. Some said this.“Chernobyl is uninhabitable for 20 thousand years!”There. I just declared that too! Does declaring something mean it is truthful or accurate?Check this: this is Hiroshima after mid-1945. A nuclear bomb was detonated over it.Uninhabitable for 20,000 years? Not even.(Note the structure, preserved.)Sure, a nuclear weapon is devastating. And also, the materials in a nuclear reactor are very different.But the point is, there is a lot of worry and concern and misinformation about nuclear energy. And so it causes people to say, “This area will be uninhabitable for 20,000 years.” Not because it’s true. But because it sounds cautious and emphasizes the danger of nuclear power.The area near Pripyat and Chernobyl have a thriving forest and probably more wild life than any area in Europe right now. This area is often known as “The Exclusion Zone.”This area covers almost 1,000mi.21,000mi.2. However, because of the nature of radioactive sources, much of the exclusion zone has little radioactivity. In fact—zooming in—you have to be very close to Chernobyl to detect dangerous doses:You will note that the large scale here is 1,000 meters. Meaning that within about 3 miles of the reactor site, possible exposure doses are down to 100 millirems/hour. This is still relatively high. About the amount of a single chest x-ray per hour.But you can see how zoomed in that map is. As you go further and further away, the radiation drops off quickly. There are “hot spots”—that appear somewhat randomly. These are areas where there is some energetic material. Either because waste was processed at that site, or because weather and time have moved material and dust around.So what has happened… is that much of the Exclusion Zone is a de facto wildlife and nature habitat. Yes, they are exposed to radiation. But it has not significantly affected the animal populations. In fact, the populations have grown.And that is because the creation of the Exclusion Zone protects this animal life from something much more dangerous than fall-out from a Soviet-era nuclear meltdown: human beings.Well, not exactly. See, there are some humans who simply refused to move out of the Exclusion Zone and still live there. Of course, they don’t live right next door to the reactor.