Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

In the United States, we derive about 21% of our power generation capacity from a source of abundant energy that pollutes very little in comparison to the amount of power generated. That energy source is nuclear energy. More electricity is generated from Nuclear energy than any other source except coal in this country. This energy source is NOT subject to the price of oil, nor is it subject to embargoes, drought or lack of wind. The volume of toxic waste generated by this energy source is a small fraction of the next cleanest source (Natural Gas) and orders of magnitude less than coal.

Thanks to the Lone Star Times for the pointer.

UPDATE: Stop by and say hello to Mr. Snitch.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Comments

Stewart Peterson said…

http://niof.blogspot.com

August 3, 2005 at 1:03 AM

Jeff Faria said…

You guys have my sympathy. Stumping for nuclear in the age of post-Three-Mile-Island and Homer Simpson is a thankless task. (Well, maybe you're well compensated.) Wired got out ahead of the curve and got hammered.

In my experience in managing political communications, I have found that the public (like the stock market) tends to hit bottom before you can persuade them into another direction. As per my post, the bottom for nuclear has not yet been truly plumbed (it's been hit, all right, but we're not yet ready to pull away from it). It's when some event wakes us up that we move. In this case, I see a hydrogen industry for transportable power (cars, laptops, cell phones - anything that needs to move), and China supplying the fuel. That should be about the last straw.

Unless of course you REALLY get Bush to move on this. But I think he has too many other places to spend his political capital to get nuke off the ground during his presidency.

August 3, 2005 at 1:48 AM

Stewart Peterson said…

I am not compensated. The people I work with are likewise not compensated.

August 5, 2005 at 6:05 AM

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog