Skip to main content

Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy

In a post about the energy policy proposals that may be in tonight's State of the Union address, Dean Armstrong had this to say:
There is nothing inherently wrong in nuclear power--it's cleaner than coal (yes, a point for another post). We need new energy sources as use naturally increases with time, and it's the most efficient way.
UPDATE: And be sure to visit Dave Huether at NAM blog.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

I guess I've been outed. I'm pro nuclear energy, but anti-Yucca Mountain. I believe on-site dry casks to be the current solution of choice for used fuel disposal.
shusurvey said…
Dear Sir/Madam:
We are currently launching a poll sponsored by UNIDO-ICHET to study
public opinions and attitudes towards hydrogen energy related issues.
We are also looking for feedback related to UNIDO-ICHET's website.
Would you please logon to one of the URLs shown below (you can logon
either site). Your answers will produce valuable information for our
researchers, and help us to understand many aspects about the
development of new energy technology and certain related social
issues.
You can choose either URL:
http://www.unido-ichet.org
http://www.ichet.org (UNIDO-ICHET homepage, please log on and click
'for UNIDO-ICHET survey' button)
http://eshop.ereach.com.tw/UNIDO-ICHETsurvey (questionnaire web pages)

We would like to ask you if you know anyone whom you believe would be
suitable to answer this questionnaire. If you do, please help us by
forwarding this message to them as well as the URLs in order to allow
us to be able to call for more volunteer interviewees to complete this
important survey.

Sponsorship: UNIDO-ICHET (UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATION - INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR HYDROGEN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES)
Project leader: Mavis Tsai, Ph. D. Shih Hsin University

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…