Skip to main content

New From JHU Press: Atoms for Peace: A Future After 50 Years

From the precis by Johns Hopkins University Press:
The twenty-five contributors to Atoms for Peace grapple in many ways with nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, and the future of nuclear energy. They include officials and scientists from a wide range of agencies and institutions. Among them are officials or former officials from Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Canada, Korea, and Japan, from the U.S. departments of state, energy, and defense, the U.S. Senate, the National Security Council, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, MIT, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the College of William and Mary, and the University of California.

Atoms for Peace also includes a set of fundamental speeches and documents relating to Atoms for Peace and its institutions.
Back in September 2005, our CEO, Skip Bowman, shared his own thoughts about "Atoms for Peace" in a speech he delivered at the World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium:
What if Mr. Eisenhower came back today and reviewed our progress?

There is a rule of thumb for advanced technologies that it takes about 30 years from proof-of-concept to full-scale commercial deployment. By that measure, I think we could tell Mr. Eisenhower that we’ve done rather well.

In the United States, within two years of his Atoms for Peace speech, we deployed our first nuclear-powered submarine. Within four years we reached full-power operation at our Shippingport reactor in Pennsylvania—really the first commercial-scale power reactor. Since then, we’ve built 434 power reactors around the world, which produce approximately 17 percent of the world’s electricity.

Not bad, Mr. Eisenhower.

But you know what he’d say? He’d say: “Nice start, but you’re not keeping pace with the challenge.”
Read the rest right now.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,
,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Let's not forget the advances in medical science that have come from the use of radionuclides in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Production of medical radionuclides in non-power reactors have saved millions of lives around the world, one of them being my mother, who was cured of cancer through the use of teletherapy sources. It gave her another 30 years of life, which, to me and my family, was a gift beyond price.

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…

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…