Another Democrat for Nuclear Energy

Another diarist over at Daily Kos, wolverine 06, is making the case that Greens need to take another look at nuclear energy:

IMO, Greens need to re evaluate their position using hard data, not an emotional gut feel about what Nuclear Energy USED TO BE like back in the seventies. Currently, green energy sources cannot maintain or even sustain the gigawatt needs of our society.

[...]

IMO, Greens need to get their act together before amongst themselves before they can be in a position to reasonably influence debate. Please do not get me wrong. I am a strong advocate of maxing out the development of green sustainable resources. But I think it is disingenuous and foolish of people to just dismiss a whole resource and technology because of what they think it is and not for what it truly is. I believe the bitter argument would be over quickly if people were to read and understand the facts (See the two articles referenced above). Then afterwards, they will be in a better position to judge why Diamond, Lovelace, et al do advocate for using the resource and be able to reach their own conclusions on a much more informed basis.

Currently green technologies sources fall short of society’s needs, period. Better technologies are being developed, but do we have the time and the will to develop and employ them? Global warming is no longer a theory, but an imminent reality. How bad it gets will be determined by how quickly the entire international community begins to cooperate.

Good to see that Kos diarist N. Nadir isn't alone any longer.

Comments

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