Skip to main content

Seven Reasons to Back Nuclear Power

By
I can think of many more but there's a great article from Fin24.com:

NUCLEAR power has two paradoxes. The first is that an energy source that has proved itself over decades to be safe, clean and economic should be perceived as being dangerous, dirty and expensive.

The second is that a technology that is so well understood and on which information is so easy to obtain should be the subject of such wild ignorance. Andreas Späth's article, "Six Reasons to Ditch Nuclear Power" (News24, February 27) neatly illustrates both. I shall answer each point in favour of nuclear power and add a seventh.

Be sure to check out his sources for future use.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
It is really, really, really difficult to conceive why the dogma about this spectacularly successful form of energy persist.

I have been fielding this misconceptions for many years and no matter how much reason and data I put forth, at the end of the day, with a pile of numbers and facts, I am met with blank assertions of unreality.

I actually don't think that those engaged in irrational denial are popular, so much as they are loud, though. I could be wrong about that, but I think the truth is really starting to sink in.

-NNadir
March 2, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Fat Man said…
My belief is that opposition to all things nuclear was "ideological and memetic warfare"* against the United States which "... has been a favored tactic for all of America's three great adversaries of the last hundred years..."*

"... it was the Soviet Union, in its day, that was the master of this game. They made dezinformatsiya (disinformation) a central weapon of their war against "the main adversary", the U.S. They conducted memetic subversion against the U.S. on many levels at a scale that is only now becoming clear as historians burrow through their archives and ex-KGB officers sell their memoirs."*

What better way to defeat one's enemy than to get him to throw his most valuable weapons away.

*Reference.
March 2, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
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...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more