Skip to main content

Another Blogger Considers Nuclear Energy

The blogger behind AustinPermie is in the midst of making up her mind about nuclear energy. Here's something she wrote recently about Patrick Moore that I think every supporter of nuclear energy ought to keep in mind:
As a poli sci person, I have to say that all the negative sites I've seen on Moore's position, makes it seem like a big campaign angry at the 'defection' of one of its champions. Laden with editorial venom is unfortunately not conducive for a real debate.
Interesting. Stop by and be sure to offer your thoughts, but, as always, please be polite. For Part I of her post, click here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Dear Eric,
Australia has had a major policy reversal on uranium mining and nuclear this weekend. Would you please consider an article about their "Nuclear Phase-In"?

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/australia-end-ban-nuclear-power/story.aspx?guid=%7BA42310F3%2D3EB7%2D4667%2D9D57%2D9902CD543C66%7D

Thanks,
Bill Vidalin
Ruth Sponsler said…
Hi Bill -

There's a summary of what happened in Australia here.

Also, Nuclear Australia has been doing extensive coverage of the issues Down Under.

It's been a terrific weekend!!

Best Wishes!
Ingrid said…
Thanks for the referral guys. I come from a line of family where people are expected to agree to disagree. I grew up with heated political discussions during birthday visits, until someone would say..time out (the dutch equivalent of it) and say, you, would you like another beer, another sherry for you? And then people would move onto something else. I did not realize the wealth of pro-nuclear blogs. Of course, other people would consider this a worthy venue to look into. And that comes with the ability to look for 'truth', no matter if it might do away with all your preconceived notions. I need to do a whole lot more reading before I can honestly take a stand one way or another..
thanks again and now I'll have to make sure to catch up on reading some of 'ya'll's (yes, the ya'll here comes in plural lol) posts!
Ingrid
Randal Leavitt said…
Canada also seems to be changing:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070507_105095_105095

By the way, it is really difficult to feed leads such as the above article to NEI Nuclear Notes. How are we supposed to do it?

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

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…