Skip to main content

President Bush to Visit Browns Ferry

By Eric McErlain
From the Decatur Daily:
Athens is to experience a first in its history when the nation's president visits Thursday.

A White House spokesman confirmed that President Bush will be in Athens at 1:15 p.m. to tour the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant and make remarks.

Limestone County archivist Philip Reyer said to his knowledge, a sitting president has never visited Athens.

Although local officials could not say if Bush initiated the visit, it is part of an effort by Bush to push long-stalled energy legislation in Congress. Bills in both the Senate and House include provisions designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Bush has said nuclear power is one of the best ways to reduce such emissions, especially the carbon dioxide most scientists believe contributes to global warming.

The restart of Unit 1 in May made Browns Ferry one of the largest nuclear plants in the country. The unit, shut down in 1985, is going through a gradual power increase and review process.
You'll remember back in 2005 that President Bush visited Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.
Labels:

Comments

gunter said…
I think this is hilarious.
W is visiting the Model T of the nuclear industry and hailing it as the spark of the renaissance.

Doesnt he know that a new Mark I has been unlicensable since 1972?

gunter
June 20, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Anonymous said…
Yeah, about the only thing more hilarious is the thought that you'll ever make a sensible remark (remember your wonderfully cogent response of "nuts").
June 20, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous said…
I think this is hilarious.

Gunter has no idea what he is talking about, but that is par for the course.

To take a reactor that was originally ~1000 MW, which is now >1100 MW (after billions of dollars of upgrades) and which is planed to be >1200 MW and to call it a "new Mark I" reactor, is just plain stupid or dishonest ... you decide which.

Oh ... by the way, the Model T was a very successful design. Gunter's knowledge of history is also lacking.
June 20, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Anonymous said…
Some technology historians are of the opinion that the Model T is really the vehicle that put America On Wheels. In that sense, it has to be considered a successful venture. Probably everyone here, including Gunter, has reaped the benefits of that technology. Likely so with nuclear.
June 21, 2007 at 7:37 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

By
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 …
1 comment
Read more

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

By
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…
Post a Comment
Read more

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

By
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…
Post a Comment
Read more