The "Conversation" About Nuclear Energy

Want to know what public attitudes are like in one of the most anti-nuclear energy regions in the world? Just take a listen to a few minutes of yesterday's edition of The Conversation, a program on KUOW-FM 94.9 in Seattle. Click here (MP3) or here (Real Audio) to listen.

I understand that the region has its own problematic history with nuclear energy, but that's no excuse for some of the nonsense that the host, Guy Nelson, who immediately repeats an utter falsehood about total lifecycle emissions and nuclear energy. After listening for a few minutes, I was impressed with the bravery of a number of listeners who called to make the case for nuclear energy.

Comments

Anonymous said…

It's too bad that anti-nuke nutcases actually convince some people by using arguments against the 1970s era power plants or even out-and-out lies like in this case. The fact is nobody wants more 1970s type nuke plants. They were too expensive to build and the technology has improved by leaps and bounds since then.

Being pro-nuke means being against using foreign oil (our gas guzzling cars), against sulphur and other poisons in the air (coal plants), against carbon emissions that will destroy this planet and everyone on it (natural gas power plants), and against power supply problems like brownouts and blackouts.

With new designs like pebble bed reactors there is no possibility of melt-down because even with a complete coolant failure the reactor reaches thermal equilibrium. And the pebble bed reactor is modular so most parts can be mass produced and shipped to the site, and a community can start with a small reactor and add additional reactors as their power needs grow.

Other new reactor designs will enable cheaper hydrogen production by producing steam of high enough temperature to separate the hydrogen from seawater.

Nuclear power has never been more needed than right now. Mankind faces great peril (or extinction) without it.

October 10, 2007 at 10:20 AM

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

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

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

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog