Skip to main content

"Nuclear Power is progressive."

One of my old favorites in the Blogosphere is James Lileks. In today's Bleat, he gets around to redefining some old and cherished political ideas:
Nuclear power is progressive; the status quo, in place for twenty years, still thinks “The China Syndrome” is a documentary. I know it’s a different definition of progressive, but heck: redefining “progressive” is progressive.
Thanks to our buddy Carter Wood at NAM Blog for the pointer.

Comments

The China Syndrome wasn't a documentary? It took this nuclear professional 25 years in the industry to realize that it WAS.

From my blog:
"The China Syndrome may have been flawed technically, but it portrayed the human element with some accuracy. Things are better in the business today, but it is foolish to think we are perfect. We should embrace the human performance lessons of The China Syndrome as we go forward with this new generation of nuclear power plants."

http://headlessblogger.blogspot.com/2007/09/jane-fonda-was-correct.html
Stephen said…
Nuclear power is more than progress, it is the next quantum leep in mankind's ability to expand and harness the forces of nature for the purposes of exploration, expansion, comfort, safety, creation and so on.

First there was only human muscle.

Then man learned to use combustion and it made civilization possible.

Then man learned to use steam and to convert thermal energy to mechanical energy and it made industry possible.

Then man learned to use electricity and it made telecommunications and information and transmission of energy and the modern society possible.

Nuclear energy is the next great leap. It is not an evolution, but it is one of those jumps forward that happens only occasionally in human history.

To understand and harness nuclear energy is as significant as to understand harness chemical energy or electrical energy.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…