Skip to main content

Serious Topics, Dry Wit

By
In a comprehensive, fascinating interview Thursday in sunny Idaho Falls with Idaho Samizdat, Dr. Dale Klein, longtime NRC commissioner and its onetime chairman, discussed rabbits in the context of public communication, cheeses, small reactors, Yucca Mountain, bozos, Blackberries, and business.

Serious quote:
The U.S. has difficulty thinking clearly about how to make long-term capital commitments. The financing profile for a new nuclear reactor is now 60-80 years. Our grandchildren will benefit from them and some will operate them.
Witty ones:
In response to a question at the lunch meeting about the reason France has such a strong commitment to nuclear energy, he quipped, ‘That nation's energy polices come down to just four factors: no oil, no gas, no coal, and no choice.’
and
Klein is frustrated by people who have already made up their minds about the license application. Referring to the massive electronic document library that supports the project, he said ironically, "anyone who says Yucca Mountain is unsafe must be a speed reader."
Labels:

Comments

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus said…
So why did Obamolech demote pro-nuclear Dale Klein and promote anti-nuclear Jackzo? Remember, NEI, you were the guys who wanted Harry Reid's Jackzo balanced out by Pete Domineci's Peter Lyons when Bush was forced to compromise with the devil. Now Lyons is gone, and nothing stands in the way of over-regulating the industry until new nukes are too expensive to build.

McCain wanted to build 40 new nukes rightaway. Instead we got cash for clunkers from Obamessiah.
September 28, 2009 at 12:14 PM
David Bradish said…
Fact 1: It is customary for Chairmen of federal agencies to be from the same party that's in office. Thus, the reason for the switch to Jaczko. The fact that it took five months before the commissioners switched was a sign that Obama was fine with a Republican running the NRC for a bit.

Fact 2: The two nominees to the NRC (by the Obama Administration) are pro-nuclear and "welcomed by the industry."

Fact 3: Obama gave us cash clunkers, he also gave us Secretary Chu. Check out what Chu said last week.

Like I asked several months ago, how about we get you on board with trying to educate the Democrats on the benefits of nuclear so we could bring them on our side instead of always complaining about them?
September 28, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Anonymous said…
"McCain wanted to build 40 new nukes rightaway."

With their containment structures magically formed for free from the hot air of his stump speeches, no doubt.

Talk is cheap, especially when it's campaign rhetoric.

What's stopping SENATOR McCain from proposing legislation to do exactly this, if he's TRULY so committed to it?
September 28, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Unknown said…
Unfortunately, loannes is more motivated by his political beliefs not relating to nuclear power to the point where he smears Obama on nuclear power to convince others to be anti-Obama.

This is just an example on how nuclear power is a victim of the polarization of our Country.
September 28, 2009 at 5:17 PM
D Kosloff said…
Anonymous,

How much power do you think that McCain has in a Senate of 99 with 59 Democrats?
September 29, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Anonymous said…
"How much power do you think that McCain has in a Senate of 99 with 59 Democrats?"

First, you're inaccurately assuming that all Democratic MoCs are anti-nuclear power. In fact, the Democratic House whip, Jim Clyburn, is heading up a rather large coalition of pronuclear Dems to support new nuclear. Gotta read the news occasionally, rather than relying on political prejudices.

Second, McCain, to my knowledge, never introduced legislation to build NPPs, let alone 40-100, even before the Democratic majority controlled Congress. Only time he got that religion was when he needed it for his presidential campaign.
September 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more