Skip to main content

Some Monday Morning Nuclear Blog Clips to Read

The two big posts everyone was raving about over the weekend come from Depleted Cranium’s Steve Packard and Brave New Climate’s Barry Brook. Steve clearly spent a great deal of man-hours providing a number of reasons Why You Can’t Build a Bomb From Spent Fuel. As well, Barry Brook always gets a heavy conversation going, this time by asking if climate sceptics and anti-nukes matter.

There’s also been quite the discussion lately among many of the nuclear bloggers about natural gas. Depleted Cranium came out with another great piece that refreshes everyone's memories about gas prices by using a colorful graph. Rod Adams, as always, has something to say about gas – his latest on the gas industry’s advertisements and comparing tritium leaks to a methane leak were revealing. And Kirk Sorenson jabs at Climate Progress, the Sierra Club and a little bit at Greenpeace for their lack of acknowledgement of “a catastrophic explosion [two weeks ago] at a natural-gas-fired powerplant under construction in Connecticut.”

It is quite interesting (for lack of a better word) that many of those who are in favor of renewables to reduce emissions have become willing to accept natural gas to achieve that goal (even forgetting that gas still emits). Not only that, they cry foul over any miniscule event about nuclear yet have amnesia when something major happens to their favorite energies as Kirk points out. Well, the nuclear industry is clearly held to higher standards. But I guess that’s a good thing, though, since we definitely work with superior technology.

Hope you enjoy everyone’s posts!

Comments

Bill said…
Meanwhile, there's this: "Lawmakers mull nuclear power as renewable source" (Phoenix Business Journal)
"A bill introduced in the Arizona Legislature would establish nuclear power as a renewable or carbon-free energy source, angering solar advocates and sparking the ire of the Arizona Corporation Commission."
Anonymous said…
Best part of that article Bill posted:

“The short of it is, it’s disastrous for renewable energy and it would surely be the death knell for advancing solar energy in the state,” [Arizona Corporation Commission Chairwoman] Mayes said.

As in, if utilities aren't required to buy wind and solar, and instead can choose to rely on hydro or nuclear, that'll be the end for solar in Arizona. And I'd expect Arizona's solar energy resources to be about as good at it gets.
Sterling Archer said…
Solar is a great way to power your vacation cabin, if it's no where near the grid.
david lewis said…
The Marcellus Shale, where they are "fracking" natural gas, is uranium ore. A similar deposit was mined for uranium in Sweden from 1950 to the 1970s.

The waste water that comes up out of the gas wells couldn't meet EPA standards for radioactivity if anyone cared, if someone was going to inject it back underground, but they just dump it into public waterways because no one looks at the gas industry for radiation hazards.

"13 samples of wastewater brought to the surface... from drilling... contain levels of radium...267 times the limit safe to discharge into the environment and thousands of times the limit safe for people to drink"

http://www.propublica.org/feature/is-the-marcellus-shale-too-hot-to-handle-1109

Gas emits at least 22 times the amount of CO2 nuclear does, and just using regular average US gas to cook with causes 15 times the additional exposure to radiation than living right next to a nuke plant.

I haven't been able to find out how much additional radiation "fracked" gas taken out of a uranium ore formation would expose a typical cookstove user to because the environmental groups have all bought in to the line that gas is better than nukes.

Gas is great, the Sierra Club tells me. I'm so glad The Club is there to safeguard whatever they are safeguarding as the planet is killed. I feel so much better.

Popular posts from this blog

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