tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post927449484172885171..comments2024-03-07T02:00:01.582-05:00Comments on NEI Nuclear Notes: All the President’s Science Advisors–Endorse Nuclear EnergyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-53613249840023649272013-03-28T23:57:32.269-04:002013-03-28T23:57:32.269-04:00I'm not a legal eagle, but the U.S, can make t...I'm not a legal eagle, but the U.S, can make the very unique claim that it developed and created the first nuclear reactors and processing of radioative materials and so has inherent responsibility for its use. Oil and gas and coal have no such specific traceable "fathers". That's why I'm willing to give the gov't a lot of leeway and say in the development of nuclear power instead of just creating it and walking away like a deadbeat dad.<br /><br />James Greenidge<br />Queens NYjimwghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06964988758509076556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-37664713235080993882013-03-27T07:11:59.565-04:002013-03-27T07:11:59.565-04:00My understanding is that, per the Atomic Energy Ac...My understanding is that, per the Atomic Energy Act, the US government owns all of the U235 within the borders of the country. They may grant licensees permission to "utilize" it. There is certainly no comparable legal scheme for the coal, oil, or gas resources of the country. That is what makes the government's role different.gmax137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-15452013127823955022013-03-26T19:20:51.955-04:002013-03-26T19:20:51.955-04:00Regarding the mention that "the Federal Gover...Regarding the mention that "the Federal Government’s role is different than for all other technologies", beyond the spent fuel, this would obviously refer to the unique-to-nuclear power licensing/regulatory/security challenges, as well as necessary non-proliferation considerations in addition to the Federal Government's statutory responsibility to take possession of the spent fuel.<br /><br />As a somewhat knowledgable person regarding nuclear power, I have to disagree that the mention was ambiguous, and that concisely encompassed the many aspects of federal government entanglement with nuclear power.EntrepreNukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05878943100501705689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10911751.post-15149619530520999442013-03-26T18:32:48.215-04:002013-03-26T18:32:48.215-04:00When I see this administration/media publicly hawk...When I see this administration/media publicly hawk nuclear energy with the same fervor and equal time they have for windmills and algae energy I'll believe they're truly four-square for nuclear past token mentions.<br /><br /><br />Re: Take this bit, for example, from the dependably anti-nuclear Guardian in England... Balancing the problems of nuclear power against its contribution to climate mitigation (and other energy policy objectives) is an inescapable dilemma."<br /><br />Why's it a "dilemma", Guardian? A choice between the evil and the deep blue sea? A "necessary evil"? Someone ought give the folks at the Guardian a serious reality check of the human health and community physical damages incurred by fossil fuel use over hundreds of years. That's a REAL "Disaster." I've always said you just can't be anti-nuclear and "Green" without being a big fat public safety/public health hypocrite based on real-world records and research and comparative industrialist mortality/public damage stats. The Guardian's philosophical/Hiroshima guilt anti-nuke hang-ups are just willfully and cynically keeping its nuke-clueless readers in the fretful dark.<br /><br />James Greenidge<br />Queens NYjimwghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06964988758509076556noreply@blogger.com