Skip to main content

Popular Mechanics Weighs and Measures

Popular Mechanics has assembled a package of articles discussing the technical aspects of new nuclear technologies. The lead article is called The Next Atomic Age: Can Safe Nuclear Power Work for America? and is exceptionally well researched. Here's a taster to give you a sense of the contents:

Though the pebble-bed reactor is promising, other Gen IV designs have distinct advantages, too. Three of the six under consideration are fast neutron reactors; the term refers to the high speed of the neutrons ricocheting around the reactor core when there is no moderator to slow them down. When fast neutrons collide with fuel particles, they can actually generate more fuel than they burn. Such breeder reactors were developed in the late 1940s, but remained more expensive than other designs. These reactors have more appeal today because they also can burn up the longest-lived radioactive isotopes in their fuel, producing waste that stays dangerous for hundreds of years instead of hundreds of thousands.

Very Popular Mechanics - a cool, neutral style that help make complex technology understandable to a broad audience.

But there's a lot more.

Patrick Moore, Chair and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. debates Anna Aurilio, Legislative Director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, with Moore, of course, taking the affirmative position. Aurilio's first comment:

Nuclear energy is too expensive, too dangerous and too polluting. And, despite claims from industry, it's not necessary either for our future electricity needs or to meet the very real challenge of global warming.

It just makes you want to holler - these particular tropes are tired, inaccurate and verging on the willfully ignorant. Moore should have little trouble here.

There is also a podcast on the topic you can listen to on the site or download for some nuclear iPod goodness.

By all means, take a look at the whole package. Even the reader comments are entertaining (and very pro-nuclear). Impressive.

Comments

Anonymous said…
FYI, this month's issue of Discover magazine has an article on nuclear power by Gwyneth Cravens.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…