1. Scott Burnell | 12.29.08

For more information on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s current stance on “small” reactor designs, please visit the agency’s Web site:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/for-the-record/2008/12-15-08.pdf

2. ChrisMarks | 12.29.08

For a very long time nuclear power has been more of a political problem than a than a technical one. Perhaps, just as only Nixon could open up to China, only Obama can make the nuclear option viable again.

3. Paxus Calta | 12.29.08

The near hurdles for these reactors are not environmentalists and antinuclear groups (though we will certainly put up hurdles if we can eventually). What is really going on here is the current generation of nuclear industry hype being sold as something solid. These reactors dont exist. The design is not even finished, much less the NRC approval for the design. The company says it can start delivering them in 2013, but they dont even have a prototype complete. Nuclear power construction has an incredible history of delays and broken promises (a history being continued today with the new third generation reactors in Finland and France, which were promised as cheap and are running late and hugely over budget). Yet efforts to make non-research reactors on this small scale ahve been going for over 50 years.

How can you forecast a price and take orders for a new reactor design for 4 years from now when you dont even have a prototype functioning anywhere ?

The press loves the “new technology is going to save us” story, And at least the CSM ran some critics of this project, rather than just parroting the press release as most newspapers have.

The thin Hyperion website spend as much time trying to justify nuclear in general as it does promoting this project. The counter arguments to nuclear in general are devastatingly presented by Amory Lovins at tinyurl.com/forgetnuclear

if you actually look at the NRC link which is in the above comment it talks about the the licensing process taking “years and years”. This on top of the NRCs statement earlier this year that “exotic reactor designs” like Hyperions are not its priority.

So if Hyperion ever gets a design that works, if it actually costs anything like $25 million, if they ever get it approved by the NRC, if anyone really orders them (the first 6 have supposedly be ordered by the Czech company TES and are highly dubious considering the small size of TES and its complete lack of reactor operations experience). Then (and some before then) the environmentalists and antinuclear groups that i work with will certainly be fighting this project.

But what is more likely is that this project will never materialize and the entire discussion is an exercise in a technophilic distraction from the pressing work of reducing carbon emissions in the near term.

It is likely another failed nuclear technology like breeders and reprocessing.

4. Rod Adams | 12.30.08

Paxus is correct in stating that there are many hurdles in the way of building small nuclear power plants at an economically competitive or predictable price. His analysis of the source of the hurdles is off base, however.

Stories about Hyperion, NuScale, and the Toshiba 4S are NOT coming from “the nuclear industry”. The established nuclear industry, composed of companies like GE, Areva, Westinghouse, AECL, Mitsubishi, and Hitachi, is actually quite reluctant to do anything that would make it easier for upstarts to enter into the industry. (The 4S is now in the same corporate family as Westinghouse, but the project teams are not closely associated.)

The record of cost overruns in nuclear is not so different from that of any other industry that builds enormous, complex projects with little repetition between instances. The problems in Finland and France with Areva’s newly designed EPR are problems that often come early in the learning curve for new designs. Nuclear fission is well understood, but the EPR has new types of containment buildings, different standards for concrete, new types of major equipment, etc. In addition, no individual working on the projects has built a new nuclear plant in about 15 years, any knowledge and skills from previous experience are rusty.

NuScale, Hyperion, Adams, and others who are not yet publicly announced are working on smaller, simpler designs that can be built mainly in factories with little site specific assembly and construction work. They are planning to reduce the construction complexity by going small, an effort that also makes it easier to produce reactors that can withstand unplanned events without any core damage. (Small cores mean less heat generation and easier heat removal in the case of lost power. The designs rely on physics and thermodynamics rather than multiple layers of automation.)

The first of a kind units for all of the small reactor designers will have some learning challenges, but smaller projects allow the teams to make the mistakes more quickly, learn from them and move to second, third, tenth, and hundredth of a kind more quickly than is possible with plants that are 100-200 times larger and more complex.

The NRC licensing challenges are solvable, though there is an institutional bias against new ideas, largely aided by the influence of the established nuclear and fossil fuel industries that simply do not like the idea of new players taking their market share. Since the NRC is a government agency, it largely caters to the needs of the established firms, but at least it has some people in the organization that recognize the need to adapt and change.

Paxus, like many anti-nuclear commenters, points to the work of Amory Lovins as being definitive. Unfortunately, Lovins has the ear of many, but he is not a reliable or unbiased observer. He has spent decades working directly for companies that prefer to continue burning coal, oil and natural gas. Here is what Lovins himself said in a recent interview on Democracy Now! “You know, I’ve worked for major oil companies for about thirty-five years, and they understand how expensive it is to drill for oil.”

It is a bit of a mystery why so many technically focused fossil fuel interests pay for consulting services from a man who never even finished an undergraduate degree program. Perhaps it has something to do with his ability to produce complicated mathematical justification for continuing to burn massive quantities of fossil fuel as a “bridge” to some kind of utopian future where wind and solar can meet human needs.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.

5. Bill Stevenson | 12.30.08

Rod Adams points out one of the great flaws in the anti-nuclear argument, that large power generating projects are singular events, and are not “cookie cutter” repeatable. This argument has been used by the anti-nuke crowd as both political and economic barriers to low-cost power generation. Adding their inevitable legal challenges dramatically increases the cost and delays deployment of large scale nucler generating capacity.

The truth is that large scale nuclear power generation is akin to building large scale manufacturing plants. No two manufacturing plants are the same, and each is tailored for both its production and its environment. Thus, (with the collusion of both anti-nuke activists and an entrenched fossil fuel energy marketers) as proposed nuclear power plants are forced to undergo such extreme legal challenges and other political and governmental hurdles, which prevent concurrent site development and other economies of scale, no relevent experience can be carried between projects, nor can economies of scale be applied.

Big nukes tranlate to expensive nukes.

The advantage of so-called “pocket nukes” is that they are more akin to appliances rather than factories. As economical appliances, (costing about $1/watt of generating capacity) these can be developed to be easily and safely duplicated at will, and have little installation concern for the local environment or security issues, other than how easy it is to deliver generated power to the customers. Many smaller nuclear power generators have been developed for military use, (submarines are an excellent example) so the technology is well understood and economically practical for deployment.

As far as terrorism concerns go, which is more difficult for a terrorist to attack? Which is easier for authorities to secure? Is it an acres large, hugely complex and extremely expensive above-ground nuclear power generator? Or is it a few cubic meters of power-generating appliance buried one to two hundred feet below ground?

If safe, clean transportaition energy is our national goal, then ten to twenty megawatt generators located at strategic highway locations makes this possible. With new battery and super-capacitor energy storage, fast, economical swap-out power modules could be used for powering any vehicle. Imagine not having three million diesel tractor trailer rigs belching out black soot, but run on clean, locally produced electricity instead.

One concern we should collectively share about the anti-nuclear agitators such as Paxus Calta is, what is their TRUE motivation, and their true goal? You would think that clean electrical energy production would be their goal, but it really appears that NO energy production is. They offer NO alternative other than NOT using any energy, thus “saving” the planet by economically murdering its most brilliant and important resident species, Man.

Please don’t think me arrogant for mentioning Man as the world’s most important resident. No other species has an EPA, DOE or any other such self-imposed artificial restriction on its organic ability to thrive. I happen to be human, and know absolutely that no other species is as important to my personal survival than that of Man. For the individual ME to thrive, Man must also. Taking away Man’s ability to make his environment his own simply truncates his ability for species success.

Bill Stevenson, President
Western Mechaneer

6. Nick Taylor | 12.30.08

@ChrisMarks

For what its worth, I’m increasingly seeing pro-nukism as a strand of climate change denial. Your unsubstantiated and uncorroborated statements are… well, just that.

If you’re interested you might want to take a look at this video… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WxreFrUHho

and remember that nukes, rather than facing political opposition in other countries, tend to get massive, massive government subsidies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/23/nuclearshiddensubsidies

7. Nick Taylor | 12.30.08

@Rod Adams - you had me up until the point where you started smearing Amory Lovins.

If you had a leg to stand on, you’d stand on it. If your argument is so weak that you need to smear the source… then, sorry, you really need to rethink why you’re making the argument…

…oh? You have a vested interest in nukes maybe? Quelle surprise.

8. Peter Riley | 12.31.08

The following abstract is of a paper included in the proceedings of the International Nuclear Law Congress in Brussels October 2007.

Paving the Way for Deployment of Nuclear Energy Systems in Disaster-prone and Undeveloped Regions of the Planet: a task for international lawyers.

Peter Riley, De Montfort Law School, Leicester, UK [peterjriley@ntlworld.com]
Abstract

The provision of energy systems is a matter for private enterprise, however, to offer the means of escape from poverty in disaster-prone and undeveloped regions of the planet the provision of electricity, water and heat must be seen as public goods provided by international effort.

In such circumstances, the opportunity to enable people to escape poverty and as a precautionary measure, the balance of Justification should weigh in favour of energy sources using radioactive processes, provided means can be found to counter the risks associated with the paucity of established institutional control systems.

Appropriately engineered systems, including heat from radioactive sources and nuclear reactors, could offer safe and secure energy to be used in situations which in earlier times would have been dismissed as infeasible and likened to touching the third rail – risking political electrocution. This risk can be rectified by the sensible application of technologies developed during the cold war for example: the use of submarine reactor technology for use offshore of potential natural disaster areas in both the developed and undeveloped regions; and the use of Generation IV systems and the application of Radioactive Heat Sources (RHS) to provide uninterruptible energy in undeveloped and remote regions. To achieve credibility the application of such energy sources must be demonstrated in the developed world before extending their use: a task already being tackled.

To resolve the proviso on institutional control concerning the application of radiation technology in undeveloped regions, where assistance offered by the IAEA may be premature, would require novel approaches to the responsibility for the operation of the energy sources and the appropriate enabling regulation. The unconventional challenges that such approaches might represent to commercial, industrial, domestic and international bodies include: the appropriate regulatory structures; insurance; inter-governmental agreements; interfaces with international bodies; environmental, safety and security considerations; commercial and trade agreements; public information and consultation; and specific contractual agreements. Other than for established practice these tasks are not perceived as being tackled.

This paper necessarily represents only a first academic step in what must become an international project to prepare the ground for establishing the appropriate legal structures to enable the gift of nuclear energy to contribute to easing the burden of natural disaster and energy poverty from both the developed and undeveloped regions of the planet.

9. Peter Riley | 12.31.08

The following abstract is of a paper included in the proceedings of the International Nuclear Law Congress in Brussels October 2007.

Paving the Way for Deployment of Nuclear Energy Systems in Disaster-prone and Undeveloped Regions of the Planet: a task for international lawyers.

Peter Riley, De Montfort Law School, Leicester, UK [peterjriley@ntlworld.com]
Abstract

The provision of energy systems is a matter for private enterprise, however, to offer the means of escape from poverty in disaster-prone and undeveloped regions of the planet the provision of electricity, water and heat must be seen as public goods provided by international effort.

In such circumstances, the opportunity to enable people to escape poverty and as a precautionary measure, the balance of Justification should weigh in favour of energy sources using radioactive processes, provided means can be found to counter the risks associated with the paucity of established institutional control systems.

Appropriately engineered systems, including heat from radioactive sources and nuclear reactors, could offer safe and secure energy to be used in situations which in earlier times would have been dismissed as infeasible and likened to touching the third rail – risking political electrocution. This risk can be rectified by the sensible application of technologies developed during the cold war for example: the use of submarine reactor technology for use offshore of potential natural disaster areas in both the developed and undeveloped regions; and the use of Generation IV systems and the application of Radioactive Heat Sources (RHS) to provide uninterruptible energy in undeveloped and remote regions. To achieve credibility the application of such energy sources must be demonstrated in the developed world before extending their use: a task already being tackled.

To resolve the proviso on institutional control concerning the application of radiation technology in undeveloped regions, where assistance offered by the IAEA may be premature, would require novel approaches to the responsibility for the operation of the energy sources and the appropriate enabling regulation. The unconventional challenges that such approaches might represent to commercial, industrial, domestic and international bodies include: the appropriate regulatory structures; insurance; inter-governmental agreements; interfaces with international bodies; environmental, safety and security considerations; commercial and trade agreements; public information and consultation; and specific contractual agreements. Other than for established practice these tasks are not perceived as being tackled.

This paper necessarily represents only a first academic step in what must become an international project to prepare the ground for establishing the appropriate legal structures to enable the gift of nuclear energy to contribute to easing the burden of natural disaster and energy poverty from both the developed and undeveloped regions of the planet.

10. Peter Riley | 12.31.08

The following abstract is of a paper included in the International Nuclear Law Congress held in Brussels (October 2007)

Paving the Way for Deployment of Nuclear Energy Systems in Disaster-prone and Undeveloped Regions of the Planet: a task for international lawyers.

Peter Riley, De Montfort Law School, Leicester, UK [peterjriley@ntlworld.com]
Abstract

The provision of energy systems is a matter for private enterprise, however, to offer the means of escape from poverty in disaster-prone and undeveloped regions of the planet the provision of electricity, water and heat must be seen as public goods provided by international effort.

In such circumstances, the opportunity to enable people to escape poverty and as a precautionary measure, the balance of Justification should weigh in favour of energy sources using radioactive processes, provided means can be found to counter the risks associated with the paucity of established institutional control systems.

Appropriately engineered systems, including heat from radioactive sources and nuclear reactors, could offer safe and secure energy to be used in situations which in earlier times would have been dismissed as infeasible and likened to touching the third rail – risking political electrocution. This risk can be rectified by the sensible application of technologies developed during the cold war for example: the use of submarine reactor technology for use offshore of potential natural disaster areas in both the developed and undeveloped regions; and the use of Generation IV systems and the application of Radioactive Heat Sources (RHS) to provide uninterruptible energy in undeveloped and remote regions. To achieve credibility the application of such energy sources must be demonstrated in the developed world before extending their use: a task already being tackled.

To resolve the proviso on institutional control concerning the application of radiation technology in undeveloped regions, where assistance offered by the IAEA may be premature, would require novel approaches to the responsibility for the operation of the energy sources and the appropriate enabling regulation. The unconventional challenges that such approaches might represent to commercial, industrial, domestic and international bodies include: the appropriate regulatory structures; insurance; inter-governmental agreements; interfaces with international bodies; environmental, safety and security considerations; commercial and trade agreements; public information and consultation; and specific contractual agreements. Other than for established practice these tasks are not perceived as being tackled.

This paper necessarily represents only a first academic step in what must become an international project to prepare the ground for establishing the appropriate legal structures to enable the gift of nuclear energy to contribute to easing the burden of natural disaster and energy poverty from both the developed and undeveloped regions of the planet.

11. Rod Adams | 12.31.08

@Nick Taylor - I recognize that ad hominem arguments are not the most effective ways to make a point, but every logical argument rule has an exception. For example, if someone pointed me to an investment book written by Bernard Madoff, and recommends that I follow his prescriptions for making money with steady returns over a long period of time, I might just have to point out that Mr. Madoff, despite many years of being respected by the investment establishment, has recently been exposed as a fraud who has lost approximately $50 billion for his investors because his methods were not sound and he was fundamentally dishonest.

Mr. Lovins has been making predictions and providing energy prescriptions based on approximately the same kind of logic for more than 35 years. For example, in 1976, he wrote a lengthy and often quoted piece in Foreign Affairs that recommended a move away from nuclear fission to conservation. The overall effect of attempting to follow that advice has been a doubling of coal consumption for power generation instead of the gradual phase out that was in progress as nuclear fission plants came on line and shook out their initial start-up challenges. If we had simply completed the plants that were in the pipeline when Lovins wrote his article, we would be burning less coal in the US now than we did in 1976 instead of burning twice as much.

Interestingly enough, Lovins actually predicted and accepted that his prescription to move away from fission would probably result in increased coal consumption. Since burning coal in US power plants is responsible for about 30-40% of our greenhouse gas emissions, following Lovins advice has caused major environmental damage.

The official biography available at Lovins’s Rocky Mountain Institute describes him as a “consultant experimental physicist educated at Harvard and Oxford” and lists a huge number of honorary degrees and awards, but it fails to mention that he was an undisciplined student who did not complete more than a couple of semesters at either institution that he attended. It might be technically true that he was educated at Harvard and Oxford, but the descriptive phrase is designed to deceive.

When someone like Paxus introduces advice from Lovins on an expansive and often confusing subject like energy supply systems (remember, it was Paxus who wrote “The counter arguments to nuclear in general are devastatingly presented by Amory Lovins at tinyurl.com/forgetnuclear”), it justifies the introduction of personal information that may fall into the category of “attacking the source”.

With regard to my own “vested interest” in nuclear, I have never, ever tried to hide that fact. That is why I sign with my real name, have several long standing web sites, and continue to engage in discussions about why I think that nuclear fission is a better basis for future energy production than all other alternatives. About the only commentary that you can find from me that does not include my real name can be found with the nickname of “atomicrod” since some sites do not like spaces in usernames.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

12. Bill Stevenson | 12.31.08

@Nick Taylor:

I cannot make the same connection you do about pro-nuclear movement being another “strand of climate change denial.” In fact, I can only see the pro-nuke approach as a public affirmation that something ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL BE DONE about the potentials of Man-caused global warming.

There simply isn’t ANY existing alternative to nuclear fission that effectively addresses the majority of environmental or economic concerns we presently face in power generation.

Burning coal and other fossil fuels for power releases mega-tonnage of CO2 daily, while also killing over fifty thousand Americans annually through various pollutants and the devastating environmental impact of unavoidable acid rain.

Solar power sounds great, that is until one considers that it would take covering the entire state of Nevada in solar cells to supply clean power to the nation. This would be equal to paving the entire national highway system and all local roads with inefficient solar panels. The inefficiencies, excessive land use and operational cost of solar are far greater than nuclear, especially when compared to pocket nukes. Land-poor nations (such as those on islands) cannot afford the luxury of solar power, and so are typically dependent upon imported diesel/methane powered electricity generation for their power needs. Nanosolar and other alternatives to silicon cells may offer technologies that can be economically deployed on a per square basis, however these alternatives are about half as efficient at collecting power than silicon systems, so will take up twice as much space for equal power generation.

Which would YOU rather have as YOUR own neighbor in YOUR town, 17 huge and noisey weather dependent 1.5 MW windmills, swinging 300 foot diameter airfoils about on fifty-plus acres of land, or a self-contained 25 MW pocket nuke buried a hundred or more feet below an acre-sized site?

Wave energy and Ocean Thermal Generation? NOPE! At least fifty years off before anything signifcant happens.

Biomass? Try again. I’d rather walk while still eating, than starve while driving somewhere else that also has no food. The complex environmental implications of converting to biomass-based power generation are completely beyond our capacity for understanding. In a matter of only a few years of biomass power commitment, we could create an ecological disaster far greater than anything global warming offers us. Brazil is an example of this terrible effect. Cut down the precious rain forest to grow sugar cane to fuel cars. Or, Indonesia’s massive destruction of delicate island ecologies simply to grow palm for oil that can be refined into biodiesel.

Geothermal is also a very long way off, as we simply have no means of efficiently tapping into that source except in unusual geological circumstances. Google “Sandia Labs and Magma Tap Project” to get an eyeful about the limitations geothermal imposes upon us.

What’s left? Only nuclear fusion, which is about a century and a few $trillions away from practical deployment.

Who cares that foreign governments subsidize their nuclear programs? They also subsidize solar and other power sources. They do that because they are socialist-leaning or outright socialists. It is the uninformed and avaricious political climate of the USA that clearly requires OUR attention.

Bill Stevenson, President
Western Mechaneer

13. Peter, Sydney Australia | 01.02.09

Nuclear Design take many years from initial design through approval to final implementation. We are now in an era where sensors can detect temperature, presure and many other variables and react in milliseconds - this is different to when the currently operating recactor were designed in the 60’s

Most of the cost of the reactors are direct or indirect costs related to safety and when you measure accidents compared to energy produced - even including the costs of Chernobyl(under the Soviet corrupt model) nuclear compares favourably with any of it competitors

Nuclear in inherently more efficient with its density of energy many factors aheaD of coal gas or solar - however designs have build in a huge overhead for safety (and for good reasons). Technologies available today will make delivering safety for nuclear at a much lower cost making nuclear increasingly advantageous over its alternatives

Peter

14. Paxus Calta | 01.04.09

I find it laughable that Rod Adams thinks that Amory Lovins incomplete academic record is somehow more important than honorary degrees. Lovins is no fan of the fossil fuel industry (despite his consulting work for them, mostly to make them more efficient, since they are not going away). See his work on Winning the Oil Endgame (oilendgame.com), which has an introduction by that radical George Schultz. Lovins has been recognized by conservatives and progressives a like for his landmark work on efficiency and demand side management. Perhaps instead of trivial personal smears Mr Adams could take on the compelling arguments against nuclear power - economic, climate change and others that Mr Lovins and many others advance.

As for ways to get to greenhouse gas reduced futures w/o nuclear, there are lots of plans. Google has one, T. Boone Pickens has one, Al Gore has one, Greenpeace has one. The argument that we live in a world of coal on nukes is false on its face.

As for the “oh big projects run over budget” rationale. Ask anyone who works in any other energy field how long they would stay in business with 300% plus overruns and 4 year plus delivery delays and you dont get an answer, because they are laughing so hard. Forbes called it the “largest managerial disaster in business history”. But i guess if the nuclear industry is paying you, then you see your problems on the same scale as everyone elses.

Where is the objectivity folks ?

15. [see editor’s note] | 01.05.09

I find it laughable that Paxus Calta thinks that Google, T. Boone Pickens, Al Gore and Greenpeace have the technological expertise to generate commercial power. (Perhaps if one could harness all the hot air coming from Al Gore, but I digress.)

Calta cites Google’s plan, which essentially is deep geothermal energy (google Google + Altarock Energy). Geothermal energy taps heat loss from the planet, which surprise comes from radioactive decay of radiogenic elements concentrated in the earth’s crust. Google’s premise is that if you drill deep enough you will always find hot enough rock anywhere on earth to have a viable geothermal system. If feasible this would be a breakthrough because all current geothermal systems come from freaks of geology where extremely hot fluids exist close to the surface (<2 km depth). Such geothermal systems are rare and can not be “constructed” close to a project site.

Pocket nukes are basically man-made geothermal systems in that a radioactive isotope is concentrated and located a short distance under ground above a conventional electrical generator. Think of a nuclear battery as simply a heat source. Unlike a reactor which requires control rods to regulate a fission reaction the pocket nukes is to all practical purposes a hot lump of metal.

I find the irony of “greenies” advocating for geothermal delicious - all the drill rigs required, drilling everywhere to reach deep heat sources from…radioactive decay. Oh and the drill rigs are the same ones used to drill oil wells - picture drill pads and power lines all supported by google, gore and greenpeace. At least Pickens knows who to hire to drill the well.

[Editor’s note: The screen name of this poster was offensive and has been removed.]

16. Karl Reinecker | 01.05.09

Having spent most of my working years in the nuclear industry, I never fail to be amazed by the continued rejection of nuclear energy by the non-nukes. When I first started in the early 1950’s we faced many unknowns and fear of the unknown was an understandable reaction. Today, 50+ years later, it has proven to be one of the safest industries known by any measurement. Even our political failure to reprocess spent fuel has been compensated for. With the development of “pocket nukes”, safety, reliability and practicality have been raised an order of magnitude and still the non-nukes find reason to complain. I can only wonder what their true agenda really is. As I approach my 77th year and enjoy very good health, I never regret having spent my career in an industry that helps mankind. Can the non-nukes say the same? And maybe my good health is do to that little bit of extra radiation I received servicing nuclear weapons while in the Air Force and managing fuel fabrication programs when working in industry.

17. Leland Rueb | 01.06.09

It’s neither fair nor honest to lump all “Non-nukes” voices together when there is an array of reasons to be careful with nuclear energy. Accidents have happened and with disastrous results. Spent nuclear fuel will still be a hazard for centuries after the current benefits are reaped. By all means, debate over whether it is feasible or not and whether it is safe or not but please, refrain from the cut and dried “fer us or agin us” mentality that anyone critical of nuclear energy has some extreme left anti-American agenda. Weigh in on and address all of the concerns and we just may have some feasible nuclear solutions to throw in to the mix of energy solutions. Divisive politics, as we have (hopefully) learned, leads to short-term victories only.

18. Bill Stevenson | 01.07.09

OK folks, let’s hear what useful and economical alternative to fossil fuels presently exists for the production of electrical energy. In my earlier post I gave my reasons for the belief that nuclear fission is both the most economical and best practical choice at this time, but see absolutely no response from either the ad homenim attacks of Paxus Calta, nor from anyone else.

Way too many of you have developed personality cults surrounding your favorite “expert” or politico, but haven’t any practical knowledge of the complexities of both the generation and business side of power consumption.

Like Karl, at sixty-something I too have decade’s exposure to direct nuclear experience, (from the weapons testing, safety controls and sensors side of the process) and recognize the fact that fission-based nuclear power has been the safest form of electrical energy generation available to this very day. Even with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island combined with every industrial accident involved, the worldwide deaths caused by nuclear power generation over the past fifty years don’t equal the human carnage and environmental damage caused by fossil fuels in a single month in America. Japanese were growing melons on Hiroshima’s GZ within one year of the ~20KT blast.

As far as the cost overruns mentioned, it is no secret that the vast majority of them are caused by the demands of the anti-nuke crowd. When the true cost of fossil fuels is measured, then even the most costly nuclear plant built to date delivers enegy at half the true cost of fossil fuels.

Please don’t bother mentioning Al Gore again, as his only approaches are forms of taxation that force “conservation,” (and coincidentally, HE owns the biggest “carbon credit” firm, so there may just be an agenda there). I’ve already apporached Pickens with a far less obtrusive, far more efficient and portably less costly wind generation system, but have never even been responded to. Pickens has his business plan cast in stone, (including all the graft and corruption required to get it past avaricious American politicos) so he isn’t likely to change into a rational apolitical greenie, (if such a thing actually exists) soon.

Yes, I am very concerned as to what the true agenda of the green movement is. Having been there when the first compact flourescent lamps were created by Lights of America in the 1970’s; and the patent holder for several manufacturing processes that produce electroluminescent lamps, (better-than 99.8% energy efficient light output); and presently developing 100% energy efficient water heating systems, I am far more familiar with energy saving technologies than 99.98% of America’s population.

Begin with only the practical to supply energy to a needy world civilization, then only transition to the futuristic mechanisms when they are finally viable and practical. Let the morons play “god” while they lose their shirts forcing their BS impractical PC/Green mantra on society, destroying both economies and people.

Bill Stevenson, President
Western Mechaneer

19. Per Kurowski | 01.08.09

The current economic crisis presents a great opportunity for the nuclear industry to team up with environmental groups as it must be obvious that the US and the world will never be able to tackle climate change with the current half-baked renewable energy solutions. There is indeed a need to commit immense moon-landing type of resources for the development of renewable energy sources that pass a test of economic rationality signifies, but we need a bridge to take us between now and when those real solutions exists, and that bridge is none other than nuclear energy.

Of course there is a need to insure against the different risks with nuclear energy but the biggest risk is that we allow ourselves to be paralyzed by fears or worse allow politicians to shy away from their responsibilities burying certification under ever lengthier and more bureaucratic procedures.

At this moment when fiscal frugality is much needed the scaling up of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission so as to allow it producing faster response times is the best way to save tax money for the taxpayer.

20. Drew | 02.17.09

First I have been involved with quite a few factory builds and none of then are on budget or on time. They are only a small fraction the size of a nuclear power plant. I think if you look at the Big Dig on the East Coast you will find it is very over budget and very behind schedule.

Second It seems this could be a great export for America

Third Nuclear is obviously needed to fill the worlds energy needs. Why cant you idealist realize that and find the best way to implement it instead of just saying no?

1. NYTimes, Fairbanks News Miner: More stirrings for non-fossil energy in Alaska. Small nukes are in play (still) | Science News | 07.02.09