2 Comments

  1. Looks like an organization getting tunnel vision. (“Our mission is the production and maintenance of the nuclear weapons stockpile. Stop distracting us.”) Wouldn’t be the first time and it won’t be the last time.

    There’s a difference, of course, between the AEC and your garden-variety corporation with no vision: the AEC had a legal monopoly over the use of the technology that they were refusing to develop. Working groups with big, bold ideas couldn’t just leave.

  2. Great artice! Thanks!I

    I think the cold war of the late 1940s gave the AEC a clear priority to produce nuclear weapons. That may seem odd to us after the demise of the Soviet Union, but that was not anticipated at this time. Also, the low cost of coal and the immense coal reserves in the US made the need for nuclear power seem less important.

    But I like the history of nuclear power articles.

    And THANKS for including references. I just found “Atomic Shield” on a DOE website. That gives us another hint at what may have influenced AEC to cancel the Daniels Pile – the focus on Zinns EBR-1.

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Pro-nuclear advocates should stop bashing advanced nuclear

    I wish I knew why some nuclear advocates feel that it’s worth their time to spread as much negative information as they can find about the potential utility and value of advanced nuclear power technologies. IMO, modern water cooled reactors qualify as advanced in the same way as a modern BMW engine qualifies as advanced…

  • Carnival of Nuclear Energy 130 – Best of the pronuclear blogs for week of Nov 10, 2012

    Update #2: (Posted at 1315 EST on November 11, 2012) Steve Aplin provided the following contribution from his insightful blog titled: Canadian Energy Issues Cities and power: revisiting Adam Smith’s Division of Labour Post blurb: Modern cities cannot function without electricity. That electricity is usually the product of other people from outside of the city,…

  • Muller influenced the BEAR to adopt the Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumption in 1956

    Hermann Muller, the 1946 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology and Medicine, insisted that there was no threshold of risk from ionizing radiation. His opinion has had a long lasting influence on standards for radiation dose. He was wrong. History is complicated. Influential people often impose their will with long-lasting results. The stories can be difficult…

  • Virginia ANS – Uranium mining, mPower, NGNP progress

    Last night I participated in a well-attended meeting of the Virginia chapter of the American Nuclear Society. It was great to be surrounded by a bunch of nukes who were interested in learning about technical developments and in discussing the current local and national political situation from an energy perspective. Before dinner, I had the…

  • The Atomic Show #053 – Commercial Nuclear Ships

    Shane and I discuss commercial nuclear ship history and future opportunities Commercial nuclear powered ships were tried in the 1960s and 1970s with little follow on units. The United States built the NS Savannah, Germany built the Otto Hahn, and Japan built the Mutsu. None of these remain in operation today and all demonstrated various…