1. The prospects for nuclear energy in Europe making net gains are grim, to say the least, and quite frankly its only marginally better in North America. However the announcement of major uranium reserves found in India, may be a game changer for nuclear in the Third-World.

    While these deposits are not going to yield high grade ore and are going to be relativity expensive to mine, they will be under the control of India. This will give them the ability to guarantee fuel to potential buyers of their PHWR export units, a major stumbling block to sales up to now.

    While the West keeps burning carbon due to the machinations of large suppliers, poorer countries may surpass us in supplying cheap energy for their populations.

  2. @DV82XL

    The UK is moving ahead with nuclear with strong political support from all parties. Same for many former eastern european block countries.

    It is not over.

    1. What you write is true, but note that I wrote that NET gains will not be very good in Europe, and given the projected shutdown of German NPPs it is clear that planned new builds won’t even replace lost capacity for some time.

      1. We shall see how many nuclear plants France will build close to Germany. I may be wrong, but I have this strange feeling.

        1. It would certainly make sense for France to set themselves up for significant electricity imports into Germany.

  3. Why is no one in Germany crying “treason” about anti-nukes selling out the country to Russia? Guilt over WWII atrocities perhaps?

    1. Why would it be treason? Russia will be supplying Germany with clean-burning, reliable, affordable, and most of all SAFE natural gas. It’s the evil Americans who brought the scourge of “Atoms for Peace” to the world. President Eisenhower will probably be portrayed in the same light as Pol Pot in future German history texts.

      1. Isn’t making your country dependent on a single major foreign power for its energy supplies (or its food or water supplies, for that matter) not treasonous, in the same ways as signing an unequal treaty with said foreign power would be treasonous?

        You may be right about how die fanatische Atomgegner might view things, but surely not everyone in Germany is like that…

        1. No, I certainly didn’t expect anyone to take my comment seriously. My expectation was to get a chuckle out of fellow readers here, but apparently my humor didn’t translate well. Although, if people believe estimates made by the European Committee of Radiation Risk that pollution from nuclear energy and weapons programs up to 1989 will account for 65 million deaths (of course this study is a bunch of nonsense) then it wouldn’t surprise me if future historians try to portray supporters nuclear energy as worse than some genocidal dictators.

        2. John – I had the benefit of having read a number of your comments, so I got your dry wit on the first try.

        3. John – I’ve had the benefit of having read a number of your comments, so I got your dry wit on the first try. It was especially apparent with the comment about safe natural gas

        4. if people believe estimates made by the European Committee of Radiation Risk …

          This is why it is important to expose these crackpots for what they are.

          Fortunately, their most vocal members (e.g., Chris Busby) are so insane that it is obvious to anyone who has not already drunk the anti-nuclear koolaid. These are the people on whom the spotlight should be focused.

      2. @ John,

        There is no such thing as clean, reliable or safe natural gas. Look at the effect of methane on the environment and at the cost volatility of natural gas over the years.

        As for safety, look at the deaths per TWh for all energy sources. It is on the internet.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts