This video from the International Atomic Energy Agency includes many enlightening facts and images that should help people to understand why nuclear energy is a valuable, long-term investment.
About Rod Adams
Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.
Reader Interactions
Comments
Then Why don’t they give a hint to the World Bank who’s mission it is to fight poverty and finance projects toward that end ?
Hint. Technology that provides electricity , water desalination.
Somewhat on that note, I did see earlier today that the U.S. Import-Export bank may provide part of the financing for the Temelin project in the Czech Republic, if Westinghouse technology is selected for the reactors there.
Someone should call the DOE …. Maybe they can start doing their job at home and get the loans to support the 4 new nuclear plants !
The World Bank just like the NRC dont read their mission statements.
Rod – thanks for posting this video. It’s competently produced, but the video only talks about current nuclear reactors. The IAEA seems to be taking a position like the NRC in the US, that the only kinds of reactors there are and ever will be are those in existence right now, and the only use for a nuclear reactor is to generate electricity. There is no vision, no leadership that I can see.
And I was very put off by the way the narrator is reading the script. It sounds like a simultaneous translation from a very formal speech, with a highly ominous tone of voice. I suppose it’s the sombre and grave image the IAEA intends to project, but I don’t think it’s going to get anyone excited about nuclear power.
Ben Heard has posted his talk, How can community support for the nuclear option be achieved? and his slide deck from the talk at decarbonisesa.com. I think he’s channeled Dr. Sandman in his suggested approach. A major finding of his is that the conversation isn’t as hard to start as you might think.
And I think a new champion has stepped up. Rod, I think you posted Katie Hudek’s videos here earlier. The video of her talk at TEAC5 is now online: Katie Hudek – Improving Public Knowledge and Awareness of Thorium and Molten Salt Reactors. I want to channel her energy. She has the vision!
An addition on July 30 – Ben Heard has added a PDF of the text of his talk to his post, It’s great reading. And he also replied to my comment:
Ben has gotten results. Now it’s our turn.
Skimming through the Discovery Channel this morning I saw a series on Soviet moon buggy technology “helped save millions” via robotics at Chernobyl. Of course we know as many people died in that event as can be packed into a single city bus, but I wondered whether Discovery or Science Channels ever produced and eternally reran a “Chernobyl or TMI Revisited” to dispel all the hysterical assumptions of mass rad death and mutations in those events fostered by TV programs and news back then. This is a major core in mass public nuclear education: Fixing The Past. How can current nuclear education compete with dated and erroneous nuclear horror programming constantly drilled into the minds of the public daily? We also must ask ourselves, why don’t Discovery/Science/History Channel producers — sworn to ferret out the tiniest truth in science — update their nuclear features with fact and record? The only recent one they seem to enjoy re-running are buildings popping off at Fukushima. Are hypocritical Greenpeace panties showing? Myself I emailed (maybe better letter them) my question regarding this to them long long ago and still holding my breath. Also putting the pious morality of green groups on the carpet for thwarting and frustrating and blocking the interest third-world nations have for using nuclear for power and clean water to save millions of lives yearly is another hot issue that helps the cause.
What would it take to start a petition to Congress to proclaim December 2nd Nuclear Power Day? The publicity (and controversy?) would help put nuclear energy in the public eye, and on the patriotic front, it can be duly asserted that nuclear power is, unlike oil, gas or coal, a uniquely American achieved/developed source of energy.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
They’re trying to get an audience for thier commericals. As Mythbusters proves, big booms put butts in the seats.
That said, I found this when looking for nuclear releated shows on Discovery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzU8M0nU1xc (How it’s Made, spent fuel canisters)
Not sure if this will get covered or not (and from what perspective). Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz testified today on nuclear waste issues in Senate Committee Energy and Natural Resources. Topic was Bill S. 1240, which sets up consent based process for spent fuel management, site selection, and new federal agency to oversee nuclear waste issues (following up on recommendations of Blue Ribbon Commission). Hearings available on C-Span.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/WasteAd
Other folks offering testimony included:
– David Boyd (Chair, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners)
– Marvin S. Fertel (President and CEO, NEI)
– Geoffrey Fettus (Attorney, NRDC)
– Joe A. Garcia (Vice President, National Congress of American Indians, SW)
– Sally Jameson (State Representative, Maryland)
– David Lochbaum (Director, UCS)
– Chuck Smith (Vice Chair, Energy Communities Alliance)
Not offering for long discussion, just thought it would be interested to some (Yucca also a topic, but as footnote to new legislation and proposals for new federal agency, siting process, and partnerships for acceptance, transport, and storage of waste).
I see no productive reason to have Lochbaum or Fettus there. They’re going to oppose a waste site no matter what location is chosen. They will contribute nothing but lies to the proceedings. The only truthful way they could participate is to endlessly repeat, “We oppose any disposal site, because it will injure our cash cow.”
yes (test)