1. Rod and Amada are examples of people with unrealistic expectations and can not understand why the real is the way it is.
    Amada writes a book about renewable energy and Rod can not understand why she does not discuss nuclear power. Rod, Amada is selling books to people who do not want to read about nuclear power.
    Rod writes a blog about nuclear power but does not understand the electricity generating industry. Nukes are a very good way to make electricity as are many other ways. Rod has a hard time understanding why folks in West Virginia make electricity with coal.

  2. I’ll have to check out the book. The author’s worth checking out too ;-).
    The energy source whose name we dare not mention.
    A useful question to ask is how we can get our supporters “in the closet” (figuratively) to “come out” for nuclear. Let’s just say that I have this weird feeling there are a lot of closet nukes these days.

  3. @Kit P – If Rod “does not understand the electricity generating industry”, then, by inference, neither do entire countries that are choosing to build nuclear-powererd electricity generating power plants. How could they all be so stupid or duped?

  4. I cant find any contact on your blog so this is my only try to make myself heard. this is the case
    In the autumn I have been working together on a project with KSU (nuclear safety and education) which aims to make YouTube videos of their brochures, first out is “ionizing radiation”. Swedes target audience is between 13 to 35. The goal with movies is to spread knowledge about the subject in a simple, flexible format that is easy to absorb.
    We are so happy with the result that we now want to get them to the public, in my search for pages that would fit, I turned on your. I thought it might fit.
    anyway. This is the result http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DE82FF9404E57FF3 Swedish version
    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2F32241381ECC3E7 English version
    Best wishes, George

    1. Georg – thank you for sharing. I have watched the first four so far. Visually very interesting. Solid facts. The narrator is a bit monotone for my taste, but over all the effect is good.
      For future reference, you can find contact information by scrolling down to the bottom of the main blog page at http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com

  5. Realistically, nuclear energy from fission can be either a renewable or a nonrenewable energy resource depending on the technology used. Fission breeder reactors can produce more fuel than they consume and therefore can be regarded as “renewable.” Putting aside even better commercial nuclear options around Thorium (including LFTR – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8 – video 1:22, worth checking out), there’s plenty of uranium.
    Bernard Cohen “Basic Facts” excerpt (1983): “He comments that lasting 5 billion years, i.e. longer than the sun will support life on earth, should cause uranium to be considered a renewable resource”
    Enough uranium for 5 Billion years seems pretty renewable to me too.
    The book Rod Adams refers to, “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy” is a very good book. Here’s a great Long Now Foundation presentation & Q&A video with the author and her engineer-savvy mentor (Gwyneth Cravens, Rip Anderson): http://fora.tv/2007/09/14/Could_Nuclear_Power_Save_the_Planet/ (video 1:44)
    Orlando Stevenson
    Disclaimer: This information is provided

  6. Wow, Doc what a wild leap of logic. The correct inference is that English majors are ignorant of the environmental impact of producing electricity and the decision making process for choosing different energy sources to produce electricity.
    I am not inferring that English majors are stupid or that anyone else is stupid or duped. If fact, I am very impressed with Rod who says he was an English majors who became Engineering Officer on a sub. This is a demonstrated ability to learn.

    1. Kit – I was an English major at a school that required completion of 4 semesters of calculus, two semesters of chemistry, two semesters of electrical engineering, two semesters of physics, a semester of statics, a semester of fluid dynamics, two semesters of thermodynamics, and two semesters of systems engineering. I did okay in those courses. I also managed to earn an MS in Systems Technology.
      I had a distinct advantage as the product of a mixed marriage – dad was an electrical engineer who worked for the local power company for 35 years and often “brought his work home” to the dinner table. Mom was a high school English teacher. The whole family used to spend several weeks every summer camping in National Forests.
      Yet you think that I am ignorant. I am amazed that you continue to read what I write. Why would anyone want to read the efforts of someone they consider to be ignorant about the very subject under discussion?

      1. If that is what is required at Annapolis for an English degree I would hate to see the requirements for a sociology major… 😉
        I think Rod understands things fine. Wanting to change the established structures of energy generation and delivery may be idealistic in some ways, but it represents realism for the longer term.

  7. Kit P, you’re doing a great job of the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing gig, but your attacks on Rod’s perspicacity regarding energy industry issues are starting to undermine your programme of damning nuclear power with faint praise.
    Not that I mind that.

    1. Guest – thank you for the kind compliment – even if I had to Google perspicacity before I could figure out what trait you were giving me credit for having. Being an English major gave me a reasonable vocabulary, but most importantly, it gave me the humility to recognize that I did not know every word. It also helped teach me the value of looking things up. Boy, I wish that Google had been around when I was an undergrad!

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts