It has been a great weekend. I learned something about rugby by watching the Army-Navy rugby match (Navy 19 – Army 17), had a great springtime bike ride and finished up my contributions to the Nuclear Energy “Live” Debate on Green Options.
Judging from the quick poll associated with the debate forum, our team did pretty well. As of the date of this post, 95 out of 128 voters agreed with the statement “Good thing – abundant carbon free energy” to describe nuclear energy. I consider it a team effort because a number of you joined in on the public forum with some great commentary – thanks for the support and assistance.
Part of the weekend enjoyment has been a give and take discussion with Andrew Feinberg of Capitol Valley, the man who suggested that I might be a “crackpot” because I suggested that support from the established energy industry might have had something to do with the Environmental community’s long activism against nuclear energy projects.
You can find an update from Andrew’s point of view at A (possibly) thin-skinned ex-submariner, Nuclear power, and Ned Ludd. Andrew is a smart young man who’s blog focuses on the intersection of public policy and technology. His initial impression of nuclear technology is a rather positive one, but he thinks that it is kind of old and wonders why it has not been as successful as it could have been.
It is certainly a complex topic. Even for people that would rather look to the future than to the past, it is worth some time to understand the interplay of events, decisions and attitudes that established nuclear power’s current place in the world. Understanding the past will allow us to work to overcome those forces of resistance – some internal and some external – that have limited the technology’s growth thus far.
In a day or so, you will also be able to hear Andrew and me in a conversation on this subject for The Atomic Show #089. The show is recorded, but I still have a few steps left in my process before it is ready for posting.
