Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

9 Comments

  1. David – I am not quite sure I understand your comment. “Unconformable” is a term that normally is applied to a stubborn rebel who will not change his views to fit in with a group. Who in the segment fits that description? (I am planning on putting up some additional interactions that show that Bunning’s questions were not outside of the group norms, thought there are very definitely some people, like Bernie Sanders, who disagree.)

  2. Sorry, Charles Barton mentors me in the art of the typo. 🙂
    Uncomfortable. Actually when I said I’d love to testify, I’d also like to be the one throwing me questions as well! In fact, I think all of us should be up there answering and asking questions.
    DW

  3. Why is a 20% share of electrical power generation from nuclear a natural “right number” for America during an era when the US is trying to reduce its production of GHGs and use of fossil fuels?
    Much of the way we provide support for new nuclear energy and the level at which we set the NRC regulatory burden seems to be predicated on the perception that 20% of electricity generation from nuclear is right.
    Is this just a concession to other powerful energy sectors that just do not want to see market share erode to a more cost effective nuclear sector competitor?
    We can apparently simulate with some quantitative accuracy simple processes like the global climate on Teraflop supercomputers. Can we quantitatively simulate the impact of reducing regulatory burden and cost on the nuclear industry and determine if there is not a better reduced level of regulatory burden and an alternative way of funding the NRC bureaucracy that would allow more nuclear plants to be built at reduced cost amd in an accelerated time frame without sacrificing safety?
    Why not fund the NRC the way we fund the FAA and set the level of regulatory review of nuclear reactors to a level comparable with the level of regulatory review the FAA applies to the design and building of new airliners?

  4. Well, that was a conversation in slow motion if I ever heard one. If government behaves as slow as these two speak then the senator would have been able to answer his own question. On a more serious note – Rod, where can the original video be viewed?

  5. Basically a good exchange. One interesting part of the discussion was Bunning’s description of France as not ‘progressive’. I think what he was trying to say was technically advanced (which is of course ludicrous — I think we can find a few French engineers and scientists that are not half bad). Of course a Republican finds it very difficult to say anything good about France. In fact France makes both ‘sides’ in our country uncomfortable. How can it be that the most socialist country in Europe (perhaps with some competition from Scandinavia) is chock full of nuclear energy? Don’t they know that ‘liberals’ oppose nuclear energy and ‘conservatives’ support it? It just shows how our particular cultural divide just doesn’t apply everywhere. My politics are much to the left (for an American) but I am also a Scientist and strong supporter of nuclear energy, which I really do believe is THE answer (not just ‘part’ of the solution). I also point out on these blogs that America is unlikely to lead on Nuclear Energy. That is going to come from Asia.

  6. Bunning needs to get his head out of his nether regions so he can wake up and smell the coffee. We don’t need a fool like him playing games with important legislation. He is a fool!

Comments are closed.