Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:


    1. Glad to see this! the NYT’s article was slanted pro Jaczko and anti-nuclear but the announcement is welcome.

  1. Rod – this is good news, and I look forward to hearing more about it from your point of view. I had a look at the conference program, though, and what I see is an industry focused on their current business model: electricity generation. IMO somebody at an organizational or institutional level needs a vision of nuclear reactors as heat sources for all the industrial processes that need heat. This would build on Cal Abel and Jim Holm’s work on analyzing the opportunities for nuclear heat from reactors of a wide range of sizes and types. I hope you’ll keep your antennae up for hints of the ideas, and put a bug in some ears as well.

    While promotion of existing nuclear is important, I don’t think that visionary work can be neglected. I’d love to see some industry/academia programs building experimental reactors, with a stated ultimate goal of demonstrating the conversion of an existing fossil fueled installation to a nuclear heat source.

    The Jaczko news sounded good at first, but (as I read it) he only resigned as chairman, will remain chairman until he’s formally replaced, and is staying on the Commission until his actual term expires, even though he won’t be chairman. That’s not as good news as I would wish for.

    1. Andrew,

      If Dr J stays on as a member, it means that one of the existing NRC commission appointee will have to become chairman.

      I think the NRC can only have 5 appointees at the top. (Unless they get rid of the lady who is up for renewal. This may be weel thought out by Dr J after all)

      Am I right ?

      1. I disagree. The second sentence of his official statement reads, “My responsibility and commitment to safety will continue to be my paramount priority after I leave the Commission and until my successor is confirmed.”

        AFTER I LEAVE THE COMMISSION sounds like “goodbye” to me.

        The first sentence of the second paragraph reads, “After an incredibly productive three years as Chairman, I have decided this is the appropriate time to continue my efforts to ensure public safety in a different forum.”

        He didn’t say “… in a different role”. Again, I read this as a goodbye to the NRC.

        1. “Different forum,” eh?
          Ten bucks says he turns up with the Union of Concerned “Scientists.”

  2. I think this is a strategic move. Kristine L. Svinicki will be ousted and replaced by the new NRC Chairman.

    DrJ has agreed to serve as a sacrificial lamb and forego his ego for future benefits.

    1. This is not a typical resignation, here are my papers… sort of thing and is very politically motivated. Unfortunately, I think anything at this point would be speculation. Although the ousting of Svinicki is quite possible. I thought Obama has already nominated her and she is up for a hearing. I don’t think Reid is going to want to have a show down over her. By forcing it he would be asking his party to vote against a dead ringer (proven commissioner that is knowledgable and professional) for purely political purposes immediately before a close election (poles are tied) when he has a number of senators up for contested seats. Wisconsin will show how much support the Democrat party can muster with the Unions.

      Also if Jazcko stays on the staff he is still on the hook for perjury by issuing false statements during a sworn in hearing. I am unsure of how much support he has from Reid or even how much Reid can afford to give.

      A lot of moving pieces. And I have no clue as to how it will pan out. Interesting times.

  3. Since we have a Democrat President, my understanding is that the 5 member board of commisioners can only have 3 Democrats. With Dr. J being one of the three I would think that Svinicki’s chances to be re-appointed just got a lot stronger.

  4. Thanks Rod, I’ll go back to Twitter, despite my dis-inclination to read 149 character posts.

    As far as Jaczko goes, my intrepretation of his resignation was that he would stay on as chairmain until he could be replaced, which was always the case anyway. If his supporters lose big in November, he’s gone too; If his supporters win in November, his “resignation” will not be accepted, and he will stay on as Chairman.

    The only thing his “resignation” accomplished was to take some of the wind out of the sails of those whom can use his ham handed handling of just about everything against his political superiors. His resignation was an adept political move. I very much doubt it was his idea.

  5. I just hear from other pro-nukes that “Mr. Gundersen now says it’s Unit 3 that’s fatally flawed and in danger. Again with no evidence, no calculation, no nothing … How can a so-called expert say these and get away with it without any repercussion to his professional career?”

    This is why it is ESSENTIAL that the Nuclear Assembly in Chicago at least squeeze in a chorus of de-FUDing the likes of Arnie and Helen and their ilk while everyone in the industry is one place and before the press!! Anyone at the Assembly, please bring this UP!! Don’t let Arnie slide and do more damage! We’ve long ignored his likes at our peril!

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts