3 Comments

  1. More words on paper from politicians (figurative, probably paperless by now). There is no way that strongly worded “mission alignment” statement effects the change the “Nuclear Bros” want to see, which is the rubber-stamping of conceptual designs from MSRs, SFRs, microR garage bands. It seems similar to when top level managers make changes to the org chart because that is the only aspect they can control.

  2. @Michael Scarangella

    Speaking as someone who has been accused of being a “Nuclear Bro,” I think you are being harsh and dismissive. I have a great deal of respect for the staff at the NRC (overall) and I certainly recognize the need for good regulation to ensure both public and worker safety.

    But I have also been observing the NRC’s functioning during the past 30+ years and researching what happened before that. With good guidance from the top, they are productive, with less good guidance they have been obstructive. Clearer legal guidance will, in my opinion, shift the performance closer to the productive side than the obstructive side.

  3. Does this change anything about ALARA or LNT guiding regulations? Then I don’t see it as anything more than a response to strong criticism of both. Changing the “mission” of the NRC without changing either of those is just more of the same, just “better”. Which is not better for energy availability.

    The mission of the NRC is still “avoid accidents”, not balancing the tradeoff of “energy is dangerous, lets make sure its both available and safe.”

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Is Chernobyl still dangerous or was 60 Minutes pushing propaganda?

    On November 23, 2014, 60 minutes, the venerable CBS News Sunday evening program that has been on the air since its launch in 1968, aired a segment titled Chernobyl: The Catastrophe That Never Ended. The show is full of fascinating contrasts between what the cameras show to the audience and what the narrator tells the…

  • The Atomic Show #014 (MP3 – 17.5MB – 51min)

    Show number 14 is something special. It is the first time that Shane and I invite a guest for an interview. Though we have a little difficulty with sound quality, we believe that this is one of our best efforts so far. Our guest, Ted Rockwell is a true nuclear pioneer, having been a part…

  • Parnassus Versus Green Century: A Contrast in Styles

    Cross-posted from Nucleation Capital June, July and August of 2023 were the three hottest months the Earth has ever seen by such a large margin, it left climate scientists agog. Climate disasters are abounding apace, with the U.S. hit by 23 large-scale disasters, a record-breaking year already. In Pakistan, extreme rainfall and flooding affected 33…

  • The First Atomic Age: A Failure of Socialism

    As atomic innovation and entrepreneurialism gains momentum, I thought it would be a good time to revisit an article that I wrote more than 21 years ago. It was first published in the January 1, 1995 issue of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. The first Atomic Age began with high hopes, but it has languished,…

  • The Atomic Show #067 – Interview with Bob Bromm, Mechanical Engineer

    Bob Bromm is a professional mechanical engineer. He has recently been assigned to a new job with the team that has a contract to provide architect-engineering services for a two reactor ABWR for NRG. As we have discussed on a number of occasions, the renaissance in atomic energy has begun. For show 67, I had…

  • Kenneth Pitzer blamed AEC advisors for slow power reactor development

    During the Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC) earliest years, the General Advisory Committee was sometimes viewed as a source of discouraging, delaying advice. Made up of selected members of the scientific establishment, the group habitually sought more studies and inserted costly delays aimed at making the perfect next step instead of taking steps that were good…