1. Senator Domenici has always stated that new plants will be built very close to were existing ones are operating.

  2. Rod

    In my opinion, the environmental groups definitely targeted nuclear energy, at least around here. They were a huge part of the problem, and their funding increased the more they targetted nuclear.

    For example, there was the deliberate framing of “Entergy Louisiana”. Opponents used this term because the actual workers and plant were so respected. The opponents had to figure out a way to undercut that respect. Starting in 2008, more or less, opponents started using out-of-state terms about Entergy. Shumlin said “Entergy Louisiana” about a dozen times in one speech.

    A quote from an opponent, in the book Public Meltdown.

    “Vermont Yankee is the local people. And there was a great deal of respect for the employees and people who worked there…We tried to be very careful in talking about Entergy Louisiana…psychologically, if you say Vermont Yankee in Vernon, there’s this picture. But if you say Entergy Louisiana, I mean, ‘Oh my God, those sleazy people from Louisiana?'”

  3. Minor correction: While it’s true that Areva’s North American headquarters used to be in Lynchburg several years ago, under its previous CEO, that is no longer the case. The headquarters first moved to Bethesda, MD, and finally, earlier this year, moved to Charlotte, NC, where B&W’s headquarters also are located.

    The offices in Lynchburg are still the largest Areva location in North America, in terms of number of employees, etc.

  4. CNN’s Van Jones’ arguments are so lame.

    I agree. It is time for the young greens to step up to the plate.

  5. Robert Stone is doing very well in those mano a mano wrestling matches with the greens.

    I loved his insanity allusion and Van Jones’ reaction.

    1. And while they were fixating and obsessing on clean energy oil companies were ruthlessly fracking some of their most sensitive areas from behind:

      Calif. Finds More Instances Of Offshore Fracking

      In waters off Long Beach, Seal Beach and Huntington Beach — some of the region’s most popular surfing strands and tourist attractions — oil companies have used fracking at least 203 times at six sites in the past two decades, according to interviews and drilling records obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request. ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=237664921 )

          1. @EL

            I read it, but I did not believe it. SCE made a lot of errors, including tactical ones in their dealings with their politicians and regulators. What makes you think that they will own up to those mistakes in their public communications?

            Please remember that the initiating event that resulted in SCE deciding to permanently shut down two 1100 Me nuclear power plants was a single tube leak calculated to be about 75 gallons per day, which is about half of the rate that the company’s operating license allowed before requiring a shut down.

            Sure, there were some tubes in the generators that showed some unusual and unpredicted wear patterns, but the very worst S/G had less than 800 out of 9727 tubes with any effect at all. The plants could have been operated — from a strictly technical and safety basis — by plugging the tubes and starting back up. They have a 10% overcapacity by design.

          2. Looks like they just didnt want to fix it to me. Gas and imported coal energy is cheap.There also being plenty of pitifully stupid and gullible greens that dont know anything about energy or pollution or real environmental matters, but know they are anti nuke and are quick to pick up the “its broketed” corporate PR line because it fits their myopic world view and simpleton narrative.

            Whats the hurry? – after all much of that infrastructure will need to remain anyway for a considerable time.

          3. What makes you think that they will own up to those mistakes in their public communications?

            Lawsuits have to be based on something? If there’s nothing wrong with the tubes, these companies seem to be much worse off in dealing with media, politicians, and regulators than you are suggesting (and very good at wasting other people’s time and money). People who are typically that bad at their jobs don’t get a free pass (especially when ratepayers are footing the bill) … or get to operate flawed machinery outside of the requirements of their operating license.

            What legal strategy do you think they are using against Mitsubishi (if tubes are a non-issue and unrelated to the shutdown, as you seem to be suggesting). And why should we trust a company that is so dishonest in blaming others for problems that they made themselves (and continue to hide as you seem to be suggesting)? You’re saying this is fundamentally a PR problem, and Mitsubishi is getting blamed for it. Do they have any real lawyers over there, or just smarmy hacks leading Edison by the collar, and telling them exactly what they want to hear?

            1. @EL

              The basis for SCE’s lawsuit is a rather mild “white” finding from the NRC that Mitsubishi had some small errors in its modeling software.


              I am not claiming that Mitsubishi produced absolutely perfect steam generators. I have said that the errors were minor and had no real safety significance. The NRC’s Notice of Nonconformance reinforces that evaluation.

              Mitsubishi is fighting back. SCE is on shaky ground.

              With regard to the following, I am not sure I am following your logic:

              And why should we trust a company that is so dishonest in blaming others for problems that they made themselves (and continue to hide as you seem to be suggesting)?

              Who suggested that we trust anyone without verifying what they have said. Besides, since when is it unusual for a company involved in a legal proceeding with billions of dollars at stake to try to find someone else to blame, even if they made some errors themselves?

          4. EL im not going to defend incompetence if that is what you are suggesting. The plant represents a huge working investment in clean energy. The pipes are just one subsystem. It needs to be made to work, if these companies cant manage it, they need to pay for their mistakes and it needs to be given to someone that can or a good reason for completely abandoning it needs to be given.

            A mis-designed parts dispute is not a good reason.

  6. Me too, I want one in my backyard.

    Unfortunately, like Meredith, I’m losing one I have. Oyster Creek is scheduled to close this decade.

    It’s ironic as it is far more likely that those who live on the Reading Prong will have much higher exposures to radiation – not that they’re likely to have much effect – because of Radon leaching out of fracked rocks than we ever had as a result of Oyster Creek.

    The people who destroy nuclear plants by appeals to fear and ignorance may call themselves “environmentalists” but they are anything but…

  7. I’ve had an operating nuke in my “back yard” since 1986. I also have a major coal burner nearby, and I like the clean air around the nuke much better.

  8. “emission-free energy”

    only as Electricity. Which isn’t that useful because you still are dependent on fossil fuels like France.
    And the banking system behind the fossil fuels calls the shots.

    The obsession with “clean” is also bizarre. Nuclear needs to get dirty…as in extracting valuables from kerogen. Get its own currency and banking system.

    Peddling emission free electricity to a bunch of walmart moochers isn’t the way.

    1. I’ve never heard anyone say that France doesn’t use fossil fuels anymore. Which was a good thing this summer when I was on holiday there by car.

      Can you get a bit more clear with the rest of your post? I don’t really get the gist of it.

      1. So you have a nuclear powerplant in your backyard. Now what do you do with the electricity when EVERYBODY IS BROKE. You guys are like everybody else…screw the taxpayers.

    2. I didnt get my decoder ring in the mail for this post. I have no idea what it even means.

      1. Of course not…its all blah blah blah “emission free electricity” around here. The dastardly dirty coalers are the enemy…

        You need to take the bag off your head and look around. Tons of small and medium enterprises are going bankrupt in this banana republic simply because this rotten banking system funnels all money into stocks. “Clean” energy is as irrelevant to the real world as my post is to you.

        1. @StarvingLion

          You have not been paying much attention. At least in my posts, it is the dasterdly dirty methane pushers that take most of the brunt of the arguments. The emission free nature of nuclear energy is just one of its benefits, I also tout its affordable, reliable, and abundant nature. Coal is reliable and abundant, and cleanish if it is not a grandfathered plant. With some nuclear heat, coal can be readily upgraded and improved in value by converting it to a liquid hydrocarbon so that we can reduce the market power of the multinationals and their banksters supporters.

          Clean energy is relevant, but it is not quite as important to me as cheap, reliable, as American as possible, energy.

          1. Well your post makes sense…but as far as trying to appease the bought and paid for “regulators”….what a waste of time. Take the gloves off and kick these traitors out of this so-called country already.

          2. The regulators my colleagues and I had to sit in front of today must not have gotten the check yet.

  9. I’ve got a nuclear plant in my backyard. It’s been there since before I was born. I actually moved closer recently, and would move closer still without a second’s hesitation. I wouldn’t say the same about a fossil plant. I could breathe the fumes of a coal plant or I could live near my local pair of Westinghouse PWRs which output little more than warm water and plentiful electricity. Choices, choices!

    There’s a movement here, encouraged by the local paper on slow news days and politicians seeking an easy campaign promise, to shut them down. People fear the unknown, and the problem is they are so convinced they should fear it that they don’t want to hear any different. It’s disappointing.

  10. I would take one in my backyard in a heartbeat. I would much rather live next to a nuke plant than a wind farm any day.

    1. If you lived next to a wind farm, your house would have list its market value.

      What a stupid invention.

  11. Why would anyone want the added risk of nuclear in their backyard if coal is readily available? Well, Rod Adams would use the communist global warming charade to prevent the obvious choice of coal.

    I want nuclear reactors in the field helping to mine dirt. That is really dirty to the environment. So thats bad nuclear and Rod Adams wouldn’t support that.

    So Rod Adams is really a big fan of deindustrialisation just like the greens because his emphasis is on fake concern over the environment. A true collectivist who voted for Obama.

    1. @StarvingLion

      You are free to have your own opinion, but before you accuse me of being a communist or a collectivist, I think you should know that I spent about half of the 1980s underwater, silently patrolling the oceans with about 150 of my “best friends”. Our mission was to protect freedom and to deter war with the communists.

      I am no collectivist, but I am also not a rugged individualist who believes that any of us get anywhere without a great deal of help from others.

      Please also disabuse yourself of the notion that I favor deindustrialization or that you can take anything I have written to prove that point. I am a huge fan of using energy and creative innovation to improve the human condition. One of the reasons that I like atomic fission is that the fuels are so abundant and so concentrated that they can provide sufficient power to allow every human on earth now, and all of those who will be on earth in the future for several millennia, to achieve the same kind of abundant living as is possible for the average American.

      I would be happy to help you by providing a reactor to help you “mine dirt”, but I would also be happy to help you figure out that it would be far more profitable, and better for all of us, to take the time to clean that dirt up and to convert the material into something far more valuable and easy to ship before sending it off site. I would not be in favor of helping you to move dirt to a place where you simply intend to burn it and release all of the non combustible materials to our shared atmosphere.

      1. Rod I know you like people but come on, all 150 guys you were with were not your “best friends”. Somebody had to get on your nerves. And why do submarines need so many guys anyways?

        By the way there was 2 nuclear reactors about 30 miles from me, the Beaver Valley units by First Energy. About 12 miles from downtown Pittsburgh. Why not bring up that PA is a leader in nuclear energy with 9 reactors, Westinghouse, and the first commercial power station, Shippingsport.

        1. @BobinPgh

          And why do submarines need so many guys anyways?

          I went to sea on ships fully of complex systems controlled by 1960s vintage analog devices and magnetic amplifiers.

          However, we carried more fire power than all of the explosives used during all of WWII combines.

          Pretty awesome capability in the hands of a very tiny crew of skilled, dedicated, high integrity people.

          I can only remember one who got on my nerves.

  12. I know a family who moved away from a nuclear plant because they were concerned about the “invisible danger” They moved into a huge house with all kinds of marble and granite. They now get more radiation exposure than they did before they moved.

    1. Or the man who refuses that her pregnant wife goes thru airport security in fear of radiation but puts her on the plane anyway.

      1. Or gets her pregnant in the first place. Even with modern medicine, childbirth is still more dangerous than the airport scanner or the airline flight.

  13. Re:
    “….the only fatal nuclear reactor accident that ever took place in the United States. That accident at the SL-1 occurred when a marginally trained operator on a reactor built and operated with a politically constrained budget pulled too hard on a sticky control rod and caused a steam explosion”

    With all due respects to the worker and his family, that the media and nuclear critics cite and harp over this singular case of a nuclear power “victim” is kind of rich considering that a couple of screaming deaths are always figured in the building of a single bridge or tunnel or skyscraper, much less an entire industry. How myopic hypocrisy is!

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  14. In the hype surrounding Pandora’s promise, the no 1 attack bought by the antis today is the cost of building such nukes.

    I think the smartest answer is : We have a close loop system and we handle our waste. All other forms of energy, renewables or not, dump the waste in your lungs, tissus, rivers or anywhere they can do it.

    This is the way to answer.

    1. @Daniel

      That is one answer. I also like to challenge those critics with the notion that there are many safe ways to reduce the cost, especially those costs that have been deliberately imposed by the very critics that are now complaining that nuclear energy is too expensive.

      Many of the very groups that have been suing the heck out of the nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since the 1970s forget that many of us can count, know how expensive legal fees can be, know that the end result of the challenges is often more complicated rules and can use Google and simple search terms to find the documentation that the suits were filed and pursued – along with the names of the organizations involved.

      Court records are public documents and many are available on the web.

      1. @Rod,

        All energy projects get sued or blocked by hte greens. There was a site on that topic, it went something like ‘project, what project?’ but the exact name eludes me.

        Nuclear IS the only industry that cleans itself up. This is a differentiator and deals with economic externalities.

        We are number one.

        This differentiates us.

      2. Let’s not forget, back in the 70s the cost to build a nuke plant was roughly the same (or less!) as a coal plant. I am 100% sure that almost all the cost increases since then are from overregulation and the loss of economy of scale when the industry died. The Koreans can make new reactors for $2.50 per watt and they are now a higher income nation. If nuclear plants could be built for the same cost as coal plants nobody would build coal plants.

    1. Japan’s NRA is all about being transparent. So goes the mission statement.

      So about some timeline on the restarts?

      The Oi reactors were inspected inside out in mid July. What the heck is taking so long ?

  15. Fairly frequent reader, infrequent commenter here.

    Now I’m going to sound like a selfish and greedy individual, but frankly having a nuclear plant in my backyard isn’t good enough.

    I want to see nuclear plants not only in my backyard, but in lots of peoples backyards. I want to see small modular reactors down to the scale of powering individual rural towns and large developments right along side with jumbo reactors powering entire cities and industrial complexes.

    I want to see passively safe heat producing reactors built into the foundations of shopping malls & the like to heat them in the winter, and absorption chillers to use that same nuclear heat to cool them in the summer. Being that there is nothing wrong with leisure and luxury I want to see the same schemes heating things like year-round water parks for those who want them.

    I want to see nuclear heated greenhouses, so even here in Idaho we can grow our own mangoes and cacao trees should the fancy strike.

    I want to see nuclear powered passenger liners and cruise ships plying the oceans, 4 or 5 days from New York to London plowing along at 30 knots with no worry of bunker fuel to keep the props from spinning as fast as they can.

    I want to see nuclear plants along the coast desalinating the massive quantities of water needed to make the deserts bloom with life and pumping in inland.

    I want to see nuclear powered tunnel bores digging underground pipelines to carry the desalinated water, along with tunnels for subways, railroad passages through the mountains and more.

    I want to see small student reactors with a maximum thermal output of perhaps a few watts being built into high schools and adding courses such as basic nuclear theory and reactor operations to the electives list.

    I want to see every scrap of nuclear fuel being reprocessed, not just to recover usable fuel but also to extract valuable industrial elements and gamma emitters for use in food sterilization so perhaps we can stamp out food born illness once and for all.

    I want it all, I want to see a complete de-demonization and integration of nuclear energy into our society and lives from top to bottom so we can have our long promised high-energy future of crystal spires and togas.

    What I want the most though is to see some, hell, ANY of this within my lifetime. While I may indeed be young enough to get to see it someday, I still feel as though things are going to get much worse before they get better.

    Which is the most maddening part of all as there is no technical or physical reason this has to be the case.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

Similar Posts