2 Comments

  1. Here we are, almost one-quarter through the 21st century and we are still wrangling with how, sometimes if, we talk about nuclear energy.

    Aside from the usual groans when the n-word is brought up in climate-and-energy social circles, I’m wondering if the topic is avoided because of the larger more complex topics and complications it introduces? Not just the usual waste/safety/costs issues- yawn, but how nuclear technology and society relate- the opportunity, risk, and responsibilities.

    To me, nuclear is an embodiment of a broader commitment- to not retreat from its challenges but to the acceptance of responsibility to manage it effectively. It’s about recognizing that the path forward requires a complex and committed approach to technology, infrastructure, and societal values. Personally, I think being challenged to cultivate excellence by embracing its potential and challenges, and committing to continuous improvement, is a good problem to have. Could this be the conversation they’re afraid to have?

  2. Currently the UAE has a crude oil output quota of 3.22 million barrels per day. At 6.12 GJ per barrel, that amounts to 228 GW of chemical energy – fossil energy. If fuel refineries are to evolve their input from fossil energy to nuclear energy and captured CO2, an eventual investment of something like 200 NPP would be required. The UAE does have that sort of capital and perhaps that sort of vision. The oil producing nations are not doomed to obsolescence if they make that transition.

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Atomic Show #250 – Being nice nukes

    On Sunday January 24, I invited some of my pronuclear colleagues to chat about the building phenomenon of people outside of the nuclear industry becoming more interested in its advantages and advocating for its increased use. We discussed Meredith’s book project, Gwyneth’s recent speaking engagement at NC State, organized events at COP21, the increasing interest…

  • Why doesn’t Bill Nye, “The Science Guy” like nuclear power – yet?

    In April, the Columbia University Coalition for Sustainable Development organized an evening event titled “Next Generation Nuclear Power: The Solution to Climate Change.” The event included a screening of Pandora’s Promise and a panel discussion about nuclear energy moderated by Andy Revkin, a well-known environmental columnist from the New York Times. The panel included Robert…

  • Sierra Club member asks Executive Director Brune to support nuclear energy

    A few days ago, a friend from Californians for Green Nuclear Power shared a letter he had written to Michael Brune, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club. He gave me permission to share his letter with Atomic Insights readers. My friend is a Sierra Club member because he agrees with many of its goals…

  • McSwain calculates cost of antinuclear actions at San Onofre – $13.6 billion

    Dan McSwain, a business columnist and investigative reporter for U-T San Diego, has published an article titled The secret decision to kill San Onofre nuke. McSwain estimates that consumers will be required to pay least $13.6 billion in additional costs as a result of the unplanned, early retirement. I think that calculation is low because…

  • Ondi Timoner interviews Robert Stone about Pandora’s Promise

    Ondi Timoner, an acclaimed documentary filmmaker in her own right, recently interviewed the directors of four documentaries that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 2013. All of the interviews are worth watching, but I was especially taken with her chat with Robert Stone about Pandora’s Promise. That segment starts at minute 27:11. You should…

  • Nuke Climate Change

    What do you think of the early morning brainstorm above? As we approach the 70th anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are a number of opinion pieces being published that repeat the refrain that using The Bomb was unnecessary. On the other hand, there are also some excellent treatises that provide historical justifications showing that…