And about time too, for all of us. We seem to have lost (or are behind) on most of the technology involved.
Who’s to blame for this?
1. Hollywood… What did more to set nuclear energy back in this country than “China Syndrome”?
2. A certain politician. If you don’t the answer click on this link and scroll down seven paragraphs. No, you won’t get a prize for guessing. It’s too easy.
If you want to win a prize, go here.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
13 Comments
1. DubiousD:Hollywood… What did more to set nuclear energy back in this country than “China Syndrome”?
Maybe so, but The Simpsons would be a close second, wouldn’t it?
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:13 am 2. Gary Rosen:“He also said a decision by President Carter three decades ago not to pursue fuel reprocessing technology should be reversed.”
Probably not the first time, and definitely not the last time Carter whored out to the oil sheiks.
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:44 am 3. photoncourier.blogspot.com:There needs to be more publicity about the French experience with nuclear power. Given that so many liberals regard all things European as inherently superior to things American, this might help to open their minds on the subject.
The main French nuclear manufacturing & processing company, Areva, is run by Anne Lauvergeon, who seems like she would make a great interview subject.
Jun 19, 2008 - 5:19 am 4. Wellspring:I think that the issue with fuel reprocessing is that it opens the door to uranium enrichment in the third world. If I recall, the technologies are very, very similar. So it’s not a total no-brainer to do this.
On the other hand, nuclear is a fantastic way to get out of the fossil fuel business for power generation. It also is the first meaningful step towards controlling CO2 (as opposed to the purely symbolic steps we’ve seen so far). I’m stunned that this is one of the few measures likely to be effective, and it’s opposed by the democrats on largely religious grounds.
By the way: Can we adopt the French policy towards eco-terrorism while we’re at it?
Jun 19, 2008 - 6:01 am 5. Metalguy:While I am sympathetic to the dangers of easy access to nuclear materials this is fast becoming a non-issue. The transfer of wealth to Iran and the Middle East due to the lack of alternatives to their oil is what is now funding and driving nuclear proliferation. They are getting along quite well without highjacked nuclear waste – another problem that has never materialized. Nuclear energy is now the solution, not the problem.
As to other dangers involved with nuclear energy let me pre-empt the, “What About three Mile Island!!” argument. TMI (and The China Syndrome) happened in 1979 – the same year IBM brought out the IBM PC based on the 8088 chipset. Since nuclear plants then took 10 years or more to build and the designing started many years before that, TMI was put together before the advent of the computer. Insisting that we just can’t make nuclear safe is like insisting that you won’t buy an Xbox because your experiene with Pong was just too unsatisfactory.
Jun 19, 2008 - 7:37 am 6. markus:I support nuclear energy, although like other alternative fuel sources, it needsconsiderable amount of government subsidies in order to turn a profit.
BTW, James Lovelock, originator of the “Gaia Hypothesis”, is a member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. Their website is ecolo.org
Jun 19, 2008 - 8:00 am 7. Rick Z:Another point (perhaps rhetorical, but in view of the extreme hyperbole of the anti-nukes, entirely appropriate)–there were more fatalities in the front seat of Teddy Kennedy’s car than there were as a consequence of TMI.
Jun 19, 2008 - 9:44 am 8. David Thomson:“1. Hollywood… What did more to set nuclear energy back in this country than “China Syndrome”?”
I strongly suspect that the movie “China Syndrome” has personally cost me at least $20,000! It is amazing how much destruction resulted from this Jane Fonda film. The Democrats are literally the enemy of poorer Americans. Their policies have economically weakened the nation. They allowed the radical environmentalists to do as they wished.
Jun 19, 2008 - 11:15 am 9. Lem:Just when you think they are making progress (you know, stuff like the electric light bulb is better than the kerosene lamp) you get this ‘nugget’ from a civil servant.
House Democrats responded to President’s Bush’s call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling… the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.
How in the world does it escape them that most of the worlds (let me say that again) MOST OF THE WORLD’S oil supply is controlled by governments already. Talk about going backwards.
It’s like trying to cure post head injury amnesia with another head injury.
Where do these people come from?
Jun 19, 2008 - 12:18 pm 10. photoncourier.blogspot.com:Refineries…this is like the guy who looked for his keys under the streetlight, even though he hadn’t lost them there, because that’s where the light was best.
Since most of the world oil production is beyond the reach of the U.S.–and Democrats want to de-emphasize the part that *is* under U.S. control–they focus on something they *can* get at, the refineries, even though there’s no evidence that there’s anything wrong with refinery operations.
Why not just move a step or two further downstream and nationalize the pipelines, the delivery trucks, or the bas stations themselves?
Running a gas station just *might* be within the conceptual understanding of a typical Democratic Congressman (as long as they didn’t have to do any auto maintenance work) but these people could no more understand refinery operations than they could design intergalactic starships.
Jun 19, 2008 - 1:25 pm 11. Shaky Barnes:Interesting that the one country in this world that actually has been NUKED … Japan … is indeed a leading user of nuclear power. If they can, we can.
In any case, my energy policy is: Yes to Everything; No to Nothing.
Take that, hippie.
Jun 19, 2008 - 5:46 pm 12. Boojum:What did more to set nuclear energy back in this country than “China Syndrome”?
Three Mile Island?
Chernobyl?
Jun 20, 2008 - 10:51 am 13. DanM:“….although like other alternative fuel sources, it needsconsiderable amount of government subsidies in order to turn a profit.”
Unless you are speaking of spent fuel storage (which is minimally subsidized and can be sharply reduced with fuel rod reprocessing), you are mistaken. Taking into account the reduction in fuel costs, nuclear power is VERY cost-effective. Government subsidy is close to non-existent (excluding NRC and DoE costs).
Subtracting the exorbitant costs of licensing, re-planning – to meet changing demands on the builder and legal fees will, in itself, offset many decision makers’ “negative column” balance. Life cycle costs of a nuclear power plant are only balanced with those of coal, natural gas and petroleum when the initial up-front costs are a major factor. When the nuclear power plant up-front costs are reduced, the life cycle costs of the plant are overwhelmingly in favor of nuclear power.
To estimate costs, there are many factors to consider. For example – not only do you have to generate the power, you have to deliver it to the grid. NIMBY plays a role here also. Do you want a 500KV high-tension line running through your back yard?
Fighting the political will of a population that falters at any hint of ecological “disaster” just isn’t/wasn’t worth the time, expense or political capital it would take to ram them through. If I’m correct, the Duke Power Catawba plant (near Rock Hill, S.C.) was the last licensed U.S. nuc plant. I believe it received its construction permit somewhere around 1979(?)…
Jun 20, 2008 - 12:06 pm