Comments for Nuclear Town Hall http://www.nucleartownhall.com Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:28:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 Comment on AFTER SHUTTING DOWN REACTORS, GERMANY IMPORTS NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY FROM NEIGHBORS by AB400 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/after-shutting-down-reactors-germany-imports-nuclear-electricity-from-neighbors/#comment-180491 AB400 Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:28:57 +0000 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/?p=21983#comment-180491 @Steve, instead of more "renewables" they might simply build more coal and natural gas burners, paying double first for the fuel (coal, natural gas from Russia) and then again for carbon offsets within the European carbon market. Or they simply keep importing and France and Czechoslovakia won't have to worry about selling any excess nuclear power capacity. Either way, the ratepayers and taxpayers will have to pay more in an already financially tight economy. @Steve, instead of more “renewables” they might simply build more coal and natural gas burners, paying double first for the fuel (coal, natural gas from Russia) and then again for carbon offsets within the European carbon market. Or they simply keep importing and France and Czechoslovakia won’t have to worry about selling any excess nuclear power capacity. Either way, the ratepayers and taxpayers will have to pay more in an already financially tight economy.

]]> Comment on AFTER SHUTTING DOWN REACTORS, GERMANY IMPORTS NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY FROM NEIGHBORS by AB400 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/after-shutting-down-reactors-germany-imports-nuclear-electricity-from-neighbors/#comment-180490 AB400 Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:15:29 +0000 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/?p=21983#comment-180490 Germany fought tooth and nail against the completion of Czech nuclear plant Temelin in 2001, threatening to shut Czechoslovakia out of the EU just because of that nuclear plant. Well, 10 years later, Germany is now forced to import power from... Temelin !! The Czechs may well return the hostiliy they received 10 years ago by raising the price Germany has to pay for power to a maximum. Germany fought tooth and nail against the completion of Czech nuclear plant Temelin in 2001, threatening to shut Czechoslovakia out of the EU just because of that nuclear plant. Well, 10 years later, Germany is now forced to import power from… Temelin !! The Czechs may well return the hostiliy they received 10 years ago by raising the price Germany has to pay for power to a maximum.

]]> Comment on AFTER SHUTTING DOWN REACTORS, GERMANY IMPORTS NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY FROM NEIGHBORS by Steve Edwards http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/after-shutting-down-reactors-germany-imports-nuclear-electricity-from-neighbors/#comment-180487 Steve Edwards Tue, 05 Apr 2011 03:09:40 +0000 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/?p=21983#comment-180487 The protests will continue till the first power bill arrives. This will be the trigger to the common man who was foolish enough to allow Germany to be run by crackpots that the decisions they put into place will start costing them dear. By the time winter rolls around again, they will be setting fire to Greens and Christian Democrats to keep warm. Green energy is one thing but would Germany be able to generate sufficent power by solar and is there many suitable locations that additional wind turbines can be installed without causing another backlash form the blade noise? I think it will only be a matter of time before the Nuclear Power stations will be placed back on line. The protests will continue till the first power bill arrives.
This will be the trigger to the common man who was foolish enough to allow Germany to be run by crackpots that the decisions they put into place will start costing them dear.
By the time winter rolls around again, they will be setting fire to Greens and Christian Democrats to keep warm.
Green energy is one thing but would Germany be able to generate sufficent power by solar and is there many suitable locations that additional wind turbines can be installed without causing another backlash form the blade noise?
I think it will only be a matter of time before the Nuclear Power stations will be placed back on line.

]]> Comment on OBAMA ENERGY INDEPENDENCE SEQUEL A CHANNEL CHANGER by Jim Hopf http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/obama-energy-independence-sequel-a-channel-changer/#comment-180424 Jim Hopf Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:39:41 +0000 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/?p=21877#comment-180424 I have to object to some of the comments about electric cars. There are enormous waiting lists for the Volt and Leaf. They are sold before they are even produced. Consumer demand outstrips supply by an order of magnitude. Demand is so strong that many dealers are asking for, and getting, $7500 over MSRP for the cars (their - profitable - way of rationing out the very limited supply in the face of insatiable demand). The only thing limiting the sales of these cars is how fast the car companies are deciding to ramp up production. There is no reason the electric drive train can not be used in heavy trucks, just as it is in cars. If there's any problem there, it is purely economics. I have to object to some of the comments about electric cars. There are enormous waiting lists for the Volt and Leaf. They are sold before they are even produced. Consumer demand outstrips supply by an order of magnitude. Demand is so strong that many dealers are asking for, and getting, $7500 over MSRP for the cars (their – profitable – way of rationing out the very limited supply in the face of insatiable demand). The only thing limiting the sales of these cars is how fast the car companies are deciding to ramp up production.

There is no reason the electric drive train can not be used in heavy trucks, just as it is in cars. If there’s any problem there, it is purely economics.

]]> Comment on DID THE MEDIA DO A MELTDOWN OVER FUKUSHIMA? by atomikrabbit http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/did-the-media-do-a-meltdown-over-fukushima/#comment-180293 atomikrabbit Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:25:48 +0000 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/?p=21639#comment-180293 “Why did so many responsible broadcasters and editors not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story?" Serious consideration must be given to Rod Adam’s “smoking gun” point of view, which essentially counsels, “follow the money!” How many media ads have we seen over the past two weeks (and last forty years for that matter) from the oil/gas/coal industry, and how many from nuclear? If you know what I mean by “the Pants-Suited Blonde”, I need not say more. In addition to most journalists’ innate inability to comprehend all things scientific (that’s why they became newshounds and not engineers), in the media business offices there has to be a strong organizational motivation to support their sponsors and denigrate their sponsors’ competition. If the delay or shutdown of one reactor for one year results in an additional $360 million in revenue to the fossil energy suppliers, how much do you think they would be willing to spend for advertising on media that very persuasively, almost subliminally, help to suppress the only viable competitor? These factors, and the age-old, “if it bleeds, it ledes” strategy for attracting eyeballs from the left side of the intelligence bell-curve, is a good reason for those inhabiting the right-side of that curve to do themselves a favor and Just Say No to the MSM, and seek out intelligent commentary and reportage from the new media made possible by the internet. “Why did so many responsible broadcasters and editors not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story?”

Serious consideration must be given to Rod Adam’s “smoking gun” point of view, which essentially counsels, “follow the money!”

How many media ads have we seen over the past two weeks (and last forty years for that matter) from the oil/gas/coal industry, and how many from nuclear? If you know what I mean by “the Pants-Suited Blonde”, I need not say more.

In addition to most journalists’ innate inability to comprehend all things scientific (that’s why they became newshounds and not engineers), in the media business offices there has to be a strong organizational motivation to support their sponsors and denigrate their sponsors’ competition.
If the delay or shutdown of one reactor for one year results in an additional $360 million in revenue to the fossil energy suppliers, how much do you think they would be willing to spend for advertising on media that very persuasively, almost subliminally, help to suppress the only viable competitor?

These factors, and the age-old, “if it bleeds, it ledes” strategy for attracting eyeballs from the left side of the intelligence bell-curve, is a good reason for those inhabiting the right-side of that curve to do themselves a favor and Just Say No to the MSM, and seek out intelligent commentary and reportage from the new media made possible by the internet.

]]> Comment on DID THE MEDIA DO A MELTDOWN OVER FUKUSHIMA? by Jim Hopf http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/did-the-media-do-a-meltdown-over-fukushima/#comment-180284 Jim Hopf Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:30:42 +0000 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/?p=21639#comment-180284 The worst practice, which I've seen often, is having an article that is all about the nuclear plant, and then saying that "the crisis" has caused 20,000 deaths, etc... This (intentionally?) implies that the nuclear plant releases caused those deaths. All they had to do was say "the earthquake and tsunami", as opposed to "the crisis". Given how easy it would be to do the right thing, one can't help but wonder if it's intentional. I wonder how much money the media does get from the fossil fuel industry. The worst practice, which I’ve seen often, is having an article that is all about the nuclear plant, and then saying that “the crisis” has caused 20,000 deaths, etc… This (intentionally?) implies that the nuclear plant releases caused those deaths. All they had to do was say “the earthquake and tsunami”, as opposed to “the crisis”.

Given how easy it would be to do the right thing, one can’t help but wonder if it’s intentional. I wonder how much money the media does get from the fossil fuel industry.

]]> Comment on WILL VIRGINIA BE THE CATALYST FOR A U.S. URANIUM REVERSAL OF FORTUNE? by P. Daley http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/will-virginia-be-the-catalyst-for-a-us-uranium-reversal-of-fortune/#comment-180036 P. Daley Tue, 08 Mar 2011 22:34:00 +0000 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/?p=20679#comment-180036 Nuclear Power has a long history of being both safe and efficient. For over fifty years France has been using nuclear power to remove it's dependance on foreign oil and has one of the best safety records in the world. The U.S. Military has been using nuclear power for decades with an outstanding safety record. The viability of nuclear power to be both safe and cheap has been proven over and over again. Organizations such as the Sierra Club and others seem to only want to eliminate Nuclear Power within the U.S. - Perhaps because cheap and plentiful electric power goes hand-in-hand with economic freedom and prosperity... Nuclear Power has a long history of being both safe and efficient. For over fifty years France has been using nuclear power to remove it’s dependance on foreign oil and has one of the best safety records in the world. The U.S. Military has been using nuclear power for decades with an outstanding safety record. The viability of nuclear power to be both safe and cheap has been proven over and over again.
Organizations such as the Sierra Club and others seem to only want to eliminate Nuclear Power within the U.S. – Perhaps because cheap and plentiful electric power goes hand-in-hand with economic freedom and prosperity…

]]> Comment on NTH NEWSMAKER: COLORADO ENERGY PARK ENTREPRENEUR DON BANNER: ‘IT IS TIME FOR NUCLEAR, WIND AND SOLAR’ by Harvey M. Solomon http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/nth-newsmaker-colorado-energy-park-entrepreneur-don-banner-it-is-time-for-nuclear-wind-and-solar/#comment-179986 Harvey M. Solomon Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:59:00 +0000 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/?p=20525#comment-179986 No nuclers power plants are safe; theyall leak radioactivity into the air, doil and water. the metals inthe pipels af water moderator uclear reactors are changed over time by bombardment of neutronsnand begin to fail with contimination of the air, soil and water by radioisotopes which can be harmful to man. The DOE, the NRC and the nuclear pwoer industries industries go out of their way to insure the public of the safety of these facilities; however when things go wrong they go out of their way to insure the safety of serious events proclamed by the NCR. Fistory has demosrtated a variety of serious nuclear incidents at nuclear poer plants with the release of radio active isotopes which are harmful to humans. The plans to protect people living in zones adjacent to necular power plants are grossly innefective and should br subject ot review before any serious construction efforts are undertaken. Criticality incidences at these faciities and the possibilit of terrorist attacks on them put the lives of thousands of Americans at risk. Moreover, spent fuel rods from nuclear poer plsants are more radioactive than the initals fuel elementa and, at present, there is no centralized plan for their disposal. Pressure form the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regularatory industry and the nuclear power industry is exerted to induce communities to consider construction of nuclear power plants, None of the many doen side issues of having such facilities are serious discussed, Moreover, when the pipes begin to leak, and contimination of the earth, air and water become issues, The primary roles of the DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Industry and the nuclear power industry is denial of these issues, attackes on the individuals who make them and little if any attempt to remediate issues of concern. We, in New Mexico, have a long history of how our national nuclear laboratories respond to issues of contimination by having their PR departments make slick and marginally truthfly fables about hoe they are correcting issues of contaminuation. Before any stampede to conctruct a nucler powe plant in your area there should be deep and thorough discussions with the national government about what kinds of protestion will be available to citizens living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants. Unless this is done every nuclear power plant represents a future serious hazard to the surrounding communities. No nuclers power plants are safe; theyall leak radioactivity into the air, doil and water. the metals inthe pipels af water moderator uclear reactors are changed over time by bombardment of neutronsnand begin to fail with contimination of the air, soil and water by radioisotopes which can be harmful to man. The DOE, the NRC and the nuclear pwoer industries industries go out of their way to insure the public of the safety of these facilities; however when things go wrong they go out of their way to insure the safety of serious events proclamed by the NCR. Fistory has demosrtated a variety of serious nuclear incidents at nuclear poer plants with the release of radio active isotopes which are harmful to humans. The plans to protect people living in zones adjacent to necular power plants are grossly innefective and should br subject ot review before any serious construction efforts are undertaken. Criticality incidences at these faciities and the possibilit of terrorist attacks on them put the lives of thousands of Americans at risk. Moreover, spent fuel rods from nuclear poer plsants are more radioactive than the initals fuel elementa and, at present, there is no centralized plan for their disposal. Pressure form the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regularatory industry and the nuclear power industry is exerted to induce communities to consider construction of nuclear power plants, None of the many doen side issues of having such facilities are serious discussed, Moreover, when the pipes begin to leak, and contimination of the earth, air and water become issues, The primary roles of the DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Industry and the nuclear power industry is denial of these issues, attackes on the individuals who make them and little if any attempt to remediate issues of concern. We, in New Mexico, have a long history of how our national nuclear laboratories respond to issues of contimination by having their PR departments make slick and marginally truthfly fables about hoe they are correcting issues of contaminuation.
Before any stampede to conctruct a nucler powe plant in your area there should be deep and thorough discussions with the national government about what kinds of protestion will be available to citizens living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants. Unless this is done every nuclear power plant represents a future serious hazard to the surrounding communities.

]]> Comment on HOUSE ENERGY COMMITTEE SENDS CHU OPENING SALVO ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN by greg http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/house-energy-committee-sends-chu-opening-salvo-on-yucca-mountain/#comment-179964 greg Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:10:54 +0000 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/?p=20419#comment-179964 Come on, you guys at least have to admit that selection of Yucca (or rather, ignoring two other potential sites) was all politics. The process was rotten to begin with and I can't blame Nevadans for balking. Criticize the reasoning if you want, but public buy-in IS fundamental to the success of any program like this. Come on, you guys at least have to admit that selection of Yucca (or rather, ignoring two other potential sites) was all politics. The process was rotten to begin with and I can’t blame Nevadans for balking.

Criticize the reasoning if you want, but public buy-in IS fundamental to the success of any program like this.

]]> Comment on HOUSE ENERGY COMMITTEE SENDS CHU OPENING SALVO ON YUCCA MOUNTAIN by JD http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/house-energy-committee-sends-chu-opening-salvo-on-yucca-mountain/#comment-179963 JD Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:50:37 +0000 http://www.nucleartownhall.com/?p=20419#comment-179963 Steve, Essentially, yes. Lately the answer has been "we didn't get political buy-in". Prior to that the answer was "we started looking at Yucca Mtn 20 years ago, technology has advanced so much since then." (Although no specific new information regarding safety was ever named. I do think this is a reasonable argument to revisit the back end of the fuel cycle altogether - however, a repository would still be needed regardless.) And of course prior to that in 2008, when Chu was director of Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Lab, he signed on to a report that said, in the section on waste disposition: "Confidence regarding the disposal of waste is needed before the NRC will grant a license for a new plant and before private investors will accept the financial risk of ordering new nuclear plants. In the short term, this confidence can be achieved by continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain and enabling the continued interim storage of used nuclear fuel in dry casks and fuel ponds." "...even with recycling, a geologic repository will be required." http://www.thenwsc.org/ym/DOE%20Lab.%20Dirs%20Rpt%20Sustainable%20Energy%20Future%200808.pdf It's pretty clear what's going on, everybody knows it, and this letter is just an attempt to keep up the pressure. A similar letter was written in 2009 and clearly nothing came of that. I wrote to my congressional representatives last year, before the OCRWM dismantlement, outlining how this is blatantly inconsistent with the law and Obama's own statement on "science-based policy". No dice. Steve,

Essentially, yes. Lately the answer has been “we didn’t get political buy-in”. Prior to that the answer was “we started looking at Yucca Mtn 20 years ago, technology has advanced so much since then.” (Although no specific new information regarding safety was ever named. I do think this is a reasonable argument to revisit the back end of the fuel cycle altogether – however, a repository would still be needed regardless.)

And of course prior to that in 2008, when Chu was director of Lawrence Berkeley Nat’l Lab, he signed on to a report that said, in the section on waste disposition:

“Confidence regarding the disposal of waste is needed before the NRC will grant a license for a new plant and before private investors will accept the financial risk of ordering new nuclear plants. In the short term, this confidence can be achieved by continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain and enabling the continued interim storage of used nuclear fuel in dry casks and fuel ponds.”

“…even with recycling, a geologic repository will be required.”

http://www.thenwsc.org/ym/DOE%20Lab.%20Dirs%20Rpt%20Sustainable%20Energy%20Future%200808.pdf

It’s pretty clear what’s going on, everybody knows it, and this letter is just an attempt to keep up the pressure. A similar letter was written in 2009 and clearly nothing came of that.

I wrote to my congressional representatives last year, before the OCRWM dismantlement, outlining how this is blatantly inconsistent with the law and Obama’s own statement on “science-based policy”. No dice.

]]>