[ RadSafe ] What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?

JPreisig at aol.com JPreisig at aol.com
Wed May 15 16:01:01 CDT 2013


Radsafe,
 
      The fun part about US Natural Gas, Oil,  Coal, Methane, etc. is that 
discoveries of new hydrocarbon energy reserves are  occuring all over the 
USA.  Discoveries are occuring in the Dakotas,  Wyoming,Kansas, Pennsylvania, 
West Virginia, Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma and many  other places.  People owning 
land in these places are becoming  well-to-do by virtue of them owning their 
property.  Oil drilling in the  Gulf of Mexico has gone from one mile 
depths to 5 mile depths.  The USA may  become hydrocarbon self-sufficient soon.
 
     From what I see the UAE is building a new Nuclear  plant also.
 
     Hopefully, the USA will eventually want to at  least replace the 
current generation of nuclear reactors with new ones.   Why can't the US 
Government invest in a small fast neutron reactor, at  least????
 
     Regards,   Joe Preisig
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
 
In a message dated 5/15/2013 4:45:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
joey-michael at uiowa.edu writes:

I would  go further and say that natural gas is killing other methods of 
power  generation as well.  Too bad, because it seemed like we were ready for 
a  nuclear power resurgence.  Of course it could be argued that the  
stringent regulation of the nuclear industry drives the cost well beyond were  it 
should be, then that comes back to risk perception.   

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu  
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Marvin  Resnikoff
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:14 PM
To: The International  Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ]  What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?

What's killing the nuclear  industry is not the persuasiveness of arguments 
pro and anti.  The killer  is natural gas and the unfavorable economics of 
nuclear-generated  electricity.  Several smaller reactors have closed and 
more are expected  to follow shortly, such as Vermont  Yankee.




________________________________
From: "KARAM,  PHILIP" <ANDREW.KARAM at nypd.org>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu;  pottert at erols.com 
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [  RadSafe ] What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?


Unfortunately, as  science/engineering/technical folks we are trying to
use intellectual tools  that are comfortable to us - rationality and
logic - while we are largely  competing against arguments based on
emotion and (in some cases) the  rejection of the tools we hold dear. We
can't use logical arguments to win  an emotional argument.

I would strongly recommend reading "The  Political Brain" by Drew Westen
for some insights into this sort of thing.  Westen is a neuroscientist
who examines how our brains work and why it is  that logical arguments
almost always lose against emotional ones. He points  out that, to a
person wedded to logic and rationality, it seems like  cheating to use
emotional arguments. On the other hand, if we stick  entirely to what
seems fair to us (letting an idea triumph by sheer force  of
rationality), we're bound to lose almost every time. Dick Toohey  spoke
about this book during his President-Elect tour and persuaded me to  buy
the book - it's a real eye-opener. 

The bottom line - it doesn't  matter how correct we are or how
beautifully we have assembled our side of  the debate unless we can get
the attention of those we are trying to  convince.

Andy


-----Original Message-----
From:  radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu]  On Behalf Of Clayton J
Bradt
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:54  PM
To: pottert at erols.com; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [  RadSafe ] What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?



The economic  arguments in Thomas Potter's post are compelling,  and
probably
correct(what do I know about economics?). However, the  nuclear industry
is
subject to federal regulation to a far greater  degree than the fossil
fuel
extraction sector. But even if all the  economic signals are favorable
for
new plants to be built, a license is  still required and the potential
for
political forces to intervene in  that process is very real. Unless the
current trust deficit is mitigated  somehow, it will be nigh on
impossible
to garner public support for  licensing new plants. That being the case,
new
plants will only come on  line if the federal government is prepared to
ignore the will of the  majority of citizens. Fortunately for the nuclear
power industry, present  indications are that the government does not
regard
the thwarting of the  people's will as much of an obstacle.

Clayton Bradt
Principal  Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health

*******Original  Message*******************************
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 23:28:16  -0400 (EDT)
From: THOMAS POTTER <pottert at erols.com>
Subject: Re: [  RadSafe ] What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?
To:  radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Message-ID:

<3854357.48409884.1368588496614.JavaMail.root at md03.rcn.cmh.synacor.com>

Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=utf-8


I am also a supporter of nuclear power  and am mostly retired after a
long
health physics career. I share Bill  Lipton's frustrations about many of
the
posts on RADSAFE. However, I do  not agree with Bill's sense that the
only
( or even the most important)  question the public cares about is, "Can
the
nuclear industry be trusted  to manage the technology?" ?

The collapse of the rapid expansion phase  of the nuclear power industry
development predated both Chernobyl and TMI  and had everything to do
with
economic fallout from the Arab oil embargo  and nothing to do with loss
of
trust. Resulting reduced power demand,  high inflation, and high interest
rates?drove new ?nuclear power out of the  market.

Uncertainty about need for power was also important in this  collapse. A
significant part of? nuclear's economic problem, shared with  renewables,
is
that a large fraction of the ultimate cost of its  production of
electrical
power comes up front when the plant is built. A  significant part of
fossil
fuel plants' ultimate cost of production is  deferred as fuel costs,
which
can be avoided later in the event of  investment misjudgment.

Fukushima is not the most imp ortant recent  development ?influencing the
future of nuclear power.?Cheap natural gas is.  Cheap n atural gas?is
rapidly replacing even coal for electric power  production, while
simultaneously reducing carbon emissions.? In the  continuing absence of
a
substantial price for carbon emission, it is  virtually certain to be the
option of choice over new nuclear or renewables  for electric power
production.

Fukushima was certainly a substantial  blow to public trust. We may see
how
important public trust? is to  nuclear power in the near term by watching
what happens to currently  operating plants. Sweden is not even
pretending a
new phase-out,  probably chastened ?after its earlier phase-out resulted
in
the closure  of only a single unit. Germany is planning a phase-out by
2022,
but only  three units are scheduled for closure prior to 2021. Japan is
already  considering reopening at least some currently shut down  plants.?
Of
course all of these nations are looking for cheap gas  .

The focus on trust is misplaced. If it was all about trust,?how does  BP
survive ? ? It has little to do with? trust. It's all about  need.

Thomas E.  Potter?
_______________________________________________
You are  currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules.  These can be found  at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on  how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You  are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a  message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
the RadSafe rules.  These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For  information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
visit:  http://health.phys.iit.edu


More information about the RadSafe mailing list