[ RadSafe ] What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?
davidleesafe at gmail.com
Wed May 15 18:39:31 CDT 2013
You are absolutely, right. Germany and the rest of the Europe are addicted
to getting cheap gas from Russia (GASPROM is a 100 ton gorilla and it is in
the gasoline business too, I think Gasprom or Rosneft have muscled
out BPout of Far East/Pacific oil exploration project).
Gasprom have a very old and harmonious relationship with Germany since
1950's, 60's? In 70's and 80's Germans had the most advance nuclear
reactors design program and all that down the drain, cheap natural gas, I
do not believe it were Greens, it looked like Greens (Grune) but with out
cheap gas it was impossible. In the visible spectrum it looked of course
like Greens did it. But we all know there is wider invisible part of
the spectrum, cheap gas was in that part of the spectrum. And it is okay
too. Gas industry is not an enemy.
Burning hydrocarbons like 5-10,000 years ago like a cave man/woman did it.
This stuff can be used to make plastics, etc., almost everything from
carbofiber (this one may be from graphite) Dreamliner Boeing 787 to
Corvette if you prefer. And we just burn it to get the heat? How different,
it is from the cave man.
Uranium and Thorium on the other hand have no ANY other use than producing
energy (sorry, fiesta ware lovers).
I do not want to preach gospel to the quire here. If everything has its
purpose, Uranium and Thorium have theirs too.
This is kind of spiel, I give to people who is not familiar with nuclear
technology and 0.99% +/- 0.01% of them get it and become visibly nuclear
<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 >
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:28 PM, THOMAS POTTER <pottert at erols.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> ----- Original Message -----
> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:42:27 -0400
> From: William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?
> To: radsafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> CAJODVEFeijbmM6WFmu5SerwHraBVW3idtgsNQQeK9oqbM3sNhg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> As a supporter of nuclear power, who retired after working 26 years at a
> nuclear power plant, it is frustrating to read the many postings and
> arguments regarding LNT, hormesis, mutated tomatoes at Fukushima, the
> dangers of coal, etc. You don't get it!
> The future of nuclear power will NOT be decided by whether low level
> radiation exposure is good or bad, whether the media is biased, whether our
> government is controlled by antinukes, or whether other ways of producing
> electricity are just as hazardous.
> There is only one question that the public cares about: Can the nuclear
> industry be trusted to manage the technology?
> I dare anyone to answer, "Yes," to that.
> Going forward, discussions should focus on what we can do to change this
> situation. The burden of proof is on us.
> Bill Lipton
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> 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:
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe