[ RadSafe ] What's Killing The Nuclear Industry?

David Lee davidleesafe at gmail.com
Wed May 15 19:07:10 CDT 2013 

or we can try to ask Jimmy Carter to change his mind what are we gonna
loose?
It would be a nice to have him in our corner. If I see him, I will ask, if
you see do the same.


On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:01 PM, <JPreisig at aol.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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