APR: your source for nuclear news and analysis since April 16, 2010

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Westinghouse AP1000 ... Who is on which side?

Here is an article for your consideration:

ATTEMPT TO DERAIL OR SLOW DOWN WESTINGHOUSE AP1000 CERTIFICATION

This article smacks of ignorance throughout. Worse, revelation of the content of the "anonymous" letters to the NRC reveals that there's no chance they were written by anyone with any experience in nuclear power of any kind whatsoever. In other words, they're not whistleblower letters. They're anti-nuclear activist letters.

But that isn't the purpose of this post... the purpose is to point you all to one of the best responses you could ever see to an article like this. Look down at Rod Adams' answer to this post. Better yet, here is Rod's comment:


"I find it amusing to hear Mayor Stoddard claim that the NRC never says no. Since it was split from the Atomic Energy Commission in 1974 and formed as a regulator with no responsibility to enable the development of nuclear energy, there has not been a single nuclear energy facility proposed, licensed and started up. NOT ONE. Perhaps Stoddard is correct that the agency never says no, but their passive aggressive stance of never saying yes and asking an unending line of questions even on a design like the AP1000 that has been extensively reviewed for close to a decade is painfully effective at scaring away all investors and developers.

When I read about people fighting to make sure that nuclear energy facilities are absolutely, perfectly safe against any potential outside forces - real or imagined by anonymous whistle blowers - I wonder if they apply standards that are even remotely close to that for coal, oil and natural gas facilities? No matter how much non-nuclear alternative energy sources are promoted and advertised by corporations like GE, BP, Shell, Chevron, Vestas, Iberdrola, Next Era, and Siemens, the facts born out by reality are that Florida has just 4 choices for reliable, affordable electricity - coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium.
The highest point in the entire state is less than 400 feet above sea level, so hydro (falling water) is out. The state has no geothermal sources at a high enough temperature to spin turbines, so that is out. The wind and sun only work if the weather is right - and we all know that weather changes without any control signals from human beings.

Anyone who thinks that it is safer to obtain electricity from coal, oil and natural gas instead of uranium needs to recall just how many times every year people die in accidents associated with those competitors to nuclear energy. It makes me wonder who the people fighting nuclear energy are working for. Coal, oil and natural gas interests earn tens of billions of extra dollars every year by selling more expensive, polluting fuel when emission-free nuclear energy is not allowed to compete.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

-----------------------------------------------------

Right on, Rod!

The only hope anyone would have had for calling any government agencies or committees pro-nuclear ended with the disbanding of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1974 and the dissolution of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy a few years later. Since that time, there have been NO ... repeat... NO government agencies actively promoting nuclear energy, and in fact many of them trying to stop it. Rod is absolutely correct when he says that NOT ONE plant has been built as a result of an application first received by the NRC. All of them were received by the AEC prior to the formation of the NRC in 1974.

The closest there is to pro-nuclear in the government is the DOE's nuclear office, which is now in the link list for this blog. Ever hear of them? Most folks haven't. But they all know who the NRC is!

Let's hope all of you who read the story from the Miami Herald, Rod Adams' comment and my few added comments here now have a solid picture of what is really going on.

8:00 PM Eastern Wednesday 5/25
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW

2 comments:

  1. I rather anticipated such anti-nuke shenanigans striking while the iron was red-hot -- and sour tomatoes on the nuclear industry for shying or ignoring any corrective retort however minor. Really, the nuclear industry needs a clean sweep of all their P.R. departments and replace them with a crew that have a tap and a clue with how the public perceives nuclear power and how to aggressive educate them that we're not talking about harnessing demonic forces. I mean even NASA barely whispers that it has probes and landers that are nuclear-powered while practically flag-waving the solar-powered ones. Super-kudos to Rod Adams for taking a non-PC stance to combat fear with some refreshing enlightenment. If only we'd more of his and Will's ilk out there countering the slurs and hyper-exaggerations and bald-faced lies passing themselves off as "fact" to a largely science-underliterate public.

    James Greenidge

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just caught your fascinating "Camp Century" clip. Almost looks a dry run practice for building a lunar base! Thanks for that! It seems anti-nuke media (have to call them that because they NEVER say anything positive about it) is unearthing skeletons about McMurdo Station's one and only early-tech reactor. This funny thing is if an oil or gas plant caught fire or exploded and injured scores there, they'd simply haul away the scraps and plunk another one in its place. But noooo if it's nuclear; the whole works gets hung on its one petard if one incident occurs. Ironically, in the U.N.'s "nuclear free" (but why??) green zeal with Antarctica, at least in 1980s (and maybe still) McMurdo looked like a grimly slum with thousands of discarded oil drums piled around that were used for its diesel generators -- don't even mention left over seepage all over that "pristine" ground. But I guess that's a lesser evil to the green crowd.

    James Greenidge

    ReplyDelete