Everything is wrong with this

Over at the always excellent Depleted Cranium last week, the topic was GM foods. At comment 16, we catch the first appearance of Debs in this thread, a girl apparently training to be a case study in a critical thinking class.

The problem with GM crops is that we start to think that man is capable of doing
better than nature.

But we can! Ever seen a strawberry that grows in the wild? It's rubbish. The strawsberry's we buy are the product of centuries of selective breeding with a helpful dose of agricultural technology.

We know nature made these plants a certain way for a reason and because they’re
natural our bodies are able to digest them because we coevolved.

Nature has no reason for doing anything. Nature is just... er... something not man made. Whatever it is, it has no intelligence, no reason. Save the intelligent design rubbish for the next Creationist convention.

Now we start saying that the way to do it is to take a gene from this plant and
put it here and this plant and put it here and move this one here. It’s
Frankenstein!

It's been ages since I've read Frankenstein, and I never did read it very thoroughly, but wasn't the story about the ignorant, hysterical masses reacting negatively to Frankenstein's originally benign creation and then driving the being to murder? And Dr. Frankenstein himself was quite superficial too. The moral being that hysteria is your own undoing (well that might not have been Mary Shelley's intended moral).

We don’t know what we’re doing because the system is beyond what we
understand and it exists a way for a reason.

While there is much more for us to learn, we do understand the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. To imply we don't understand genetics is simply a self-confessed ignoramus assuming that no-one could possible be more educated than herself.

We will only show how little we know when it comes back to haunt us. This
happened many time before for example nuclear we thought we understood and then
found out that it was blowing up in our face and ruining everything.

Although Debs fails to demonstrate sufficient to convince me that she doesn't think nuclear reactors are blowing up on a weekly basis across the world, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she means Chernobyl. It wasn't a lack of understanding that led to that accident, it was a lack of responsibility.

We can’t afford to ruin all our crops and pollute them with our chemicals that
were never meant for our bodies or the world!

A little apocalyptic foreboding always helps when feeding your prejudices. Who is it that never intended these chemicals for our bodies? This "nature" intelligence? Pure superstition!

All I know about it is the ppl who really care about the earth and the future
and being sustainable are all against it for good reasons. I’m
not an expert on it and I bet anyone who wants it either isn’t or maybe they are
and get paid for it, but those of us who care about it can tell you every
environment group that looked at it saw the problems right away!

Classic poisoning the well fallacy. Define anyone with a contrary opinion as either being a corporate $hill or just plain stupid. Never consider that you may be wrong.

Everyone who cares and knows feels the same way and they’re the ones I
would like to listen to.
Why should I believe you? You’re for it and that’s
why I’m not about to trust you!

Circular argument. "I only trust people who say X and I believe X because people I trust say it."

I suppose it's nice to live in a cozy bubble where you think it is rational to only listen to people who tell you things that reinforce your own prejudices.

Debs seriously needs a lesson on rational thought possibly with a wack on the head if it'll help knock some sense into her.

Does radioactivity becomes more hazardous once we've touched it?

Of course not. Radioactivity is radioactivity (of the various varieties there is of course) whether it's just lying in ground for 2 billions, or whether we dig it up and manufacture some fuel rods out of it.

So then what is this neurotic obsession with radioactive material, that was lying in the ground, once it is extracted?

Timmy makes a good observation.

Further, think about what the actual complaint is even if it does leak. There
used to be lots of uranium in the ground here. Now some of it has gone back into
the ground. Scary, eh?

Once we take some uranium out of the ground, what's wrong with allowing it seep back in? It was already there in the first place!

It's like the epic tale of 10ft metal pipe. A nuclear operator orders 10ft of metal pipe. As with all materials, there is some natural radioactivity in this pipe. The technicians get the pipe, but only need to use 9ft of it. The remaining 1ft is scrap. However, because of this natural radioactivity, the pipe must be treated as low level waste. Can't see a coal fired power station being particularly bothered about that.

This highlights more stupidity about waste arguments. Best one is depleted uranium and the outrage that opponents display towards the buildup of this EEvil substance. We take natural uranium out of the ground, which has a specific activity of 12.8 MBq.kg^-1* and return it as depleted uranium, which has a specific activity of 12.3 MBq.kg^-1. In doing so, we've made the ground less radioactive. Surely the radiophobes should like that. But because the radioactivity is something that we've touched, it automatically becomes worse than what was sitting in the ground naturally.

On nuclear waste as a whole. By disposing of vitrified fission products, which will decay to below the activity of uranium ore within 600 years, the legacy we are actually leaving for future generations is a ground, which is less radioactive in the long term than it would be otherwise.

Think about that!

*Figures are in becquerels per kilogram of uranium, ignoring all the other stuff in the ore.

It's on

It's all going down on Iain Dale's Diary. Two anti-nuclear Tories and grumpy highlander.

While we wait...

... for the inevitable assault from the Usual Suspects tomorrow on the myriad of cracks from the Government of All the Talentless, why not have a read of what we could have had from them if they were more intelligent?

Randal Leavitt of Positive Energy made a submission to the energy consultation that Greenpeace is no doubt about to get voided. He has posted it here.

Define "unsafe"

I sense that it may be necessary to add the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa incident to the Other accidents page, since it has been exploited by the fuddites far more than I had (naively) expected. Over at NEI Nuclear Notes, a commenter is milking it for all its worth.

Secondly, NEI can try to mitigate reality all they want...this quake has shown
nuclear reactors to be unsafe, and with each passing hour, the number of
SIGNIFICANT issues at the world's largest reactor site continue to grow.

This raises one important question: what does "unsafe" mean? Does it mean that the device is impervious to all forms of damage and fault? Or does it mean that the device is suitably designed so as to prevent harm to the public?

It is universally agreed that cars themselves are safer than they were decades ago. That is not just due to inventions such as seat belts and airbags. It is also due to the engineering of the vehicle itself. Such advancements are commonly made the subject of some adverts.

One such advancement is the inclusion of crumple zones. These are areas of structure in the front of the car built to collapse in the event of an impact. In collapse, they absorb the energy of collision, thereby ensuring it does not pass to the occupants, hurting or killing them. The car essentially is designed to fail, sacrificing itself, in order to save the occupants.

So safety of cars was improved by allowing them to be more heavily damaged from collisions. The importance of this is the fact that those automotive engineers had a very clear idea as to what constitutes safety. Safety is about protecting people from harm, not about protecting equipment.

If we apply this to Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, we reach one inescapable conclusion: the power station is safe. This is because no-one has been hurt as a result of it. Some equipment, especially the transformer that caught fire (not a nuclear event anyway), was damaged. Some LLW containers were knocked over (and I'm sure LLW storage methods will be reviewed), but the radioactivity released was less than the radioactivity from the hordes of feral journalists hunting down the Tepco officials for a statement.

Did the earthquake do damage to other parts of the massive facility? There's a good possibility of that and safety critical equipment should be checked as soon as possible. But equipment fault does not equate to lack of safety as long as it does not endanger the public.

We have no evidence of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa bringing credible threat to the public, certainly not on the scale of the devastating earthquake itself, which has killed 8 people and injured hundreds more. Therefore, to say the power station is unsafe, is pure FUD.

On a more general note, Japan has been waiting a long time for an overdue earthquake. Let us hope this was it.

The nuclear crash

A month ago, I argued that the Conservatives were a safer bet when it comes to getting more nuclear power stations in the UK. One of my arguments was that the Conservative back benches are more favourable than the front benches meaning the pressure would be on a Conservative government to push more towards nuclear as compared to a Labour government, which may be hindered by the back benches and especially any potential coalition partners (no-one other than the Ulster Unionists like the Tories so there's no worry about coalition partners with a Conservative Hung Parliament).

Mark Field, MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, validates my point by writing a neat article arguing for stronger support for nuclear power.

A lot of what he said we've been saying for ages of course, but there were a few interestings things. One point was how nuclear proponents in Britain are not attacking the opposition head on with their doom-mongering and falsehoods, but rather trying to sidestep their issues by arguing the situation with global warming and energy security is so dire we have no choice but to accept these negatives.

Another point, which got me thinking, was the factors that led to the halt in nuclear construction in the 1980s. It is easy to always blame an overburdeonsome regulatory framework, one which imposed unecessary and unproductive red tape on the industry, on this dry spell. That is of course a major factor, but there are other issues of the time, namely the oil shock, and the 1980s high interest rates.

Mark correctly points out that the oil shock caused a dramatic reduction in energy consumption. Lower than expected demand is not good for nuclear. Similarly, high interest rates affect nuclear economics far more dramatically than fossil fuels.

This is because of the difference between CAPEX, capital expenditure, and OPEX, operating expenditure. In the context of power stations, CAPEX would be the cost of building the facility in the first place, while OPEX is the cost of running the facility, including the cost of the fuel.

Comparing fossil fuels and nuclear, one thing becomes abundently clear: fossil fuels are OPEX intensive, while nuclear is CAPEX intensive. Fossil fuels need a constant supply of fuel to keep the plant going, so they have the burdeon of this constant expense throughout their life. Nuclear fuel on the other hand is only a tiny proportion of the overall cost. The energy density of uranium is so great that a few tonnes of uranium will keep a reactor going for a year. However, a nuclear reactor, with all its sophistication (anyone can burn some coal, but making uranium go critical on water is not a job for the sloppy) and its need for containment structures and the like, entails comparatively higher construction costs.

This is to nuclear's disadvantage. It's better to be OPEX intensive than CAPEX intensive. The neat thing about being OPEX intensive is that you spend your money as you are making money. Sure the incessent cost of the fuel must be a pain, but at least your generating power - and revenue - as you buy. If you're CAPEX intensive, all your money is paid up front and you have to hope your forecasts were correct because you are dependent on many years of production to earn back the money.

The drop in consumption after the oil shock is a problem for a CAPEX intensive energy source since there is less demand for its energy without a corresponding drop in investment. For a fossil fuel power station running on reduced power because of a lower than forecast market demand, at least they have the consolation of not having to pay as much for fuel, reducing OPEX. And naturally, since those fat loans are going to be used to cover CAPEX rather than OPEX, it goes without saying that the high interest rates of the 1980s were not kind to nuclear prospects.

So that's another couple of reasons to add to the grand list of factors bringing about the nuclear crash.

• The oil shock reducing energy demand.
• High interest rates.
• High regulatory burgeon.
• Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
• CND smears.

What is a cooling tower?

A curious confusion of nuclear image continues to endure. This is a cooling tower:

And this is the emblem of the campaign group Nuclear Free Vermont:

As Stewart Peterson raised, this clearly shows that NFV are opposed to cooling towers. I say we bring them to Britain, because their campaign against cooling towers will favour the nuclear industry there. In Britain, most nuclear reactors are on coast lines and as such use open cycle cooling. This means they don't have cooling towers. On the other hand, coal power stations are dotted inland across the country and frequently feature a field of these things, for example Didcott or the area formerly known as Drakelow.

It would seem more logical for the glorious containment domes to be the image associated with nuclear power, but in fact it is the cooling towers, more accurately to be associated with coal, which have stuck to nuclear. Even the banner of the main website, made by a kind supporter of nuclear party (in the Liberal Democrat party no less), makes focus of cooling towers. In fact, I suspect the power station featured may indeed have been Drakelow coal power station in the Midlands of England. I certainly know I had to paint out a chimney stack before using it.

It's probably no surprise myths about nuclear power last if such a fundamental and emperically disproveable perception remain fixed in the public mindset.

While on the subject of Nuclear Free Vermont...

How can it be "clean" when it produces lethal radioactive waste that will be
dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years and for which scientists have not
yet found a permanent solution?

The Greenpeace random number generator makes a return appearance. The worst datum that could be used is ten thousand years and even that betrays the reality of the situation because that is the time it takes unreprocessed spent fuel to decay to below the activity of the original uranium ore, itself not the most lethal material found in nature.

If nuclear power were "safe", why would all the towns surrounding the reactor
need an Evacuation Plan that requires hundreds
of hours from local officials and volunteers for meetings,
trainings and drills, a Plan that many citizens doubt would work if there were a
serious accident in Vernon?

That is obviously because ignorant organisation such as NFV perpetuate fear of nuclear power forcing city planners to react by creating the assurance of an escape route. Incidentally, other types of facilities often have emergency escape plans. Curiously, the nuclear ones are needed the least.

Are we doomed enough yet for a panic nuclear build?

As you might imagine, the BBC are positively dripping and drooling over the lastest Halloween fright fest.

Here's an interesting thought from Timmy. Based on the figures from the Stern report, fuel tax is already too high.

Anyway, since we're doomed once again, why is there not already a panic building of new nuclear reactors? Here's a vision:

• Under government legislation/taxation/summin' or nuffin', coal is rendered extinct within 15 years as new nuclear reactors, a mix of the new LWRs plus CANDUs for a nationwide DUPIC cycle, come on stream.
• Money is shovelled by the council tax load into Eskom to develop the PBMR as well as to Chinese HTRs. Industrial energy requirements are then met with pebble bed modules providing heat and work through the safe helium coolant. Within 30 years, no manufacturing business is using fossil fuels for energy.
• Baseload gas power is replaced within 25 years.
• Homes are given tax breaks/grants to convert to all-electric so they can be heated by the electricity produced from the new nuclear fleet. A Manhatten project effort and it's done by 2040.
• All marine vessels go nuclear within the next two decades. Dover to Calais by Westinghouse.
• New cooling systems channel waste heat to produce synthetic alkanes for use in motor vehicles and aircraft. Technically trickier. It might take 50 years or more, but significant progress could be made towards reducing the fossil content of our hydrocarbon energy sources.

We could be nearly carbon neutral by 2050.

There is no explicable justification for the loudest alarmists, who repeatedly shout from the roof tops how our death is assured if we don't do something about global warming yesterday, to oppose any and all nuclear expansion. They keep on worrying about not having gotten through to people. Maybe if they didn't keep on trying to have their cake and eat it too (though for the affluent metropolitan elites, I suppose such luxuries are affordable), they would have more credibility.

For the love of neutrons NO!

The rumour spread by Iain Dale is that Al Gore is joining the British government.

Well there goes our energy security.

I hope exploration in the North Sea is going well because if Gore is here, our energy consumption will go through the roof. And of course, none of it can come from nuclear reactors (unless they are unseen across the Channel) so demand for hydrocarbons will spike more than when David Cameron is cycling to Westminster (ably followed by his armoured motorcade).

Poverty is not charming

The Englishman picks up on a trailor for a new polemic.

But it's a polemic with a difference. It's all about Eco-imperialism. Yes the bit when the narrator talked about "a new environmetally friendly mine" did sound a bit $hilly (such as for the Canadian company Gabriel Resources providing some of the funding for the movie). But that's not the important thing. The important thing is Greenpeace. One Greenpeacer said,

"I think the quaintness of Fort Thingy, the small town feeling, will
change."

How incredibly arrogant! He's denying these people vital investment because of such sentimental, selfish slush? Who is he to decide what the feel of this town should be?

When questioned on the fact that the people he were talking about were poor, he responded

How do we define what is rich and what is poor? Who is rich and who is
poor?

Hmm, let's see. You're rich. They're poor. That enough of a definition for you?

Cock!

Concerning DUPIC

DUPIC stands for Direct Use of spent PWR fuel In CANDU. Yeah, not the best acronym in terms of reflecting what it stands for but it's a cool word.

I make a reference to it on the waste page. Stewart Peterson at NIOF has something more extensive. So here is the Support DUPIC campaign button.

Mandate to blog

For those not familiar with affairs of B-stories in British politics, the situation is this:

• David Cameron MP, leader of the Conservative party and HM Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons, started a video blog to better communicate to the electorate without having to depend on the rather undependable mainstream media. Good idea.
• Sion Simon, labour MP for the constituency of Birmingham Erdington, didn't like it.
• Simon prepared a spoof video in which he parodied Cameron by doing a poorly written rap, which included offering to sell his children and prostitute his wife.
• Tom Watson, Labour MP for West Bromwich East, prolific blogger, posted the video on YouTube.
• The video got multiple thousand hits.
• The spreading of the word that Cameron sells his children and prostitutes his wife caused massive controversy.
• Simon appeared on Sky News to answer questions about his video.

And here it is.

It wasn't the best of interviews from the perspective of the Labour spin doctors, since he came off as rather petulant. But more importantly, he said some things that were rather questionable.

Tom's a proper blogger, who's been a computer blogger for years; Britain's
first blogging MP. He's serious about the video blogging. It's a
medium he's committed to. I, for instance, am not particularly interested
in blogging. It's not my thing. Neither is David Cameron. He
self-evidently isn't. His blogs, what he talks about, is empty, is
meaningless, is shallow. It's patronising. It's just the way to turn
young people off. The idea that politicians only engage with the medium
when it's got something in it for them. If you're really serious about it,
do it properly. If you don't mean it, don't do it.

It is pretty clear Simon disapproves of Webcameron. Specifically, there are two criticisms. The first really isn't a problem with the blog itself, but with Cameron's act in general, which is faithfully reproduced in the blog. So we'll ignore that. The second is that Cameron isn't really a committed blogger, but is merely using the blog to further his own ends (which involves getting his message across to the electorate so that they might vote his party into government at the next general election).

In Simon's view this is wrong. It is apparently only right and proper to blog when the blogging is an end in itself, as is supposed to be the case with Tom Watson, rather than when blogging is purely a means to an end (such as conveying your message to advance the standing of your party), as in the case of Cameron.

I will agree with Simon that I don't think Cameron is committed to the medium and that he is only using it because he thinks it will serve his political aims. But I fail to see any problem. You don't have to be "committed" to the medium to use it. As Simon confesses, he is not a blogger himself. So I suppose we can forgive him for missing the point completely. The point of blogging is to communicate with the wider world,free from the limitations and exclusivity of the mainstream media. If you have something you want people to hear, you can blog. David Cameron is in that position. He has something he wants to say to the electorate and he uses his blog to say it.

That's what it's about. If it wasn't, then we could criticise the countless blogs, some created years ago, that have seen only one post. The bloggers who created them had something to say on that day, and then nothing after that. We can safely say they aren't committed to medium (assuming they are still alive and well and capable of blogging if they wanted). Does Sion Simon disapprove of their rather limited blogging activities?

Many prolific bloggers enjoy blogging for its own sake in addition to the message they're conveying. But that isn't a requirement. There is no obligation to say a pledge of allegience to the blogging community. No condition that you join the National Union of Bloggers. No need to get a tattoo saying, "Born to blog!"

Sion Simon seems to view blogging as some kind of after-school club that Cameron has gate crashed simply to avoid playing afternoon sports. Perhaps if he paid more attention to his friend's outreach activities, he might have understood how false this is. It is a good thing that Cameron is contributing to the alternative media, regardless of how important the medium is for its own sake in his eyes, just as it is a good thing that Tom Watson is. It's about the message, and here we have just a couple of people spreading theirs.

Another note: the growing populating of politician bloggers, particularly those "not committed to the medium", speaks volumes for the growing power of the alternative media.

BP remaining silent on nuclear

Rod Adams has a problem with BP's vision.

The problem is not that they have rejected nuclear. It's that they don't even acknowledge its existance. That should be taken as good news. Helen Cadicott hates it and won't stop going on about it, because she thinks she can convince other people of its evils. But those who ignore it, would do so because they don't believe they can make a case.

If you aren't going into the sector, but can't find any good reason for your customers to buy their product, you keep silent and hope they forget about it. BP's silence should be taken as a vote of confidence.

But why are they not getting involved?

Simple. It's too difficult. Nuclear power is very technical. It takes a lot of knowledge and a lot of expertise in the relevant fields, expertise that BP simply doesn't have because it is too busy producing hydrocarbons. That's its job and it does it very well. If they were to try to enter the nuclear sector, they would be eaten alive by GE, AECL, Areva, not to mention all the operators if it went into the downstream areas.

By contrast, how hard is it to build a windmill? The nuclear industry has no place for bit players. The science is complex and the technology big in scale. You are either all in or not. There is no room for dabbling, as BP is doing with wind and solar (though they are the largest provider of solar panels, but that says more about the size of the global solar industry).

So there really is not a problem with BP's vision. It makes perfect sense for what they are capable of offering (and you can hardly expect Vivienne Cox to propose a vision for another company). At the same time, I fully expect the nuclear companies to do their jobs are get their rightfully deserved piece of the action.

As Lisa Stiles-Shells said in the debate with Caldicott, it's about an energy mix, reflective of the situation, which varies both in time and space. Nuclear must be utilised more, and there is nothing Simon Hughes or Helen Caldicott can do to stop it, but we still need hydrocarbons, particularly in the transport sector (and again there is nothing Simon Hughes or Helen Caldicott can do to stop it). BP has a better record in providing that than many of its competitors.

Lisa Stiles-Shells versus The Caldicott

The NEI $hill gets put head to head with Helen Caldicott.

Lisa did a valiant job, but Caldicott is something else. Here are some noteworthy items of shock:

• Mammograms are bad. Take your chances with breast cancer.
• Boys, your testicles are doomed! Muahahaha!
• Don't wear radium wristwatches. But do fly around the country to sell your book.
• Smoke alarms are bad. Take your chances with the fire.
• Patrick Moore is a paid nuclear $hill. That's a new one for me. I know he's supposed to be a paid loggin $hill. I guess he gets around.
• Nuclear waste cannot be stored... unless you live in Gabon, where it has been stored for two billion years.
• Nuclear waste lasts for half a million years. Lisa tried to deal with this at one point, but Caldicott was saying it so much. The point is that even unreprocessd spent fuel will decay to below the activity of the original uranium ore within 10,000 years.
• SLS blah, blah, blah.
• The nuclear industry doesn't pay for its externalities. Of course, this is totally false when it comes to waste. See above for Price-Anderson.
• Unwavering confidence in the linear no-threshold hypothesis.
• Your physician may be unaware that dentists take regular x-rays. At least that's the impression I got since I was very surprised when she revealed she only found out about this deadly practice. I guess I should sue my dentist.
• Lots of stuff about fruit flies. Very little about mammals.
• Don't grow veg in your garden if you live near a nuclear power station. Fine if you live near a coal fired power station though. Also don't drink French wine, because France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear and exports a considerable amount to neighbouring countries. (The phrase "Total moonbat" comes to mind!)
• You can't get your house insured against a nuclear accident. In that case, everyone should consider buying property in Britain (if there is any), because you can here.
• Be afraid! Be very afraid! Afraid, I tell you!

There was a lot of fear mongering over the effects of radiation, but little to demonstrate that the nuclear industry is a threat by that means. She tried to make a case about TMI, but it fell flat since no-one was harmed as a result. Then there was lots of irrelevant references to DoE weapons facilities as well as confusing GNEP with a weapons proliferation pact.

NEI Notes is full of posts about her as the publicity drive for her latest book continues.

WHAT!?

The North American Young Generation in Nuclear has been following the Witch Queen of Angmar, Helen Caldicott, around on her book tour.

NEI notes brings up some important notes.

They report on much illucid material, including her trademark "it's all the fault of the military-industrial maleocracy" line. But then things just turned stupid.

[Caldicott said] ‘many [spent fuel] pools are on the roof of a reactor. All you
need to do is take a missile to it to meltdown the plant.’ She then drew a
containment dome with a little rectangle at the top - I was about to crack up
laughing when I saw that one.

It was be hilarious if it weren't so sinister! On the one hand, it is good to know she's so pig ignorant. Tackling her becomes like shooting fish in a barrel. On the other hand, it means we have a total nutter on the loose.

Just to make things clear, spent fuel pools are not placed up high in the containment structure. This particular deception, as well as the others documented at NEI, should be the final nail in the coffin of Caldicott's credibility.

Revenge of the Caldicott

One of the more illucid of the anti-nuclear activists is Helen Caldicott. To be candid, the good doctor is a bit of cliché. She is the embodiment of Sixties leftism. It's all capitalism, male oppression, military-industrial complex, and how nuclear power is the tool of this evil, yadda yadda yadda. How unoriginal!

According to Wikipedia, she told some major porkies about TMI.

Anyway, she has a new book out, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer (probably because it is part of the military-industrial maleocracy). David Bradish at NEI Notes has been on a fast and reading the book and will be presenting his debunking for us. Chapter 1 features SLS. Old dogmas do die hard.

Stay tuned to NEI Notes for further developments. This will either be very good or very dull.

Where's Stottie?

It's been over two months since the last post to EnviroSpin Watch. It's not him to be absent from blogging for so long, especially with all the good opportunities to slag off David Cameron and Ming Campbell over their Green sanctimony. Most concerning!

A NIOF sequel

Hot on the heels of his Blueprint For Success, we have another fine piece at NIOF about the order chasm in the US.

But something was wrong; in the end, nearly half of all nuclear power plant
orders were canceled. Why did this happen? Overbuilding? Public opposition?
Three Mile Island? Something inherently wrong with nuclear power? Industry
mismanagement? The AEC/NRC?

It's a tragic story of obstructionism, arcane regulation and chronic mismanagement.

Let's just hope we have learnt a few things. Nuclear fission is a wonderful technology, but like all technologies, it will only work if used properly.

The blueprint for success

It was only supposed to be an "Anti-nuclear Quote of the Day", but Stewart Peterson at Nuclear is Our Future turned it into an absolute must-read post on what is needed to make regulation and legislation work.

Some of the most interesting ideas centre around modelling the NRC after the highly acclaimed (at least by those who know the turmoil that is EASA) Federal Aviation Administration, making fees and levies proportional the resources they consume and eliminating the ability to make frivalous lawsuits, which sees the secondary benefits of increasing unemployment among lawyers.

Go read it.

Stottie shopping for reactors

Philip Stott joins us in celebration of freedom for fission in the UK with some window shopping.

He makes a good point about the value of intra-European commonality by using the EPR. Being able to pool knowledge between us, Finland and France, in the European Northwest, could be a great asset.

If I may chime in with an alternate view. I think the ACR-1000 could be very useful to us. Its fuel cycle flexibility would allow us to make easier and cheaper use of the stockpiles of plutonium and spent fuel sitting up in Sellafield about which the opponents are so irate. CANDUs can also burn spent LWR fuel so if other nations using LWRs wanted another way of getting rid of their spent fuel, we could take the "burden" of their hands accompanied by some maniacal laughter.

But then again, there is something to the simplicity of Stottie's option. We'll let the investors decide.