There is an urgent need for intervention with the tightly secured, overzealous and outdated nuclear regulatory bodies in our world. The urgency I speak of is apparent in that we have serious climate change happening as a result of pollution from our cars and our coal plants and other industrial and commercial activity. Phasing in electric cars and nuclear plants would go a very long way to eliminating the effects of green house gases but first what about those coal plants? They put out a large amount of energy and we can’t just shut them down without affecting the economy. So the only sufficiently powerful and carbon-free energy source that can meet and surpass the power from coal and also meet the demand of clean energy needs is nuclear energy. But why are we so behind in nuclear energy? Why do we have so many coal plants still causing climate change? China, France, India have all started building nuclear plants. They recognize the need to eliminate CO2 emissions. Three words describe why nuclear is better. Reliable, constant and dense. Innovation cannot happen under the authoritarian presence and overprotective governing nuclear regulating bodies like the NRC, the CNSC and the EPA.


  • January 21, 2011 - 5:48 pm | Permalink

    Will the AP1000 Westinghouse reactor design be approved by the NRC this year? Southern Company expects the license approval in late 2011. Southern is so confident that over a billion dollars have been invested in site preparation (14 story module assembly building, two concrete plants, office building, and a magnificent amount of earth movement). But I do not have confidence that Mr Jaczko would want his name associated with the approval. In my mind the United States nuclear renaissance will be at a full halt if the AP1000 license is not approved on time.

    Here’s what I think is true:
    1. There is one issue to be resolved. Do stay-in-place steel forms for concrete walls meet both the earthquake and airplane strike requirements?
    2. There was a study done in 2010 at Purdue University to determine the engineering description of stay-in-place steel forms for concrete. I can not find the results of that study.
    3. A Japanese reactor was built with this technique. A large earth quake happened and the walls held.

    1. Why does anyone think that the approval will happen this year?
    2. Why is it taking so long to resolve this issue?
    3. How much has the NRC billed at $250 per hour on this issue?
    4. Has Westinghouse lost sales due to this outstanding issue?
    5. What action could be taken to deregulate this kind of issue?

  • thoriumMSR
    January 28, 2011 - 4:09 am | Permalink

    Sorry I forgot to mention Commercial and Military jets

    Here’s a little paragraph from environment.about.com

    Flying vs Driving: Cross-Country Calculations Show Stark Contrasts
    Journalist Pablo Päster of Salon.com extends the comparison further, to a cross-country trip, and comes to similar conclusions. (Differences in the math are attributable to the use of slightly varying assumptions regarding fuel usage and source equations.) Flying from San Francisco to Boston, for example, would generate some 1,300 kilograms of greenhouse gases per passenger each way, while driving would account for only 930 kilograms per vehicle. So, again, sharing the drive with one or more people would lower each individual’s carbon footprint from the experience accordingly.

  • fireofenergy
    March 4, 2011 - 4:28 am | Permalink

    Isn’t westinghouse’s Small Modular Reactor still just a LWR?
    The only reactor worth considering (and talking positively about) are those that can operate WITHOUT being pressurized, without destroying its own fuel at the 1-2% mark, that does not leave radiotoxic waste for more than a few hundred years, and that CAN burn the wastes from all the inefficient light water reactors in use today. In short, the molten salt reactors that can also burn THORium should be the worlds first and foremost concern!

  • Leave a Reply