Category Archives: Contributors

Action List Contributors Nuclear Advocacy

Energy and Climate Change Conference will have many of our supporters present.

Dr. Alex Cannara and Dr. Bob Greene will be going to what sounds like an important conference in Virginia with two sessions where they each take turns as moderator with panelists many here will know.  Both take place Wednesday,  Jan. 28th.
Morning Session:

S28. Nuclear Energy as a Non-Carbon Energy Option with moderator Dr. Bob Greene
Should we be re-evaluating Nuclear Energy as the prime tool to stall Climate Change?

Afternoon Session:

S40. Nuclear Energy: Technologies for 2025 and 2050 and Advancing Nuclear-Energy Options with moderator: Dr. Alex Cannara

See Alex’s post

See Conference Details

jan26-29-conference

Contributors Nuclear Advocacy

Carnival #175: Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers

Nuke Power Talk – Carnival Entry
Post from Gail Marcus
    At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus addresses the issue of the future of the electric grid and the fact that some pundits are declaring that it is quickly becoming obsolete. Although there have been several articles recently pointing out how more people and more companies are opting to generate some of their own electricity, she points out that some of these schemes actually increase the demands on the grid.

Two Posts from ANS Nuclear Cafe – Carnival Entry
Post from Jim Hopf
Are Nuclear Plant Closures Due to Market Manipulation and Decommissioning Fund Rules?
    Many are having a hard time understanding Entergy’s decision to schedule the closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant next year. Jim Hopf examines the issues, as well as policy adjustments that could help prevent a similar situation in the future.
The 2013 Nuclear Engineering Student Delegation
Post from Matthew Gidden and Nicholas Thompson
    Matthew Gidden and Nicholas Thompson, chair and co-chair of the 2013 Nuclear Engineering Student Delegation, recount events and activities of this year’s delegation in Washington, DC. Students from around the country held discussions with politicians and policymakers – key governmental affairs staff, Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners, high-level staff at DOE, Department of State, and Office of Management and Budget, as well as over 100 congressional offices – concerning nuclear engineering education funding, energy policy, and other important nuclear issues.

Yes Vermont Yankee Blog – Carnival Entry
Post from Meredith Angwin
    A local panel addressed the issue of “what will happen after Vermont Yankee closes.” One panelist had written a paper that seemed rather snarky about nuclear workers. This post at Yes Vermont Yankee describes the justifiable pride nuclear workers can take in their contribution to society.

Atomic Insights – Carnival Entry
Post from Rod Adams
    During the 1970s, the antinuclear movement made a collective decision to use “the waste issue” as a weapon to help force the eventual shutdown of the industry. Though the strategy has not succeeded in forcing any plants in the US to shut down, it has prevented a number of plants from being built. Ralph Nader, one of the most visible organizers of the movement, often referred to the waste issue as the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. He described his movement’s strategy for taking advantage of the perceived weakness in some detail during a 1997 interview as part of a PBS Frontline show titled Nuclear Reactions. The issue continues to be used to slow nuclear energy development.

Two Posts from Hiroshima Syndrome – Carnival Entry
Posts from Leslie Corrice
    PM Shinzo Abe said he wants F. Daiichi units 5&6 decommissioned. This seems to have been a unilateral decision on his part, and may well be a big mistake. Abe should rescind his request before it makes the situation with accident cleanup worse than it is now.
    American nuclear expert Lake Barrett says releasing mildly-radioactive water to the Pacific will harm no-one. Hearing these calming statements from an internationally-recognized expert on reactor accident recovery seems to have struck home with a few of the news sources in Japan. Are some of Japan’s news outlets starting to get it right?

Post from Atomic Power Review – Carnival Entry
Post from Will Davis
    This week, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe rather startled the press with the declaration that he had told TEPCO’s management to decommission the two undamaged units at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. Many people appear not to have understood that the fate of these units had not been in any way sealed so far as TEPCO management was concerned. Will Davis knew this; he provides the back story on this topic as well as the present developments.

Posts from Canadian Energy Issues – Carnival Entry
2 Posts from Steve Aplin
    Whose electricity is cleaner, Ontario’s or Germany’s? Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues crunches the numbers and compares Ontario real time data with Germany pre-nuclear phaseout. His results will disappoint and perhaps outrage those who think that Germany is a paragon of clean electricity.
    “… Many if not most Ontario utilities have moved to time-of-use pricing. This means that there are certain hours of the day, called peak hours, when electricity is more expensive … Our electricity system is set up so that at those times we call expensive and polluting fossil-fired generating plants into service. These plants were put into the system and made available for precisely this purpose—to provide power during peak hours. Because they are fossil plants they produce gargantuan amounts of CO …”

3 Posts from Next Big Future – Carnival Entry
Posts from Brian Wang
    Here is a presentation on load following thorium molten salt reactors
    Another Canadian company is developing a nuclear reactor for the Canadian Oilsands. This is a lead cooled integral reactor with a prismatic core.
    Asia plans to add 103 nuclear reactors by 2025

Post from Forbes – Carnival Entry
Post from James Conca
    Wind turbines kill hundreds of eagles a year, but are not held accountable like other industries with the help of the Interior Department. The large physical footprint probably represents the weakest point of wind energy.

Action List Contributors Nuclear Advocacy

Great Comment by EZ on AtomicInsights.com about subjective interpretation of nuclear units.

Rod Adam’s had a guest posting recently and I saw this comment as he often has brilliant comments of his own but one of his followers, Evan Zwack who uses EZ, made this great observation to the level of art.

“The thing that has gone the farthest in convincing me that the fears about nuclear power are overblown is the difference between the way that anti nuclear people treat radiation from nuclear power, and radiation from all other sources. Your article did a good job of showing those differences.

I think good comparison would be to compare what has gone into the ocean to what was already in the ocean.

The oceans have Uranium in them. In the pacific ocean the radiation from Uranium is 22 EBq or 22,000,000 trillion becquerels.

The oceans have Potassium 40 in them. In the pacific ocean the radiation from Potassium 40 is 7,400 EBq or 7,400,000,000 trillion becquerels.

The oceans have Carbon 14 in them. In the pacific ocean the radiation from Carbon 14 is 3 EBq or 3,000,000 trillion becquerels.

The oceans have Rubidium 87 in them. In the pacific ocean the radiation from Rubidium 87 is 700 EBq or 700,000,000 trillion becquerels.

The oceans have Tritium in them. In the pacific ocean the radiation from Tritium is 370 PBq or 370,000 trillion becquerels.

So we have…
Uranium 22,000,000 trillion becquerels
Potassium 40 7,400,000,000 trillion becquerels
Carbon 14 3,000,000 trillion becquerels
Rubidium 87 700,000,000 trillion becquerels
Tritium 370,000 trillion becquerels
Total 8,125,370,000 trillion becquerels

So we have 8,125,370,000 trillion becquerels of radiation in the pacific ocean and the antis don’t seem to care, but when the fifth most powerful earthquake ever recorded results in 20 trillion becquerels of radiation being released into the oceans over two years we’re supposed to all accept that it’s a horrible disaster. The logic in this position escapes me.”

You can find this comment on AtomicInsights in the article titled Ted Rockwell shared knowledge to combat Fukushima fears by A. David Rossin

Contributors

Carnival #165: Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers

Rod Adams of Atomic Insights
Guest post from Paul Lorenzini
    Perhaps the most persistent criticism of “Pandora’s Promise”, the recently released documentary on nuclear power by producer-director Robert Stone, was its failure to give screen time to a credible anti-nuclear spokesperson. We got a glimpse of what we missed following the film’s recent opening at the Jacob Burns Film Center in New York, where Andrew Revkin of the New York Times arranged and moderated a debate between Stone and Robert F. Kennedy jr. On substance, we didn’t miss much. Yet it spoke volumes about the character of the nuclear power controversy itself.

Rick Maltese's other blog Thorium MSR
    This week I am biased because Pandora's Promise is in Toronto (my home town) hence Rod Adams' post above. The documentary is at the Bloor Cinema July 12 to 18 with an appearance by film director Robert Stone at 6:30 screening on July 13

Two Posts by Paul Browsersox on the American Nuclear Society Blog (The ANS Cafe)
SMRs Get Further Push with Western Initiative for Nuclear
    Will Davis on a new consortium of NuScale Power, Energy Northwest, and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems aiming to demonstrate the design, construction, and operation of NuScale Small Modular Reactors at Idaho National Laboratory.  One thing is certain—the number of utilities and organizations who believe in the SMR concept is growing continuously.
Getting inside the legislative process
    Howard Shaffer on how he recently came to testify for nuclear in the Vermont legislature, his advice for others who wish to positively affect policy outcomes, and his excellent testimony

Meredith Angwin's blog from Vermont Yankee Blog
Economics and the Public Service Board Hearings
    The Vermont Public Service Board is supposed to judge the effect Vermont Yankee has on the economy of Vermont. Instead, they are trying to assess if the plant is profitable for Entergy. Does Entergy have enough money to operate the plant safely? Their attempt to regulate nuclear safety is very thinly disguised.

Dr. Robert Bruce Hayes post from Science and Technology section of NewsOK
Nuclear Science and Engineering is more than nuclear energy

Two posts by Brian Wang for Next Big Future Blog
    Countries that are planning to adopt nuclear energy. Most of the new nuclear reactors will be built in countries that already have nuclear power. Those countries are primarily China, India, Russia, and South Korea. Mainly Asian and middle eastern countries have new nuclear energy plans.

Leslie Corrice from The Hiroshima Syndrome/Fukushima Commentary...
Japan’s nuke watchdog is blatantly biased
    The Japan News calls Japan’s NRA “blatantly biased” because of their statements concerning geologic anomalies. The recent Fukushima groundwater issue gives further proof of their negative predisposition toward the nukes they now regulate.

Two from Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues Blog
Land use the paramount factor in Ontario LTEP review: when NIMBY is the right attitude
    The critics of those demanding the cancelled plants in Oakville and Mississauga now look pretty foolish in light of the catastrophe in Lac Megantic. Steve also goes into the politics and rationale of decisions that led to more expensive energy bills. Critics would like to blame nuclear but Steve sets the record straight.
Nuclear energy is the most powerful weapon in the war on carbon dioxide
    Need help understanding why wind and solar can't compete with nuclear in war on reducing carbon dioxide?

James Conca of Forbes Magazine (Energy) online
Coal Doesn't Have to Die We Can Make Furniture Out of It
    With coal being a thriving and in some cases the driver of many local economies finding a way to keep the industry alive without polluting the air is a good thing. I guess the question is how much would production actually be needed for such a newly reformed coal industry?

Will Davis of Atomic Power Review
South Korea's Nuclear Energy Corruption Scandal Widens in Scope
    At Atomic Power Review, Will Davis presents the latest surprising details in the now-widening investigation into bribery, corruption and parts supply in the South Korean nuclear industry. Many more persons, companies and nuclear plants have been implicated; many more raids and arrests have been made.

Action List Contributors Nuclear Advocacy

Can you change Rulemaking at the NRC?

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2009-0044-0002

DEADLINE IS (Submit comments by) July 17, 2013.

This page will give you some idea to the level of bureaucracy involved in the participation process of updating or improving the process of making or changing existing rules. Titled: Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process

Who has the time? Somebody needs to do it. How do we begin to simplify this rule changing process?
Anyone?

Here is a link to the only public comment to a document (PDF) title
Bungled Entrance Guard PRM 2008 TMIA

Here is another example of over-regulation in a document titled

NRC Enforcement Policy (PDF) here is the full URL

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=09000064811dd8be&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

See Page page 54 Health Physics
Three levels of violations for annual exposure to radiation 25, 10 and 5 rems to an employee.

See Page 79 for list of penalties up to $140,000

Also this is a comment post from Robert Steinhaus that is an eye opener.

“The NRC annual fee to operate a nuclear reactor of any technology and of any size in FY2013 is $4,780,000. 

It requires about 200,000 hours (estimate) for NRC to evaluate a new technology reactor design.

NRC currently charges $277 / hour for staff evaluator time which means that any small company wanting to bring to market a new technology small modular reactor has to expect to pay about $55.4 million dollars in fees upfront just for NRC to look at their design and give it consideration in a reactor design certification.
http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648121e059&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

Large upfront fees charged by NRC tend to limit participants in the nuclear industry. Charging large fees to evaluate and approve new reactor technology tends to slow the pace of nuclear innovation and limit industry participation to only the largest, well established firms. Nuclear startups, with great new ideas, but only moderate resources are effectively shut out; over time few new nuclear reactor concepts really have a chance to reach commercial reality. The agile young nuclear startups and their revolutionary ideas are by and large unable to handle the large NRC fees for design certification and licensing. Regulatory mandated long delays prevent good nuclear startups with industry revitalizing ideas from bringing their fine designs to market.

Note: The typical size of the engineering document package required to apply for a reactor design certification is 17,000 engineering detailed pages. This is a stack of office paper that is 5′ 6″ tall if neatly stacked. A nuclear startup applying for design certification for a new technology reactor must pay the full cost of preparing the detailed reactor certification document package before it can be submitted to NRC. 
(17,000 pages is about seven times the length of the complete Holy Bible)”

 

Action List Contributors Nuclear Advocacy

Does Obama Really Prefer Natural Gas Over Nuclear Power?

Guest post by Steve Aplin

Last week’s state of the union speech by the U.S. president got a lot of attention for its mention of climate change and the need to curtail carbon emissions. Few observers however caught the irony of a president touting solar power as a solution to climate change, in a speech that took place between nine and ten p.m. — a time at which few if any solar panels in the entire continent of North America were generating any electricity at all.Surely the president does not think that the the manufacturing centres, which he also called for in his speech, will be powered with an energy source that quits delivering when the sun goes down.

How will those centres be powered? I hope, with the only carbon-free non-hydro power source that does not rely on the planet’s rotation or the whims of wind: nuclear power. Nuclear plants in the U.S. not only generated around 79 billion watts during the president’s hour-long speech, (79 million kilowatt-hours in total) but did so without emitting a gram of CO2, the principal manmade greenhouse gas.

More important, those nuclear plants kept right on generating those 79 billion watts even after the speech wound up, and are still at it — reliably providing some of America’s cheapest and by far its cleanest energy.

But natural gas is the politically correct fuel of choice for the anti-nuke crowd, and certainly the fuel the president extolled. So how much CO2 would have been emitted if that same energy came from natural gas? That figure would then be 79 million kWh (79 billion watts times 1 hour, divided by 1000 to get kW) times 550 grams per kWh (CO2 emission factor for gas-fired generation) = 43 million metric tons avoided by the unmentioned and unsung energy source during the state of the union speech.

Nuclear Power

in one hour
79 Million kWh

that produced zero emissions

Natural gas estimate
in one hour
79 Million kWh

43 Thousand Metric tons of CO2 (43 Million Kg.)

That was in one hour. To project that over a year, multiply by 8,760 (number of hours in a year) to get 380.6 MILLION tons avoided by nuclear (380 Billion Kg.)
Plus, the biggest and most stunning scientific achievements of the last year — the landing and ensuing data stream from the Curiosity Mars rover, and the glimpses of the Higgs particle at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe — were made possible by nuclear energy.Curiosity is powered by the decay heat of plutonium-238, and the LCH runs on French nuclear power. Yes, those 8-trillion-electronvolt particles get their energy from fission in power reactors.

Nuclear power, in other words, provides many of the things the president called for in his speech: clean cheap energy, cutting edge scientific research, and economic progress.

What a pity the president did not mention nuclear power. It has done him and the world so many favours. It’s the unknown soldier, it’s the unknown battalion.

Action List Contributors Nuclear Advocacy

Reducing the costs of making nuclear plants!!!

A recent post by Jim Hopf titled How Can Nuclear Construction Costs Be Reduced? Jan. 24, 2013 at ANS Nuclear Cafe

Definitely worth a read. The comments are also important and Jim responds to regular contributors on other blogs.
I will summarize when I find the time. The obstacles to affordable nuclear plants are the reason this website exists. As expected the NRC is a big part of the discussion.
Action List Contributors Nuclear Advocacy

Good Review on Pandora’s Promise at Sundance

'Pandora's Promise,' a radically sane and important documentary about how nuclear power could save us
By Owen Gleiberman

This is another one of those rare times when I push the rules for the sake of educating the public. This story is lifted directly from Entertainment Weekly Inside Movies column because it required scrolling down and risked losing the readers.

When was the last time you saw a documentary that fundamentally changed the way you think? It’s no secret that just about every political and socially-minded documentary shown at Sundance is preaching to the liberal-left choir. The issue may be dairy farming, human rights abuses in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the marketing of AIDS drugs, or Occupy Wall Street (to list the topics of four festival docs this year), but the point of view is almost always conventionally “progressive” and orthodox. So when Robert Stone, who may be the most under-celebrated great documentary filmmaker in America (watch Oswald’s Ghost if you want to touch the elusive truth of the JFK assassination), arrived at Sundance this year with Pandora’s Promise, a look at the myths and realities of nuclear power, he was walking into the lion’s den. For this isn’t a movie that preaches to the choir. It’s a movie that says: “Stop thinking what you’ve been thinking, because if you don’t, you’re going to collude in wrecking the world.” Pandora’s Promise is built around what should be the real liberal agenda: looking at an issue not with orthodoxy, but with open eyes.
In Pandora’s Promise, Stone interviews a major swath of environmentalists, scientists, and energy planners, all of whom spent years being anti-nuclear power — and then, as they began to look at the evidence, changed their minds. The film begins with a deep examination of the psychology of the anti-nuclear view: how it took hold and became dogma. It goes all the way back to 1945, of course, and the horror of the atomic bomb. From that moment, really, the very word nuclear was tainted. It meant something that was going to kill you, in the form of lethal radiation that you can’t see. By the time of the “No Nukes” protests of the ’70s, to be “anti-nuclear” was to conflate nuclear weapons and nuclear power into a single category of scientific evil, a point of view whipped up, over the years, into a doctrinaire frenzy of righteous fear and loathing by anti-nuclear activists like Dr. Helen Caldicott and reinforced by movies like The China Syndrome and even, in its benign satirical way, The Simpsons.
Stone, a lifelong environmental lefty himself, unravels that thinking. The film’s incredibly articulate — and deeply progressive — spokemen and women explain the nuts and bolts of why nuclear power, manufactured with the sophisticated breeder reactors that are available today, is fundamentally clean, efficient, and, yes, safe. As Richard Rhodes puts it in the movie: “To be anti-nuclear is basically to be in favor of burning fossil fuels.” Pandora’s Promise makes a powerful case that in an age when former Third World countries, striving for modernization, are beginning to consume energy in much vaster amounts (and why shouldn’t they have the right to do so?), none of the alternative energy sources that are commonly talked about by environmentalists (wind, solar, etc.) can begin to fill the planet’s energy needs. Only nuclear energy can. That’s why France, faced with its own energy crisis several decades ago, went nuclear. (Eighty percent of France’s energy is now generated by nuclear power plants.)
Ah, you say, but what about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima? The ultimate issue raised by nuclear power — the one that, according to conventional progressive thinking, stops the pro-nuclear argument right in its tracks — is, of course, the issue of safety. And the very names of those three locales cast a dark mythological shadow. You hear them and think: Meltdown. Radiation poisoning. Death. Disaster. But this is where, as a society, we desperately need more filmmakers like Robert Stone. Carefully, piece by piece, without hysteria and without dogma, he looks at the evidence of what actually happened during those three infamous catastrophes: the reality of the damage, and the reality of the aftermath. The results, if you truly listen to them, are almost spectacularly counterintuitive. They won’t leave you shaken. They will begin to shake you out of your old tired ways of thinking.
The most startling argument mounted by Pandora’s Promise is that the rise of nuclear power is not merely a good thing, but probably inevitable, because it is, in fact, the only way that we can power the planet and save it at the same time. In what has to be the ultimate liberal-documentary irony, Stone demonstrates that the dire threat of global warming all but demands nuclear power as the key to its solution. Without it, the debate will go on, but carbon dioxide will continue to fill the atmosphere, and liberals everywhere, caught up in reflexive modes of environmental “activism” that are now not just complacent but perilously out-of-date, will continue to let their anxieties trump reality.
Action List Contributors Nuclear Advocacy Uncategorized

Review of this years posts

  1. The recent presidential election has left a bad impression to most people. The election process needs changing so that more people can learn about the real issues and stop wasting cash for character attacks and useless ads and only letting those with money call the shots.
    One Term Amendment Needed to Flush Out the Abuse of Power Jan. 4, 2012
  2. Guest Post by Robert Gauthier (DV82XL) who has been an active critic of the way the nuclear industry and it’s advocates treat the subject of proliferation here is his post.
    Uncovering the Truth about the Threat of Nuclear Proliferation by DV82XL Jan. 18, 2012
  3. After a year of hype and propaganda regarding Fukushima an attempt to put it all in perspective.
    Fukushima Foolishness Amongst Tohoku Terror Mar. 15, 2012
  4. Taking action and making change needs props and here are some listed.
    Your Nuclear Advocate Activist Kit Apr. 10, 2012
  5. First of two excellent books published in the same year Superfuel is one of them.
    See my book review of SUPERFUEL by Richard Martin Apr. 20, 2012 and also
    My review of Thorium: energy cheaper than coal by Robert Hargraves
  6. Another post that is a direct copy and paste but felt that my readers needed to see
    How Congress Goes Nuclear May. 1, 2012
  7. Nuclear Bloggers Extraordinaire exposing the dishonesty May. 18, 2012
  8. The getting-to-be-obvious fact, to many people, that the NRC has been controlled by anti-nuclear forces like Harry Reid’s sidekick Jaczko
    Jaczko announced his resignation May. 21, 2012
  9. Obama keeps picking the staff based on what appears politically correct.
    Obama picks an anti-nuke!!! MacFarlane has no nuclear background. We must object. May. 24, 2012
  10. A different take on the subject of Yucca and the situation in Nevada
    The History of Nuclear Waste told by Matt Stroud Jun. 15, 2012
  11. My plea to appeal to rational minds about FukushimaMusic and facts to calm residents near Fukushima Jul. 2, 2012
  12. My view about how making the argument for global change is too ambitious for many and that it leads people to remain fence-sitters on an important issue.How the focus on climate change allows complacency – macro vs micro Aug. 16, 2012
  13. About how the close contests for leadership have made the campaigners into phonies and adoescents.Fear of losing only happens in close contests. Rod Adams explains the low risk campaigning. Sep. 20, 2012
  14. When leadership is sadly missing among world leaders my letter to a new candidate spells out what is needed to make them better leaders.A Letter to the Newest Federal Liberal Candidate – Justin Trudeau Oct. 7, 2012
  15. Pertaining to Fossil Fuel Industry Fighting Nuclear Using Propaganda Oct. 8, 2012
  16. Social Risk Assessment and Data Mining vs. Good PR Planning? Nov. 14, 2012
Action List Contributors Nuclear Advocacy

Fear of losing only happens in close contests. Rod Adams explains the low risk campaigning.

Rod Adam’s of AtomicInsights.com has an excellent blog titled Nuclear fission energy best of the above which as an example of good style makes me envious. He keeps on coming up with original commentary about nuclear energy. No blogger is more consistent and as well read by such a loyal following on a pronuclear blog. Much of the time I wait for inspiration to add something I have not already said. Charles Barton was also a prolific blogger and despite serious health problems manages an occasional blog against all odds. What do these guys have in common? They care about the planet. They know that nuclear energy is by far the best way to deal with the Earth’s inhabitant’s addiction to energy and finding the best way to replace our fossil fuel emissions.

My title really throws a twist that may not have been the focus of his post but it is so true. The fact that Obama rarely uses the word “nuclear” in his current campaign indicates that he’s worried about losing votes to the anti-nukes. To let the “unreliables”, as Rod points out in another post, have equal status with reliables like nuclear energy is an indication that the politics based on fear of offending is dominating politics.

I know Barack Obama is a talented man and I forgive the fact that he cannot be good at everything but what I am unhappy about is that he cannot seek the advice from the experts. He takes advice from the policy advisers and policy makers. The fact that the opposition to nuclear energy has got Japan and Germany in a perilous stranglehold on their energy policy is a message that has made Obama and Romney nervous. If only one of them understood that taking the lead on this topic is not suicidal if they truly believe in it. The economic hardship could also be solved by building up a nuclear energy policy and showing some courage in advocating for regulatory reform.

This is easier to explain to the public than the regulation of Wall Street. The behavior and the track record is easy to explain. If the recent push toward less government has Obama worried that exposing the fact that the NRC has been influenced by politicians and that they do not act in the interest of the common good or for the advancement of science, then he should point out that deregulation is less government.

Why are so many countries running with close elections? I think it is because to a great degree the corporations rule. The outcome of elections is heavily manipulated by the wealthy corporations. I’ve said it before that the public’s duty in a world gone mad is to focus on how to change the world by tackling local issues related to the greater good of the planet. Now more than ever the public should not give in to the feeling of having no power to make change. Supporting a dense energy, pollution free 24/7 reliable energy source and pushing for the good that it will do creating jobs, keeping the air clean and maintaining our standard of living is for the greater good. Energy is not the only issue but it is perhaps the most important one that will make the most difference to our future and our children’s future.

Steve Aplin explains that Governments investing in Wind and Solar are going to pay the price for ignoring Nuclear Energy on Canadian Energy Issues