On Thursday, the outgoing NRC chairman publicly voted against renewing the Plymouth Pilgrim license. He will probably be outvoted by the other commissioners - again - but the manufactured controversy will probably confuse and disturb the public about nuclear power. Again.
(Source: Boston.com)
Chairman Jaczko, who had voted 1 to 4 against the first nuclear plant licenses in a generation and has been under fire for his leadership, has resigned.
Janet Kotra, a senior scientist and project manager on the proposed Yucca waste dump, called Jaczko’s resignation an “enormous relief.” A 28-year NRC employee, Kotra said the agency’s reputation as an independent safety authority had been greatly damaged under Jaczko.
(Source: foxnews.com)
Co-director of MIT Energy Club, Caleb Waugh, will present an overview of the science, technology and economics of nuclear fusion.
And, according to Lewan, it’s a great time to be running a nuclear startup. Despite last year’s Fukushima disaster, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently approved two new reactors, the first to receive licenses since 1978. And the environment abroad is better in many cases, she tells me.
One of the things Dewan finds most exciting is how much more room for innovation still exists in the nuclear industry.
In happy news this month, the NRC approved the first US nuclear reactors since 1978 - AP1000’s at the existing Vogtle site in Georgia. But the decision shows what’s wrong with the whole discourse over nuclear power in the United States - the NRC vote was 4 to 1, with the chairman of the commission voting against the approval as a protest against the lack of binding commitments to “implement the lessons of Fukushima.”
While this kind of “inside baseball” bureaucratic conflict over adding yet-to-be-defined standards to plant licenses may seem insignificant, its effect is to confuse the public and undermine any hope for reasonable discussion of nuclear energy. The linked article is a good example of how it plays out, with anti-nuclear activists threatening lawsuits and making comments about how the Commissioner voting against it is evidence of how the plants are unsafe.
Solar power is more popular than nuclear power for many reasons. Government policy, including billions of loan guarantees and tax credits, is one of them. And it now appears that lobbying is another.
First Solar spent $2.2 million on lobbying in Washington since 2007 and representatives met Obama administration officials before winning the aid, government records show. In California, the company gave $150,000 to campaigns last year, more than triple the $38,750 donated by BP Plc’s North America unit, according to the secretary of state’s office.
Interesting psychological analysis of why deadly E.Coli outbreaks do not cause people to “phase out” vegetables, while no-fatality nuclear accidents do.
