The biggest change is that we’re moving. Update your bookmarks to http://blog.niof.org/.
The second change is that there will be a second blog for simple links to news articles that have cluttered this blog for the past month. It is called the Nuclear NewsWire, and will allow me to get more work done on the site while making it easier for you to comment on and discuss the commentary here.
Filed under Site
Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
Link.
It is widely known that he is pro-nuclear.
Filed under New Build, Politics and Regulation
Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
Link.
Filed under New Build, Politics and Regulation
Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
They say that the site for a proposed new nuclear power plant will be selected in “mid-January.”
Link.
Filed under New Build
Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
Link.
No bigger deal has ever been made of 44,000 tons of ceramic.
Filed under Politics and Regulation, Waste
Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
A decision on whether criminal charges will be filed over the infamous Davis-Besse incident in 2002 is pending.
Link.
Filed under Politics and Regulation, Safety
Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
Link.
1. There is, as they term it, “growing opposition” to windmills in Vermont. Apparently, it has an environmental impact. Hmm.
“The proposal, which called for the construction of up to 30 large wind turbines, was attacked as being too big and too disruptive to the environment.”
Anything nuclear gets scrutinized for years, but windmills can do whatever they want and it’s just a minor problem.
2. It is interesting to note where licensing fees on the state level go–”renewable energy projects and conservation.” Nobody else has to pay the government to fund its competition. People still wonder why nuclear energy isn’t a free market success.
3. I don’t understand how one electrical failure constitutes “a new set of problems.”
Filed under Alternatives, Economics, Politics and Regulation, Safety
Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
Link.
Notice how they don’t point to any actual concrete events that could happen.
Filed under Security and Terrorism
Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
Everybody wasn’t told that nothing happened! Oh No! We’re all gonna die!
If the International Walnut Growers Association doesn’t have a copy of every form relating to every discrepancy report at Torness in the last five years by Tuesday it will be the end of the world! We must notify everyone!
Oh, and it works nothing like Chernobyl, unlike what it says in the article. The Chernobyl reactor was a failed attempt to integrate weapons-grade plutonium production and nuclear power, resulting in a radically different and uniquely unsafe design. Even then, it took a harebrained stunt to cause the accident (in other words, had the plant been designed as all others were, the operators could abuse it to no end and there would have been no Chernobyl; conversely, if the operators hadn’t abused it, they could have built it as they did and nothing would have happened). Chernobyl was a case study in how not to manage a nuclear power plant, from the drawing board to construction to testing to operations.
Link.
Filed under Chernobyl, Emergency Response, International, Non Sequitur, Safety
Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »
| Nuclear Advocacy Webring Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||