The WaPo Weighs in — Favorably — on Nukes

By July 16, 2006Energy

Interesting op-ed in today’s WaPo by Jim Hoagland on nuclear energy. He quotes the President therein as pointing out that France gets almost 80% of its power from nuclear, but for us, it’s just one more source of energy that’s subject to the “just say no” crowd.

If we are serious about “energy independence”, nuclear must be a piece of our long-term energy solution.

Here’s a link to the op-ed and here’s a link to the President’s remarks during a May 24 visit to the Limerick (Pennsylvania) Nuclear Generating Station, from which Hoagland quotes.

Join the discussion One Comment

  • H.Hosea says:

    I am “FOR” nuclear energy but the fundamental problem has been mismanagement, “poor planning” and unnecessary regulatory decrees.
    I worked for a particle physicist so I formed my opinion 25 years ago.
    First, standardize ONE design for regional suppliers of electricity and maybe a smaller design –like the original plants designed by Rickover– for local plants. Every plant does not need to be an “innovative engineering initiative”. This allows incremental changes as something is learned on one site to be applied to the other sites.
    Second, only radioactive material or that subject to induced nuclear exchanges needs to be classified as “radioactive”. Regulations such as gloves, boxes, clothing and so forth cannot become a radiological hazard solely because its has been near a radioactive source. Exempli gratia, Co^60 gamma emmissions, C^13, and so forth. Steel relfects all radiation except neutrons and gamma. Alpha particles emitted from the most powerful accelerators only have a range of 15 metters in air (on an anecdotal basis).
    Third, use a fuel that is recyclicable.
    Thank you for soliciting my comment.