Comments for The Nuclear N-Former: Breaking Nuclear Energy News, Videos, Photos, Commentary & More

Comment on Canada to sell CANDU to India by ger

ger — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:46:17 +0000

Cost overruns??? Conflicts of interests more like it. Tax payers are paying out cost overruns to a British run (BP) or American managed (Pickering/Darlington) to contract to a French/German consortium (Areva). They need us to fail asw we are the direct competition to their (government funded)programs. When will you neophites wake up to the snookering here? China???? They are reusing the spent fuel and recycling with a Candu, not the BS you stated. They have stated they want more Candu….it’s the financing that they require. Time and time again Canada does not aggressively pursue our technological interests and takes a back room pay off to let our industry be fettered away. DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE YOU ESPOUSE FALSEHOODS. Comment on the full picture and not just your witty bitty slanted piece of a view. Why are the Americans and France underwriting all kinds of projects left right and center? because it doesn’t pay? We need sharp teeth and a strong National approach to save us from the Energy mafia in Ontario! Remember how much toxic pollutants Natural Gas and oil give off. Way more than Nuclear would ever cause. Green projects like solar and wind are a joke pretending to have the capacity to supply what a Nuke supplies. Recycled and reuse of fissile materials reduces the threat of proliferation exponentially. WE HAVE THE URANIUM IN CANADA AND SHOULD RECYCLE THE WASTE! The argument is always reduced to past history of management issues which in my opinion were more than corrupt. Your country deserves better. Stop lying about the technology.

Comment on Scientists call for a global nuclear renaissance in new study by Ronald eddy

Ronald eddy — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 07:49:35 +0000

brilliant job! this master plan is really going best regarding nuclear energy, this master plan do a good job for humanity.

Comment on Nuclear builders begin race for Wylfa NPP contract by Will Foord

Will Foord — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:43:42 +0000

If Horizon select the reactor by the end of this year (calendar or financial?), this will be in advance of the completion of the GDA process currently expected June 2011.

Comment on AECL’s future in jeopardy by Ashok Kumar

Ashok Kumar — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:44:08 +0000

Ontarions have enjoyed the lowest energy cost of 5 Cents/KWH for decades, thanks to CANDU reactors. Now McGuinty govt. has sold us to Samsung & wind power at a huge cost of over 7 Billion under the pretext of “Clean Energy” which will also boost our energy costs to 18 Cents/KWH. Why does one replace already “Clean Nuclear Energy” with internittent, unreliable and expensive Wind energy which also presents unsightly towers + Noise. We are promoting a foreign technology in Canada at a huge cost to the consumer for an unreliable source of energy which is costing the Canadians 3 times as much, to replace our home grown technology and cheaply available power. Does this make any sense? We have “True Patriots in Command” in McGuinty & Harper. Their motto seems to be “promote foreign technology” at the expense of the Canadians.

Comment on NB Minister talks with Areva about developing 2nd reactor by hammers on the moon

hammers on the moon — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:45:00 +0000

Do yourself a favour, go on Google Earth or take a drive down the #1 highway past Point Lepreau. You’ll see that the grid goes two directions from the Point: towards Coleson Cove and to the U.S. Border. You’ll also note that added to the existing grid is a second more robust line running to the U.S. border consisting of unpainted Steel towers. If the PROFIT wasn’t there, there wouldn’t a nice new line connecting to that market in anticipation of sales.

It’s no secret that the past two Governments have run NB Power into the ground. Lepreau makes a very good profit when it’s running and we need to generate more sales to get us out of our deficit. A second Reactor is a cheap and profitable source of income and it may reduce our rate hikes (which is NB Power’s only option to curb debt presently).

My only concern is I think Candu designs are the only ones that are currently legal in Canada from a safety standpoint.

Comment on Vermont Yankee probed for contaminating groundwater by peter van der does

peter van der does — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:07:29 +0000

On the NRC website under Vermont Yankee Effluent and Waste Disposal Report for the 3rd and 4th quarter 2005 there are
significant amounts of Strontium 90 reported produced at the plant. In addition for the years 2006 and 2007 Strontium 89 was
produced at Vermont Yankee. Strontium 89 turns into Strontium 90
over time. To say that the Strontium 90 in the fish comes from somewhere else is a bold face lie. Strontium can be found in nature however Strontium 90 is a product of a nuclear reaction.

Comment on Abu Dhabi’s Nuclear Folly by Terry Curley

Terry Curley — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:37:34 +0000

There may be a case against Nuclear Power but citing Chernobyl, which occurred in the despotic regime of the USSR, and TMI, which killed nobody and therefore doesn’t rate as a disaster, do not make the case. Furthermore, the author fails to take account of the massive amounts of materials that are required to build wind power sites for a fractional production of electrical power. If the author wishes to change the political situation in the UAE, that’s one thing but attacking Nuclear Power is a completely different issue. It may be unwise for the UAE to build Nuclear Power Plants, but that does not mean that Nuclear Power cannot be a significant part of the total energy solution around the world.

Comment on NB Minister talks with Areva about developing 2nd reactor by Terry Curley

Terry Curley — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:21:07 +0000

It is hard to see why the taxpayers of NB would take the risk of building a new nuclear power station unless the power is required in New Brunswick. Does the Minister think that he can turn a profit exporting power to New England? If Areva thought that was the case, they wouldn’t have to be wooed too long or too hard before they would commit to building a new power station.

Comment on Babcock & Wilcox’s mPower reactors by Jim Pulliam

Jim Pulliam — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:58:45 +0000

You mention Babcock & Wilcox and you mention Three Mile Island. You DON’T mention that Babcock & Wilcox built the valve that failed at Three Mile Island, leading to that emergency.

You also don’t mention that Congress is considering bills now that would give B%W a leg up, in the form of taxpayer dollars, to two DOE selected Small reactor companies working on lightwater small reactors. NuScale and Mpower are the only two American companies doing that business so they will be the obvious beneficiaries.

How does that sound? The US Government funding R&D, testing, and licensing help for the people who built the faulty part at Three Mile Island… Department of Interior helping BP cut corners in the Gulf of Mexico sound familiar?

Comment on Drillers need to learn from TMI incident by dave collins nuclear safety culture expert

dave collins nuclear safety culture expert — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 01:18:51 +0000

Problem is safety culture regulation. Post BP Texas City disaster Baker report said this but was not solved. TMI showed need for better hardware and training and management. INPO brought better focus on hardware, operating experience, training; but industry still struggles with regulating the quality of the “management” piece: safety culture. Many events after TMI to Chernobyl to more recently Davis Besse demonstrate the safety culture problem still not solved. 2004, 2006 GAO reports say NRC must improve safety culture assessment/regulation but NRC continues to struggle.

Bob Bea at Berkeley is expert in oil blowout events, he says in his 1998 paper exactly what was said right afer TMI. The problems now are rarely hardware, and almost always managmenent. In the nuclear industry, NEI has fought to keep NRC [and the "communitarian" regulator INPO] from regulating “management”.

I wrote my master’s thesis on this problems in 2003, and for over a decade [since 1999] I have been working to improve attitudes and regulation in the nuclear industry, but sometimes enlightenment [and change] comes very slowly. So agree improvements needed in oil, but nuclear probably not the best model for fixing what the Baker report found.