 |
| Yurman's twitter icon |
You see, the first blogger I want to welcome is Dan Yurman. He's not new to blogging. Indeed, he is a towering figure as a pro-nuclear blogger! (And he's tall, too.)
Dan's Idaho Samizdat was the first pro-nuclear blog I ever heard about. Dan Yurman and Rod Adams were the first to welcome my own blog when it started on New Years Day, 2010.
So I can't say "New Bloggers" to Dan. However, I can say: Welcome Back, Dan Yurman! We have missed you!
Here's a link to his new blog: Neutron Bytes. And here's a link to his Welcome Post about how his new blog will be structured.
Ed Kee
 |
| Edward Kee Photo Courtesy of Nuclear Energy Institute |
With degrees from the Naval Academy and Harvard, Kee has been a consultant in energy economics for two decades. Here's a link to his biography. Most recently, Kee was vice president at NERA Economic Consulting.
He has recently started his own company, which gives him the freedom to blog. His blog is the Commentary section at his website for Nuclear Economics Consulting Group (his new company). Welcome to Kee and his knowledge of economics! The nuclear blogosphere needed someone with Kee's expertise.
Nuclear Economics blog
His first post: Nuclear Power Plants: Long-Term Assets in a Short-Term World.
Two More Blogs: Actinide Age and Power for the USA
Rod Adams Atomic Insights blog introduced me to these two blogs. If you search Atomic Insights for "Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy," you will find Rod's introduction to these two blogs, as well as introductions to the Yurman and Kee blogs.
Actinide Age has been published since late last year (yeah, I''m slow). It's an Australian pro-nuclear blog, also pro-renewable. One post shows the solar panels at the blogger's home. (This Is the Life.) He wonders whether he would use such panels if Australia were powered by low-emission nuclear energy. The blog is well-written, well illustrated, and most important, well-reasoned. The blog motto: Inexhaustible clean energy is optional. Choose wisely.
Power for the USA is one feisty blog. I can't think that I have a single reader who will agree with everything in this blog! But readers will agree with many aspects, and the blogger is certainly knowledgeable. Rod Adams's introduction to the blog gathered almost thirty comments, and a discussion/dispute between the blog owner, Donn Dears, and Rod Adams.
Donn is a retired executive with GE. He is in favor of nuclear energy and gas turbines. He is against exaggerated fear of both radiation and global warming. Whether you agree with all the posts or not, you have to admire a blog with posts such as Our Navy Should Go Nuclear, Not Green.
New Blogs
We have a wonderful new set of pro-nuclear blogs with so many different slants on the issues!
- World overview (Yurman, Neutron Bytes)
- Economics (Kee Nuclear Economics)
- Australian pro-renewable (Actinide Age)
- Energy for the United States (Donn, Power for the USA).
Enjoy!
I've added links in my blog roll. Thanks for pointing out the Power for the USA blog, Meredith! Looks like a good one - and I seem to agree with a lot of what he's saying. Now to go in for a thorough read.
ReplyDeleteThank you Meredith for the kind words. When my wife saw this blog post, she sent me a text. it said, "gonna need a bigger hat." Actually not. See you on the wires. Dan
ReplyDeleteThanks for the plug and the accurate summary! I'd like to add, I'm pro-all low carbon technology, with qualifiers: reliability, scalability, cost/annual output, plant lifetime and ease of siting. Obviously, nuclear is good to excellent in all of these. I have no financial connection with the industry, but the manufacturing in which I am employed would not survive if we were forced to rely entirely on intermittent renewables for electricity. The potential for intrinsic interrupted production would be unsustainable. This is a crucial factor ignored by advocates, especially those who dismiss baseload as unnecessary or a myth. At the same time, I recognise renewable energy as a legitimate industry, and it should be considered wherever it actually makes sense. Unfortunately, it is dangerously oversold - just like the perceived risks of modern nuclear power.
ReplyDelete