Sunday, April 22, 2012

Blog Carnival at ANS, and a New Blog with Attitude

The 101st Blog Carnival of Nuclear Energy is posted today at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  Once again, Dan Yurman has put together a great, wide-ranging Carnival, including:

  • a book review (Superfuel about thorium molten salt reactors) reviewed by Rick Maltese at Thorium MSR,  
  • why ExxonMobil is betting on higher natural gas prices in the future, by Rod Adams at Atomic Insights,
  • projections of world nuclear power, and nuclear power in Turkey, but Brian Wang at Next Big Future,
  • debunking nuclear energy nonsense (especially about Fukushima and San Onofre) by Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat
  • important early history of nuclear power by Will Davis at Atomic Power Review
  • the launch of the Nuclear Literacy Project at ANS Nuclear Cafe by Suzy Hobbs Baker
  • competition for Small Modular Reactors at ANS Nuclear Cafe by Dan Yurman
  • update on unit 2 of Fukushima by Leslie Corrice of HiroshimaSyndrome.
I ended with the Hiroshima Syndrome blog because there's a great new blog by MIT grad students, and it is called Things Worse Than Nuclear Power.  This is a blog with attitude, and I love it.  Some sample posts:

I ended with Les Corrice's Hiroshima Syndrome blog because I think that name also shows some attitude. Corrice believes much of the fear of nuclear energy is due to confusion between reactors and bombs, and he names his blog to reflect that. Similarly, a blog named Things Worse Than Nuclear Power shows a willingness to tackle misconceptions and make comparisons to other technologies.

Gosh, I would never have named my blog anything so provocative as Hiroshima Syndrome or Things Worse Than Nuclear Power. I think the names are great.

Of course, around some parts of Vermont, the statement Yes Vermont Yankee is pretty provocative in its own way!


Kit P said...

Thank you Meredith for an example that MIT has a lot of very smart people with no common sense. It has been my experience that this make for very poor engineers. However, a very good combination for producing very useless research.

I do not know how the nuke navy does it now but we would often run out diesels when coming into port.

Ships in harbors go slow and do not make much electricity. In other words they are not a major source of pollution.

“More than one in 10 children has asthma in the world's biggest port cities.”

As we would say in the navy, I will wager a confectionery that no 'scientific' reference actually supports that.

On the subject of LNT how stupid is that. Two reason, first those who grip about LNT then apply the same junk science to air pollution al la asthma and lung cancer. The second reason it this is ridiculous is that the commercial nuclear power does not have a problem meeting the standards for exposure.

Why argue a moot point? I suppose it is fun and you can show how knowledgeable you are at the local pub. Good advice, never go to a bar with people who have no common sense. Five young navy officers walk into 'Leo's Family Restaurant' and got served one broken nose, one broken leg, and one broken arm. I see my friend on Monday and ask what happened for him to get beat up. Not a clue. Le t me tell the rest of the story

Five white elitists in uniform walk into a black biker bar. One nerd ask nicely if he can dance with the guy's girlfriend . No! Apparently they did not have attractive women where this young man went to college because he could not take his eyes off her. I have hoisted a few beers and played pool in 'Leo Last Stop' as it was known in the fleet. Same rules as the small town bar in Ohio. It is good to have an exit strategy even if you are drinking with a 300# boiler tech.

“Hiroshima Syndrome ”

Anti-nukes are not 'confused' they are deranged. This why I tell young engineers not to debate folks from GREENPEACE or Mothers for Peace. Nor do I lecture about smoking or tattoos in biker bars.

The same goes for anti-whatever (coal, ethanol, renewable energy, pesticides, smoking). What may start out as a logical position soon becomes a form of derangement.

I am advocate of nuclear power and am so confident of my position that I do not need to make up stuff about other useful forms of energy.

Meredith Angwin said...

Kit. I would have liked this much better without the biker bar incident. It was very off-topic.

The "this is an example of another group being unreasonable" was so completely off-point about bloggers that I almost decided to delete this comment. Finally, I decided that other parts of your comments were worth reading.

Bur comparing MIT bloggers to navy officers who showed poor judgment in a bikers bar (whatever group the bikers belong to)---well, in my opinion, that is just completely flying in from left field, annoying other readers, and undercutting your main points.

Kit P said...

The MIT bog is an example of poor judgment. In the energy industry that will get people killed. Twice I have been at nuke plants that were not yet 'dispatchable' but happened to be at 100% power. Extreme weather events were challenging the system. The load dispatcher tells us that if he looses one one more plant, there will be a cascading failure of the grid. What are the consequences of that?

Nuclear power is part of the team that ensures we have the reliable and affordable power. The MIT bog offers nothing new yet Meredith you linked it as something worth but it is just gossip. The MIT grad students are blogging about something the are interested in. I have a problem with college students or navy people that somehow think there interest in nuclear power translates into understand of other sources of energy. If fact they do not much about nuclear power either.

Now Meredith I know it might offend you suggesting what you are doing is gossip. What you are doing is worth and the gossip part dilutes the message. Sure lots of people gossip and it if fun.

Stick with the merits of VY and skip the part about of bird kills in California. Putting wind turbines in Vermont is fair game if is based on sound logic. I do not the Blue Ridge Parkway to become construction access for wind turbine construction either. I am ready to articulate my objections if someone tries. On the other hand, I support wind farms in dry land wheat fields of the PNW and so does the local chapter of the Audubon Society who opposes building wind farms in the wrong places but not everyplace.

Charlie said...

Sounds like someone didn't get accepted to MIT...

Actually, there are a lot of you Navy nukes in the MIT graduate nuclear program, but I guess according to you they are poor engineers. We all know the navy guys are the best gossipers though- they learned it the best way- gotta do something to pass the time on the ship!

If ships aren't a major source of pollution, where is all that bunker fuel going? Conservation of mass tells you all that dirty fuel is going somewhere.

LNT is not a moot point. Accurate health knowledge is of utmost importance. It is a good point of yours that it is best to be conservative, but that is different from illogical. For one, it creates immense cost burdens that may not be warranted. To a wealthy man like yourself, this might not matter, but to the vast majority of Americans and American companies, energy costs matter immensely. It also matters immensely to people who may be evacuated from their homes unnecessarily in emergency situations.

It's true you shouldn't argue with people who are stuck in their point of view, so I won't engage in an argument with you, just pointing out a couple things.