We can't have nuclear energy today because The China Syndrome was a Real Movie starring Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda! If our species somehow survives this inflection point, future generations will look back and shake their heads at the collective insanity.
It is truly amazing that TCS and TMI happened within weeks of each other, and that that coincidence shaped the nation's energy policy for half a century hence.
What do you think is driving the anti-nuclear agenda? Is it because allowing people to have abundant clean energy will diminish the ability to control people's behavior by the powers that be? Or is it (like most everything else) about money?
There are Best-and-Brightest who've let slip the notion that nuclear would let people continue living the lives they lead, rather than having to change their behaviors, and therefore nuclear is bad.
Would nuclear power be economically viable without a key government intervention in the form of the Price-Anderson Act, which limits liability in the event of a nuclear accident?
I'm opposed on principle to such interventions, but beyond that, there are "fail-safe" designs that are incapable of having melt-down type failures. The outer limit of what a nuclear accident might look like isn't what many have been led to believe.
We can't have nuclear energy today because The China Syndrome was a Real Movie starring Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda! If our species somehow survives this inflection point, future generations will look back and shake their heads at the collective insanity.
It is truly amazing that TCS and TMI happened within weeks of each other, and that that coincidence shaped the nation's energy policy for half a century hence.
What do you think is driving the anti-nuclear agenda? Is it because allowing people to have abundant clean energy will diminish the ability to control people's behavior by the powers that be? Or is it (like most everything else) about money?
There are Best-and-Brightest who've let slip the notion that nuclear would let people continue living the lives they lead, rather than having to change their behaviors, and therefore nuclear is bad.
Would nuclear power be economically viable without a key government intervention in the form of the Price-Anderson Act, which limits liability in the event of a nuclear accident?
I'm opposed on principle to such interventions, but beyond that, there are "fail-safe" designs that are incapable of having melt-down type failures. The outer limit of what a nuclear accident might look like isn't what many have been led to believe.