Our most efficient energy sources – oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear – are being sabotaged by ‘green’ activists, Democrats and the media while our least-efficient sources – wind and solar – are being promoted. This is happening since environmentalists are getting rich on wind and solar through massive government subsidies.
Here is an article from The Daily Caller about how government red tape is thwarting innovation in nuclear power. The article is by Andrew Follett. Each excerpt from the article is followed by a Nikitas3.com comment:
Follett writes: Government regulations and bureaucratic red-tape are killing the U.S. nuclear industry’s ability to innovate, a prominent nuclear scientist told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The regulations are causing U.S. nuclear reactors to shut down, which will be both an economic and environmental disaster. Red tape adds millions of dollars in costs to each new reactor and leads to delays lasting for years.
Nikitas3.com comment: We are seeing reactors shut down all over America. Vermont shut down its only reactor even though it was providing 65% of the state’s energy. This is insanity. Then the ‘greenies’ claim that they will make up that energy with windmills and solar panels. They will not. American solar panel companies keep going out of business. Why? If solar is so wonderful, why is it failing economically? Answer: Because solar does not work. It produces only a small amount of intermittent power. It makes no power at all during stormy or cloudy weather, or at night.
Follett writes: One of the big bureaucratic hurdles to building new nuclear reactors is the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Current regulations involved in constructing a conventional reactor can take up to 25 years to wade through, while building the reactor only takes 10 years. “The regulators want so much proof that nothing can possibly go wrong that they often prevent you from doing things that are safer, better or cheaper,” Terry said.
Nikitas3.com comment: Nuclear power has killed virtually nobody in 50 years of operation after ‘green’ warnings that it would wipe out tens of millions. In even the most catastrophic accident, at the Chernobyl reactor in the Soviet Union in 1986, only 31 people died, and they were firefighters who were up close fighting the reactor fire. And those 31 would not have died if the communists had built a reactor with the most elementary safeguards. But they did not. Typical communists…
At Fukushima, Japan, the hysteria over radiation around the damaged reactor is infinitely overblown. This radiation has killed nobody, but ‘greens’ don’t want you to know this. Meanwhile “mother nature” killed 18,000 Japanese and did $300 billion in damage in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami that destabilized the reactor in the first place. Yet ‘greens’ claim that “mother nature” is benign. It is not. Nature is the most brutal killer of all.
At the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 ‘greens’ also said that millions would die. False. Nobody has died. President Jimmy Carter even went inside the plant after the accident and he is still alive today at age 92. Nikitas3.com felt the TMI radiation strongly during a visit to the site after the accident, but has never suffered any ill health effects. Because the danger of radiation is vastly overblown by hysterical ‘greens’.
Follett writes: “The new reactors are safer, but they’re still light-water reactor technology,” Terry said. “It really should not be that hard for the NRC to get these new reactors licensed. It should not take four or five years … we used to build and experiment with things, but we’ve got so risk adverse that we’re afraid of anything. And that may put us at great danger of something else.”
Nikitas3.com comment: Environmentalists are Luddites, i.e., they don’t want any progress. They want us back in the 18th century, and solar power will take us there very quickly.
Follett writes: Due in part to regulatory burdens, the U.S. isn’t building new reactors. The average age for a U.S. nuclear reactor is 35, making it nearly obsolete by modern design standards and near the end of 40-year operating licenses. Sixteen American nuclear reactors are more than 42 years old, according to government data compiled and mapped by TheDCNF.
Nikitas3.com comment: So what if they are old? If they are producing power, then let them produce.
Follett writes: Terry called for the NRC to build advanced nuclear reactors for testing so real world experience could be gained operating them. “If the NRC doesn’t do this, there simply won’t be a U.S. nuclear industry,” Terry said. “They’ll stop getting built and you’ll start losing students in the pipeline and losing innovation. … You’re already losing the ability to build anything. We have to keep building and operating test reactors and right now that’s coming out of China, Russia and South Korea.”
Nikitas3.com comment: We don’t need “test reactors”. We need reactors that produce power. These reactors have been around for decades. Let’s just build more of them, with the newest technology.
Follett writes: China is building 20 new nuclear reactors while South Korea alone has five more under construction. Meanwhile, only four reactors are under construction in the U.S. That’s barely enough to replace older reactors going out of service.
Nikitas3.com comment: So there you go. Meanwhile guess what China is selling to the US by the millions… solar panels! This is a route to sure economic destruction and the Chinese know it. They are selling us failure, intentionally.
Follett writes: “If you build one of these (reactors), you’ll see some problems,” Terry said. “Everything we build has some problems, and you have to let them be built to get the innovation. To have all this paperwork upfront means that nothing ever gets done.” NuScale Power has so far spent $500 million and 2 million labor hours over eight years to ask the federal government for permission to build an advanced nuclear reactor. The energy company filed a 12,000-page application to build an advanced nuclear reactor. “NuScale is probably halfway through the process,” Terry said. “The world doesn’t work like that. It can’t. It just can’t. There’s no way. All the while this is happening real people are getting killed from air pollution. You’re killing real people to protect from something that might happen.”
Nikitas3.com comment: The ‘greens’ strangle us with paperwork, and this is everywhere from housing developments to oil wells to nuclear reactors. Because “greens” do not care about the environment. They are leftists and communists who are trying to destroy our economy, while profiting themselves. Then they ignore the fact that nuclear power creates ZERO air pollution, while they complain endlessly about air pollution.
Follett writes: The full review process for the reactor will likely take an additional 40 months and could cost NuScale another $600 million to finalize the decision. NuScale has to pay NRC officials $258 per hour to review the lengthy application.
Nikitas3.com comment: This is classic environmentalism, to delay, delay, delay and funnel more and more money to bureaucrats and ‘green’ consultants to “review” everything imaginable.
Follett writes: Nuclear power plants generate power without emitting carbon dioxide (CO2), which is blamed for global warming. It also doesn’t suffer from the indeterminacy of wind and solar power. But environmentalists aren’t onboard with nuclear power. Many green groups were founded with the explicit goal of opposing it.
Nikitas3.com comment: This is not true. Many ‘greens’ actually now support nuclear because they have seen that the alternatives don’t work. James Lovelock, the founder of the environmental movement, supports nuclear. So does Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace.
Follett writes: Nuclear power currently provides about 63 percent of America’s CO2 free power. A single nuclear reactor can prevent 3.1 million tons of CO2 emissions annually.
Nikitas3.com comment: Meanwhile Nikitas3.com has calculated mathematically that if we wanted to generate the same amount of power from windmills as we would get from a nuclear reactor then we would need up to 1,000 times as much, or more, in resources for the construction of the windmills (steel, concrete, copper and composite material) and thousands of times the labor costs for maintenance of the windmills.
(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)