This is why in France, the Greens always insist on the existence of a powerful "nuclear lobby" which cannot exist because all nuclear companies are state-owned.
What a bunch of liars. The powerful lobby is funding anti-nuclear NGO's like Greenpeace @ 400M Euros/yr. Add them all up and likely exceeds $1B/yr in funding to anti-nuclear NGO's. Additional funding to politicians, lobbyists and media. I'm still waiting to see one pro-nuclear industry paid ad anywhere. Wind turbines & solar panels, you can scarcely watch a car or truck commercial without wind turbines or solar panels in the background, even movies just love wind & solar product placement scenes. I wonder how much they get paid for that. If there is any kind of "nuclear industry" they have got to have the worst PR firm in all of human history.
As early as the 1970s, a pro-nuclear association was created by the industrialists: the SFEN, but it was originally more of a scholarly society. In recent years it has been more active in informing the public and decision-makers, but without ever challenging the decisions taken by the state, however absurd they may be. This change came about with the emergence of civil society groups defending the nuclear industry. But I would be very surprised if these groups, which are critical of the state's decisions, were actually funded by the industry.
That's certainly true, very little nuclear industry cash goes to pro-nuclear groups. With a few minor exceptions. The Nuclear Humanist on Youtube says he gets some funding from Terrestrial Energy in Canada. But those are amounts wind & solar companies call pocket change.
This is why in France, the Greens always insist on the existence of a powerful "nuclear lobby" which cannot exist because all nuclear companies are state-owned.
I wrote a whole book, Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop, attempting to answer Martin's question: You can download it for free from gordianknotbook.com. It turns out the prime culprit is the nuclear power establishment itself. Big Oil is way down on the list of enemies. Big Oil made an immense bet on nuclear in the 1960's and 1970's, and took a enormous hit when nuclear power flopped.
Jack, I have been reading and promoting your work on Twitter. It does not look like you’re on Twitter. Thanks for introducing yourself. Your work is important.
Excellent short piece! I find the effectiveness of the pronuclear movement encouraging. We see the same here in the Netherlands. Initially, it was really just a few stray individuals who decided to stand on the soapbox around 2015, and seven years later it is still idealism that drives the proponents. But look where we are now! The Dutch government has reserved 5 billion euros for new nuclear power plants and the preferred location has been announced (Borssele, next to our only existing nuclear power plant). Several initiatives are in the works. I am still amazed every day at what we managed to achieve. The opposition is still huge. Proponents of nuclear energy who decide to step on that soap box should know what they are getting themselves into. But damn important to do it anyway!
Gijs--thank you kindly for this post. It is very gratifying to see that my particular way of seeing some things and writing--very small contributions--are helping such a worthy cause. Humans who see the truth must band together and form a massive contingency supporting Nuclear Power. Thanks for sharing this piece and for your comments.
You're most welcome! I think there is such a thing as a global pronuclear movement, which is really mostly individuals trying to make their own little contribution. I have been convinced for years that the material issue and EROEI are the Achilles heel of the current VRE plans. Your hands-on background contribution fascinates me because you make this issue very concrete. Thanks for doing this!
Have you shared your thoughts on the issue of what to do with the radioactive waste? If no, would you please? My understanding is that we haven't yet figured out a really safe (long-term) way to deal with it, and as far as I can tell, this is one of the major objections many people have to the idea of nuclear energy. Would love to know what solutions you know of in relation to this issue.
The other major objection I'm aware people have is that of nuclear disaster. It could be argued we've had relatively few "major" nuclear disasters, considering the number of reactors in use (although the time period we've had them is tiny in the grand scheme of things). Although the effects can endure for long periods.
As far as I understand it, human error precipitated the Chernobyl disaster. As for the rarely talked about meltdown at Santa Susana Field Lab (outside Los Angeles), I'm not sure what the cause was. Since it was an experimental reactor, I presume it was a design flaws (i.e., a failed experiment). Three Mille Island was reportedly a malfunction, so that is indirectly a result of human error, since it's humans designing, building, and maintaining the reactor.
The Fukushima multiple meltdown was painted in the media as geological, although it could and should be argued the locating of the reactor on an active fault line was "human error" at the implementation phase. And ... that the reactor was poorly designed and was a known risk (= human error) [see: https://bit.ly/3IQrjKi ]. AND ... I understand they used repurposed backup generators known to not be suitable for that scenario [see: https://bit.ly/3w94dH0] was also human error / stupidity. So perhaps one could argue the geological challenges simply revealed our human errors / ignorance / stupidity / hubris?
There's a long list of other nuclear incidents from the short time we've in the game. Many reactor related, many not. [see: https://bit.ly/3WitWre ]
What are your thoughts on how we prevent human stupidity / ignorance / hubris / greed from causing future disasters at nuclear power plants? And how we deal with the significant assumptions we make about the geological stability of the environment with regards to the long-term viability of a reactor?
Whilst this article (see: https://bit.ly/3ZLogJa ] is potentially biased (against nuclear power), I do think it makes some valid points. Just as this article is likely biased in favour of nuclear power [see: https://bit.ly/3XffIZw ] with regards to issues of waste management, I think it also makes some valid points.
I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on the matter of waste handling and the question of averting nuclear disasters.
Good article, but I disagree with the notion that because uranium is cheap and abundant, producers can make little profit and thus don't form a powerful constituency. Lots of things are abundant yet profitable - water, food, clothes, etc.
Uranium producers should merge, that would fix this problem.
Excellent piece, BR. Brief, but packs a wallop. Could be read and understood by most anyone.
The question: how to get the attention of the masses on this critical topic?
Good question - that goes to The Problem
This is why in France, the Greens always insist on the existence of a powerful "nuclear lobby" which cannot exist because all nuclear companies are state-owned.
What a bunch of liars. The powerful lobby is funding anti-nuclear NGO's like Greenpeace @ 400M Euros/yr. Add them all up and likely exceeds $1B/yr in funding to anti-nuclear NGO's. Additional funding to politicians, lobbyists and media. I'm still waiting to see one pro-nuclear industry paid ad anywhere. Wind turbines & solar panels, you can scarcely watch a car or truck commercial without wind turbines or solar panels in the background, even movies just love wind & solar product placement scenes. I wonder how much they get paid for that. If there is any kind of "nuclear industry" they have got to have the worst PR firm in all of human history.
that's the problem - there is not much of a nuclear power industry as such
As early as the 1970s, a pro-nuclear association was created by the industrialists: the SFEN, but it was originally more of a scholarly society. In recent years it has been more active in informing the public and decision-makers, but without ever challenging the decisions taken by the state, however absurd they may be. This change came about with the emergence of civil society groups defending the nuclear industry. But I would be very surprised if these groups, which are critical of the state's decisions, were actually funded by the industry.
That's certainly true, very little nuclear industry cash goes to pro-nuclear groups. With a few minor exceptions. The Nuclear Humanist on Youtube says he gets some funding from Terrestrial Energy in Canada. But those are amounts wind & solar companies call pocket change.
This is why in France, the Greens always insist on the existence of a powerful "nuclear lobby" which cannot exist because all nuclear companies are state-owned.
the phantom menace
I wrote a whole book, Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop, attempting to answer Martin's question: You can download it for free from gordianknotbook.com. It turns out the prime culprit is the nuclear power establishment itself. Big Oil is way down on the list of enemies. Big Oil made an immense bet on nuclear in the 1960's and 1970's, and took a enormous hit when nuclear power flopped.
Jack, I have been reading and promoting your work on Twitter. It does not look like you’re on Twitter. Thanks for introducing yourself. Your work is important.
Thank you
Excellent short piece! I find the effectiveness of the pronuclear movement encouraging. We see the same here in the Netherlands. Initially, it was really just a few stray individuals who decided to stand on the soapbox around 2015, and seven years later it is still idealism that drives the proponents. But look where we are now! The Dutch government has reserved 5 billion euros for new nuclear power plants and the preferred location has been announced (Borssele, next to our only existing nuclear power plant). Several initiatives are in the works. I am still amazed every day at what we managed to achieve. The opposition is still huge. Proponents of nuclear energy who decide to step on that soap box should know what they are getting themselves into. But damn important to do it anyway!
Gijs--thank you kindly for this post. It is very gratifying to see that my particular way of seeing some things and writing--very small contributions--are helping such a worthy cause. Humans who see the truth must band together and form a massive contingency supporting Nuclear Power. Thanks for sharing this piece and for your comments.
You're most welcome! I think there is such a thing as a global pronuclear movement, which is really mostly individuals trying to make their own little contribution. I have been convinced for years that the material issue and EROEI are the Achilles heel of the current VRE plans. Your hands-on background contribution fascinates me because you make this issue very concrete. Thanks for doing this!
I'm an industrialist about to exit a venture I've started. Nuclear needs to be a viable business to get any oxygen. What can I do, realistically?
DM me
there are good opportunities, esp. in the "adjacent" fields
Thanks for this informative article.
Have you shared your thoughts on the issue of what to do with the radioactive waste? If no, would you please? My understanding is that we haven't yet figured out a really safe (long-term) way to deal with it, and as far as I can tell, this is one of the major objections many people have to the idea of nuclear energy. Would love to know what solutions you know of in relation to this issue.
The other major objection I'm aware people have is that of nuclear disaster. It could be argued we've had relatively few "major" nuclear disasters, considering the number of reactors in use (although the time period we've had them is tiny in the grand scheme of things). Although the effects can endure for long periods.
As far as I understand it, human error precipitated the Chernobyl disaster. As for the rarely talked about meltdown at Santa Susana Field Lab (outside Los Angeles), I'm not sure what the cause was. Since it was an experimental reactor, I presume it was a design flaws (i.e., a failed experiment). Three Mille Island was reportedly a malfunction, so that is indirectly a result of human error, since it's humans designing, building, and maintaining the reactor.
The Fukushima multiple meltdown was painted in the media as geological, although it could and should be argued the locating of the reactor on an active fault line was "human error" at the implementation phase. And ... that the reactor was poorly designed and was a known risk (= human error) [see: https://bit.ly/3IQrjKi ]. AND ... I understand they used repurposed backup generators known to not be suitable for that scenario [see: https://bit.ly/3w94dH0] was also human error / stupidity. So perhaps one could argue the geological challenges simply revealed our human errors / ignorance / stupidity / hubris?
There's a long list of other nuclear incidents from the short time we've in the game. Many reactor related, many not. [see: https://bit.ly/3WitWre ]
What are your thoughts on how we prevent human stupidity / ignorance / hubris / greed from causing future disasters at nuclear power plants? And how we deal with the significant assumptions we make about the geological stability of the environment with regards to the long-term viability of a reactor?
Whilst this article (see: https://bit.ly/3ZLogJa ] is potentially biased (against nuclear power), I do think it makes some valid points. Just as this article is likely biased in favour of nuclear power [see: https://bit.ly/3XffIZw ] with regards to issues of waste management, I think it also makes some valid points.
I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on the matter of waste handling and the question of averting nuclear disasters.
Good article, but I disagree with the notion that because uranium is cheap and abundant, producers can make little profit and thus don't form a powerful constituency. Lots of things are abundant yet profitable - water, food, clothes, etc.
Uranium producers should merge, that would fix this problem.
Sad but true. And I hope they like being cold and without power... Of course at that point, it will be too late...