Nuclear somersault: New Energy Secretary changes his tune and says he won't block reactor plans

[FBaggins]

Energy Secretary Ed Davey performed a spectacular U-turn on nuclear power last night – as he declared he would not block plans for a new generation of reactors.

...snip...

As Lib Dem trade and industry spokesman in 2006 Mr Davey was the architect of the party's anti-nuclear policy.

...snip...

But in a statement last night, he said he would not disrupt the Coalition agreement, which commits to paving the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations.

He added: ‘There have been understandable concerns given the expensive mistakes made in the past which the taxpayer is still paying for. But the Coalition agreement is crystal clear – new nuclear can go ahead so long as it’s without subsidy.’


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097481/Ed-Davey-performs-U-turn-nuclear-power.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[Dead_Parrot]

1. I expect he's been brought off by the global nuclear conspiracy

that, or, he doesn't want to leave his kid(s) a fucking rock to live on.

[bananas]

2. It's a compromise with the Conservatives - a deal with the devil

I see DU is still mangling links.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_%E2%80%93_Liberal_Democrat_Coalition_Agreement

The Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition
Agreement (also called The Coalition: Our Programme
For Government ) was a policy document drawn up
following the 2010 general election in the United Kingdom .
It formed the terms of reference governing the Cameron
Ministry , the newly formed coalition government comprising
MPs from the Conservative Party and the Liberal
Democrats .

<snip>

[Dead_Parrot]

3. In that case, I'll phone the Vatican.

Nothing like a good exorcism.

[ellisonz]

4. Just plain wrong. n/t

[BeFree]

5. ...so long as it’s without subsidy.’

Then kiss new nukes goodbye. Because the only way new nukes can be built is with government subsidies.

Fukushima will bankrupt TEPCO and probably the whole of Japan.

And the next nukushima will be the final nail in the coffin of nukers.
Stake thru the heart may be a better depiction.

Sad that it has taken so much damage for the reality to become evident to the nukers and sad that the world must suffer so much before that genie is put back in the bottle.

Imagine that at one time we were told nukes would produce electricity "Too Cheap To Meter" what a damned lie that has proven to be, eh, baggins?

[PamW]

6. NOT A LIE!!

Imagine that at one time we were told nukes would produce electricity "Too Cheap To Meter" what a damned lie that has proven to be, eh, baggins?
====================================

NOT A LIE!!! Just people who don't know where that "Too Cheap To Meter" quote came from.

Contrary to the mis-informed poster above, the "too cheap to meter" line was NEVER said by someone in the nuclear industry. It came from a Government official, then AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss, and he wasn't talking about our present fission nuclear power plants; he was talking about nuclear FUSION:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss

n 1954, Strauss predicted that atomic power would make electricity "too cheap to meter." He was referring to Project Sherwood, a secret program to develop power from hydrogen fusion, not uranium fission reactors as is commonly believed.

PamW

[kristopher]

7. Sure he was.

That's why he said it in conjunction with a series of public appearances to introduce the country to the use of civilian nuclear power.

[PamW]

8. WRONG AS ALWAYS!!

As always Kris, you have absolutely no idea of the actual circumstances.

Actually, Strauss was just waxing philosophic at a gathering for science fiction writers:

http://media.cns-snc.ca/media/toocheap/toocheap.html

He also said that mankind would travel beneath the seas and travel through the air with minimal risk and at great speeds. Since Strauss also promised high speed flight with minimal risk, I wonder why people don't jump on his statement any time there is an airliner crash.

No - Kris, Strauss wasn't introducing nuclear power to the nation. He made those remarks in 1954 BEFORE we had nuclear power plants. There was NO NEED to introduce the public to nuclear power when it wasn't yet in existence.

Kris, as always has zero idea about the history, and he fabricates to suite his political agenda.
Strauss was waxing philosophic with science fiction writers about the wonders of things to come, and wasn't introducing nuclear power plants, because there weren't any at the time.

When we got nuclear power plants years later, the anti-nukes took Strauss' comments out of context, and have been pretending for decades that he was talking about nuclear power plants.

PamW

[caraher]

9. Please drop the stupid all caps

Especially when you make so many mistakes yourself. Read your own link and tell me how "science writers" in the piece you cite becomes "science fiction writers" when you summarize it here?

Lewis L. Strauss
Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New York City, September 16th, 1954

I won't say you are "WRONG AS ALWAYS!" or "WRONG WRONG WRONG." But you are most certainly wrong.

You also misrepresent the historical context - September 1954 was when Eisenhower broke ground on the Shippingport plant. He was heavily promoting "Atoms for Peace," and was very interested in having an operating US power reactor for purely civilian use. So while there indeed were no nuclear power plants at the time, there was an intense interest in having them very soon, more for political than economic reasons. The lack of existing nuclear power plants is in fact precisely why there was a perceived need to introduce them to the public!

While it is indeed likely that Strauss had fusion in mind during his speech, the contemporary press certainly interpreted his reference as a reference to fission. Were there corrections at the time from Eisenhower, the AEC, Strauss himself? The power industry (which at the time wasn't particularly interested in nuclear, and thus should have been happy to set the record straight)? The real question isn't whether scientists and engineers at the time thought electricity from fission would be "too cheap to meter" (plainly they did not); it's what perception was allowed to develop in the public imagination.

[txlibdem]

11. So the nuke industry is damned for allowing a misquote by The Press

to continue without correction?

I just can't see many companies spending their money and time to correct a favorable yet wrong impression about their product.

Ronald Reagan made advertisements for a cigarette company. Did he (immediately after the ads appeared) make public statements declaring he was just paid to say that and he didn't like that brand of cigarette after all?

Money, money money. The greatest evil ever created by Man.

[caraher]

12. It wasn't a misquote so much as the obvious interpretation

Really, only Strauss could have known for certain what he really meant, and since Eisenhower was keen to get the US a full-scale reactor at the time he had no incentive to correct any misapprehensions. (And he was also constrained by the secrecy of the project at the time.)

And sure, industries will allow favorable misinterpretations to linger, but that's also something we should count against them. If there were a rumor that cigarettes cured cancer and people took up smoking because they had the disease, wouldn't the tobacco industry share at least some culpability for profiting from that misapprehension?

Personally, I don't have a major beef with the nuclear industry over "too cheap to meter." Whether nuclear makes sense or not as a technology doesn't really depend on past sins of commission or omission regarding PR. But it certainly affects perceptions of the technology and the reputation of the industry.

[txlibdem]

13. It sounds like you're insinuating that past failures are doomed to repeat

The new reactors, Generation IV and most of the SMRs currently under consideration by the NRC for approval, cannot --by the laws of physics-- have a melt down. Cannot. Cannot, unless you change the laws of physics... and I don't think anyone in the ANC is up to that task.

"Perceptions of the technology and the reputation of the industry" are caused by people like you, perhaps well meaning but misled, who believe that nuclear technology (unlike every other technology we have ever invented) does not improve. That's the most simple minded point of view I can imagine. PS, it's also wrong.

ANC, the Anti-Nuclear Cult, are always wrong.

[jpak]

10. Waxing poetic = lying out his ass

yup