2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I disagree that Three Mile Island wasn't much of anything.  A melted core is a big deal, but the safety systems did their job and contained the mess.  It's an example of the power plant design doing its job.

Chernobyl was all about human error.  As this listener states, they turned off multiple safety systems before the plant went supercritical.  The design of that power plant was vastly different than the plants in this county.  It did not have the containment structure that prevented significant radiation release at Three Mile Island.  That's hugely significant.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

This one made me laugh.  I've heard nuclear executives for years say nu-cu-lar rather than nu-cle-ar.  It very common in the nuclear industry and outside the industry, and it drives me crazy, but you can't judge someone on it.  

By the way, it's spelled nuclear, not neclear. 

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Thank you for hosting this discussion.  As a former nuclear power plant mechanical engineer, I am strongly in favor of having nuclear in our future energy mix.  The nuclear industry has a very safe and reliable operational history in the post Three Mile Island era.  Profound changes in the industry occurred after TMI, and I am proud to have been a part of the safe operation of the power plant where I worked.

I would not hesitate to live near or work in a nuclear power plant again assuming they maintain or improve current levels of regulation, oversight and safety focus.  We should be very proud of the US nuclear industry.

Clearly we need low carbon footprint energy sources.  Nuclear plants can be designed to withstand terrorist attacks, and can further protect us from terrorism by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

It's such a shame that Trojan was closed.  What a terrible loss.  (That is not the plant where I worked.)

We DO need to open a spent fuel storage facility.  The nuclear industry has paid billions of dollars to pay for a facility, and the government has yet to open it.  It needs to happen.  Safe fuel storage is not a technical issue.  It is a political one. 

It irks me to hear your guest making assumptions about the financing of NuScale's plants.  Once again, the activists are making unsubstantiated claims to try to bolster their position.  I've seen this for years and years.  Activists continue to make false statements, apparently out of ignorance, about the power plant where I worked, and the media continues to print them.  Perhaps they should look at the facts and learn about the technology before making such statements.  Only with factual data can we make intelligent decisions. 

Again, thanks for having this discussion.  I am strongly in favor of nuclear.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context