A phenomenal article. So much regulatory capture and fear mongering. Hopefully the Trump administration can alleviate some of these regulations without discrediting nuclear energy research and commercialization attempts any further.
You are using "regulatory capture" in its literal sense, capture by the regulators. However, it's true that once the hostages have paid their way into the regulatory castle, they become its bravest defenders. Call them happy captives. Pls see
Jack: Thank you for this informative article regarding the role of the Rockefeller family. What I believe you do not emphasize is that a significant number of fossil fuel interests practice "franchise protection" regarding the use of fossil fuel energy for electricity generation. Those interests are concerned that the use of fission power displaces large quantities of fossil energy. Thus, there are economic drivers to oppose nuclear power. This is a conflict of interest, not a conspiracy theory.
I believe that many fossil fuel interests provide anonymous funding for nonprofit organizations opposing nuclear power. Michael Shellenberger highlighted the role of the then-CEO of Atlantic Richfield Oil providing the startup funding for Friends of the Earth, an organization focused on opposing Diablo Canyon Power Plant. I've highlighted some recent examples in the GreenNUKE Substack in the June 25, 2024 article, "Don't Bite the Hand that Feeds You!" https://greennuke.substack.com/p/dont-bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you
Another problem is utilities that operate both fossil-fired and fission-powered generators. See: https://nuclearbarbarians.substack.com/p/what-the-most-expensive-truck-in Meredith Angwin's March 22, 2024 comment was "I also used to wonder why people like myself and Rod Adams and Howard Shaffer were defending nuclear plants, and the industry itself was overly silent. Rod helped me figure out that there is no "nuclear industry." The biggest companies in nuclear tend to be utilities that own nuclear plants. Those companies ALSO own fossil and renewable plants. So they aren't going to push nuclear. As another friend said: you don't shoot yourself in one foot to make the other foot feel better.."
Neither you nor Adams know your history. Big Oil in the 60's bought Hubbert's peak oil theory and his prediction that nuclear would dominate. They wanted to be part of Hubbert's future. They made an immense bet on nuclear and took an immense hit when it flopped. Pls read
I strongly agree with your call for NRC regulatory reform. I've already made filings in past NRC dockets advocating for this common-sense change. Both lies you identify should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
"Big energy" would strongly embrace nuclear power with this change. Constellation Energy (CEG) is pointing the way to the future with their announced acquisition of Calpine. The alternative is the economic waste outlined by Jim Conca, Ph.D. a decade ago, "Absurd Radiation Limits are a Trillion Dollar Waste," July 13, 2014, Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/07/13/absurd-radiation-limits-are-a-trillion-dollar-waste/.
The Gordian Knot Group is not calling for "NRC regulatory reform". If the Intolerable Harm Lie is false, nuclear can be regulated by the same system we regulate other vastly beneficial but potentially hazardous industries. The NRC disappears.
Yeah, with the NRC gone nuclear would still face all the problems that have hamstrung US industry since the spoiled baby boomers took over. But we would be moving from preemptive regualtion (prove to me you will never have a release and I will give you a license) to reactive regulation (here are the rules and penalties for breakign those rules. do what you want. ) It's a big difference.
I follow your valiant, uphill battle to kill LNT with interest and admiration. I have written a short article on the same subject, in which I took the liberty to include a quote from your GKG. Hope you don't mind.
We can't kill LNT unless we have a completely defined replacement.
A non-linear ACUTE dose response curve is a necessary condition for a replacement, but it is far from sufficient. DNA repair is a dynamic process. The time dimension must be front and center in any radiation harm model. The key contribution of SNT is not non-linearity but it's emphasis on the time to repair.
A phenomenal article. So much regulatory capture and fear mongering. Hopefully the Trump administration can alleviate some of these regulations without discrediting nuclear energy research and commercialization attempts any further.
Zachary,
You are using "regulatory capture" in its literal sense, capture by the regulators. However, it's true that once the hostages have paid their way into the regulatory castle, they become its bravest defenders. Call them happy captives. Pls see
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/defending-lnt-and-the-goldstandard
The Trump administration can;t discredit nuclear energy research and commercialization. Both have been total flops for 60 years, The question is why?
Jack: Thank you for this informative article regarding the role of the Rockefeller family. What I believe you do not emphasize is that a significant number of fossil fuel interests practice "franchise protection" regarding the use of fossil fuel energy for electricity generation. Those interests are concerned that the use of fission power displaces large quantities of fossil energy. Thus, there are economic drivers to oppose nuclear power. This is a conflict of interest, not a conspiracy theory.
At his Atomic Insights website, Rod Adams details how fossil fuel interests have disparaged fission power. https://atomicinsights.com/smoking-gun/ Rod's articles span actions opposing nuclear power going back many decades. In this series, Rod has a special May 21, 2020 article regarding hydrocarbon interests https://atomicinsights.com/how-did-leaders-of-the-hydrocarbon-establishment-build-the-foundation-for-radiation-fears/ This article covers some of the topics you discuss in this article. I observe you left a comment in response to Rod's article on the day it was published.
I believe that many fossil fuel interests provide anonymous funding for nonprofit organizations opposing nuclear power. Michael Shellenberger highlighted the role of the then-CEO of Atlantic Richfield Oil providing the startup funding for Friends of the Earth, an organization focused on opposing Diablo Canyon Power Plant. I've highlighted some recent examples in the GreenNUKE Substack in the June 25, 2024 article, "Don't Bite the Hand that Feeds You!" https://greennuke.substack.com/p/dont-bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you
Another problem is utilities that operate both fossil-fired and fission-powered generators. See: https://nuclearbarbarians.substack.com/p/what-the-most-expensive-truck-in Meredith Angwin's March 22, 2024 comment was "I also used to wonder why people like myself and Rod Adams and Howard Shaffer were defending nuclear plants, and the industry itself was overly silent. Rod helped me figure out that there is no "nuclear industry." The biggest companies in nuclear tend to be utilities that own nuclear plants. Those companies ALSO own fossil and renewable plants. So they aren't going to push nuclear. As another friend said: you don't shoot yourself in one foot to make the other foot feel better.."
Gene,
Neither you nor Adams know your history. Big Oil in the 60's bought Hubbert's peak oil theory and his prediction that nuclear would dominate. They wanted to be part of Hubbert's future. They made an immense bet on nuclear and took an immense hit when it flopped. Pls read
https://gordianknotbook.com/download/nuclear-power-and-fossil-fuel
This paper also discusses the Anderson donation to the John Muir Society.
Big Oil would be happy to jump on the nuclear bandwagon again, if they hadn't been so badly burned the first time.
Frankly, I'm fed up with this lame, non-historic attempt to deflect from nuclear's real problem, an out of control, misdirected regulatory system.
If we solve that problem, Big Oil would become Big Nuclear.
I strongly agree with your call for NRC regulatory reform. I've already made filings in past NRC dockets advocating for this common-sense change. Both lies you identify should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
"Big energy" would strongly embrace nuclear power with this change. Constellation Energy (CEG) is pointing the way to the future with their announced acquisition of Calpine. The alternative is the economic waste outlined by Jim Conca, Ph.D. a decade ago, "Absurd Radiation Limits are a Trillion Dollar Waste," July 13, 2014, Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/07/13/absurd-radiation-limits-are-a-trillion-dollar-waste/.
The economic stakes are too big to ignore..
Gene,
The Gordian Knot Group is not calling for "NRC regulatory reform". If the Intolerable Harm Lie is false, nuclear can be regulated by the same system we regulate other vastly beneficial but potentially hazardous industries. The NRC disappears.
Jack: Thanks for your vision. Such a logical policy reform would require much more regulatory house-cleaning. The U.S. EPA has a bureaucracy that relies on LNT (Office of Air and Radiation..) https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-air-and-radiation The FDA has the Office of Radiation Emitting Products. https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products This problem extends to the state and city level as well.
Yeah, with the NRC gone nuclear would still face all the problems that have hamstrung US industry since the spoiled baby boomers took over. But we would be moving from preemptive regualtion (prove to me you will never have a release and I will give you a license) to reactive regulation (here are the rules and penalties for breakign those rules. do what you want. ) It's a big difference.
Agreed.
I follow your valiant, uphill battle to kill LNT with interest and admiration. I have written a short article on the same subject, in which I took the liberty to include a quote from your GKG. Hope you don't mind.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-154344901
Villy,
We can't kill LNT unless we have a completely defined replacement.
A non-linear ACUTE dose response curve is a necessary condition for a replacement, but it is far from sufficient. DNA repair is a dynamic process. The time dimension must be front and center in any radiation harm model. The key contribution of SNT is not non-linearity but it's emphasis on the time to repair.