Skip to main content


First, the pertinent data on Vietnam's energy development;

Vietnam has considered establishing nuclear power generation since 1995, and firm proposals surfaced in 2006.
    Russia has agreed to finance and build 2000 MWe of nuclear capacity.
    Japan has agreed similarly for another 2000 MWe.

Vietnam is the most significant of the three lower Mekong countries, with a population of 88 million. Vietnam produced 100.1 billion kWh gross in 2010 from 19.7 GWe of plant, giving per capita consumption of 1140 kWh/yr. In 2009, 33% of the country's capacity was hydro, 17% gas (CCGT), 12% coal, 6% oil - all under Electricity of Vietnam (EVN), and 33% was with IPP & BOT outside EVN.

Electricity supply in 2010 was 38% from hydro, 33.6% gas and 18.5% coal. GDP growth in 2010 was 6.8%. In 2012 demand is expected to be 10.9% up on 2011, total 120.8 billion kWh: 45.0 hydro, 24.8 coal, 45.7 gas, 0.5 oil, and 4.65 import from China. A total of 3.1 GWe capacity is due to be added in 2012.

Demand is growing rapidly, resulting in rationing. Electricity demand growth has been 14% pa and is expected to be 15% pa to 2015, then slowing to 2020. A 500 kV grid runs the length of the country and some 95% of the rural population has access to electricity.

Projections of power demand (base scenario) in 2011 are:

30.8 GWe, 194 TWh in 2015 (33% hydro, 35.5% coal),
52.0 GWe, 320 TWh in 2020 (26% hydro, 46% coal, 17% gas, 1.5% nuclear),
77.0 GWe, 490 TWh in 2025 (21% hydro, 46% coal, 16% gas, 6% nuclear),
110.2 GWe, 695 TWh in 2030 (16% hydro, 56% coal, 11% gas, 8% nuclear - with nuclear share then increasing to 20-25% by 2050).
Nuclear power proposals

In the early 1980s two preliminary nuclear power studies were undertaken, followed by another which reported in 1995 that: "Around the year 2015, when electricity demand reaches more than 100 billion kWh, nuclear power should be introduced for satisfying the continuous growth in the country's electricity demand in that time and beyond".  Current projections almost double this.

In February 2006 the government announced that a 2000 MWe nuclear power plant should be on line by 2020. This general target was confirmed in a nuclear power development plan approved by the government in August 2007, with the target being raised to a total of 8000 MWe nuclear by 2025. A general law on nuclear energy was passed in mid 2008, and a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework is being developed.

Since October 2008, two reactors total 2000 MWe have been planned at Phuoc Dinh in the southern Ninh Thuan province. A further 2000 MWe was planned at Vinh Hai nearby, followed by a further 6000 MWe by 2030. Both locations are based particularly on geological suitability on the coast. A high demand scenario would give 8000 MWe in 2025 and 15,000 MWe (10% of total) in 2030 at up to eight sites in five provinces. Four more units would be added to the first two sites, then six more at three or four central sites in provinces of Quang Ngai (Duc Thang or Duc Chanh), Binh Dinh (Hoai My) and Phu Yen (Xuan Phuong). These, plus Ky Xuan in the northern Ha Tinh province, remained proposals in mid 2011.

From the WNN:

Vietnam is to set up a new National Council for Atomic Energy Development, tasked with identifying strategies and priorities for the development of nuclear energy in the country.

Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung's announcement of the decision to set up the council was reported by Vietnam's official government press agency. Headed by Vietnam's science and technology minister, the council will advise the government on "orientations and strategies," identify priority areas for each development stage, and draw up key policies on nuclear energy development and application.

It will also coordinate ministries, agencies, governmental bodies and localities in developing nuclear energy and "realizing" nuclear power programs. The council will also take on a role in international nuclear cooperation activities with organizations and individual countries.

Vietnam's plans for nuclear power are well advanced. The country's Atomic Energy Law came into force in 2009 and intergovernmental agreements in place with Russia and Japan allow for the construction of its first two nuclear power plants, both in Ninh Thuan province. Costruction work has yet to begin, although the first Russian-designed unit at Ninh Thuan I is pencilled in to begin operation by the end of 2020.

Researched and written
by World Nuclear News
Reprinted here with permission

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    northstarbarn, gzodik, NNadir

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:41:57 AM PDT

  •  Graphs and charts are our friends. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    “I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter.” –Blaise Pascal

    by dskoe on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:23:04 AM PDT

  •  Its encouraging (0+ / 0-)

    to see that relatively low percentage of coal usage.

     I wonder how their hydroelectric power generation is affecting the aquatic life in the Mekong River.

    Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

    by 6412093 on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:23:51 AM PDT

    •  They shipped coal to China . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I read a while back that they shipped out so much that they needed to import coal for their own use .

      May 7, 2013, 5:38 PM

      Petrovietnam to Import Australian Coal to Meet Energy Needs

      By Vu Trong Khanh
      HANOI–Vietnam plans to import coal from Australia to help it meet rapidly growing energy needs that are being driven by economic growth averaging 7% over the past decade.

      Vietnam, once a major coal exporter, has seen its foreign sales nosedive as supplies are being kept home for domestic use. Exploitation of abundant reserves of offshore natural gas is going slowly, in part due to commercial wrangling, and Vietnam’s first nuclear power plants won’t start generation until at least 2020.

      Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11 + Trusted Users have a responsibility to police the general tenor... Hunter 5/26/06

      by indycam on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:30:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, that's accurate. You can't write Vietnam (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, gzodik

        a blank check (by those of us who support their move toward fission energy). The original plan before the nuclear was decided on was to build a slew of intermediate sized coal plants instead to the same increase in generation that will now be going nuclear.

        There is a real tendency for countries with large fossil supplies to use that fossil fuel regardless of a sincere (or not) increase toward low-carbon alternatives (renewables, nuclear, hydro). Nuclear represents currently a large double-digit cutting into fossil use, but that's it. Countries have to want to go and then plan for phasing out fossil fuel use. Otherwise it doesn't matter how much non-carbon they increase, it will never come close to phasing out carbon/fossil. That's the sad truth.

        Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

        by davidwalters on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:56:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Lovely. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roger Fox, S F Hippie

    Yet more propaganda from the Ministry of Nukes. All of it a re-hash of propaganda about projections of plans developed and released before Fukushima mass-melted and exploded, dumping all over Vietnam. Which was quite vocal in its condemnations when its food supply was put at risk. If you can't sell to Democratic nations anymore, surely the Communists will buy. They don't need public approval or corporate co-signers, the gub'mint owns everything.

    Thanks for the rehashed re-release from World Nuclear News. Always good to remember just how dedicated these people are to their zombie industry.

    •  Lets not walk into a nuclear Dkos dairy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, alain2112

      & ruffle some feathers.

      The "guest in someone's house" rule

      Walking into someone's diary is like walking into someone's home. You are a guest. Act accordingly. That doesn't mean you can't disagree. It just means you have to be civil and courteous and limit your arguments to substance.

      That level of courtesy must be even higher in group diaries. If people want to hang out and talk about X, and you are anti-X, then either be on your bestest of best behavior or just stay away. You are always free to write your own response diary or start your own anti-X group.

      So, my tolerance for dickishness will be least in group diaries, followed by personal diaries, followed by your own diaries.

      Bottom line: If you don't like someone, ignore or argue PURELY on the facts. If you refuse to heed and seek out your foes to shit all over their diaries, I will zap you. You don't need to go after the same people every day to remind them that yes, you still don't like them.

      That said, I agree with you 1000%. I just dont want to see a friend get embroiled in any trouble.

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:44:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not picking a fight. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox, S F Hippie

        David knows what he's doing with these "News Roundups" of copy-pastes from WNN. Which is the nuclear industry's propaganda arm, and makes absolutely no pretense of being anything else.

        So I thanked him for this one while highlighting that particular aspect of these reports. Anyone can read the dates right there in this re-hash. Putting them in context is okay.

        •  Right, youre not pickin a figh. Didnt say you were (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Allow me to be overly cautious...... if you will.

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Thu May 09, 2013 at 12:13:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL!!! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roger Fox, S F Hippie

            I make absolutely no pretense at being pro-nuclear. "Everybody knows" I'm a lost cause on that, for excellent reasons most people don't care to even try to follow. That's okay. David knows he'll never change my mind, I know I'll never change his. Just weighing in, that's all.

            He has turned this into a regular series, and that's fine with me. Trying to sell nukes here at DKos has to be the King Bitch of a job description out there these days. §;o)

            •  Gimme my wind, solar, HVDC, pumped hydro storage (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, S F Hippie


              Well, that and a buttered crescent and cup of coffee.

              I just realized these dairies dont get a lot of traffic...........

              .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Thu May 09, 2013 at 01:04:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  You have one set of rules for yourself... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          northstarbarn, alain2112

          and another for everyone else.

          I can't speak for David, but that's fine with me.   Rote dogmatic anti-nukes live in an alternate universe, where the destruction of the planetary atmosphere takes a back seat to their paranoid fantasy that someone, anyone, will someday die from say, Fukushima's nuclear reactors, the 20,000 deaths that occurred from non-nuclear causes being swept under the dam.

          But my favorite "scientifically illiterate anti-nuke" set of alternate rules, is when a dumb anti-nuke on this website, a clown who declared herself, despite knowing no physics and having no knowledge about human health related to energy issues, produced an "alternate reality" list of the half-lives of radioisotopes.

          Here's a complete reproduction of this bit of spectacular ignorance, in which the correspondent managed to get every half life wrong, and also concluded with a warm and fuzzy statement about how she, the self declared "health physicist" didn't give a fuck about how anybody died, as long as radiation wasn't involved:

          To your questions: (0+ / 0-)

          1. A single half-life of cesium-137 or strontium-90, of course. The most limiting isotopes in all nuclear burps, along with the iodine-133 and cesium-134, both of which have shorter half-lives.

          2. I don't care how many papers have been written about radionuclides at Chernobyl. It released the core inventory of gases, and a large amount of fuel and the full retinue of fission products. Because it melted, exploded, and burned. That's what melted, exploded and burned nukes do.

          3. A few choice among the long-lived radionuclides released by melted, exploded and/or burned nukes (also present in spent fuel), with half-lives noted…

          Technetium-99 [2 million years]
           Tin-126 [4 million years]
           Selenium-79 [3.2 - 6 million years]
           Zirconium-93 [15 million years]
           Iodine-129 [157 million years]
           Palladium-107 [65 million years]
           Cesium 135 [23 million years]
           Uranium 234 [2.46 million years]
           Uranium-238 [4.468 million years]
           Uranium-235 [7030.8 million years]
           Plutonium-239 [480,000 years]
           Neptunium-237 [20.14 million years]
           Ruthenium-103 [390 days]
           Americium-243 [70,300 years]
           Holmium-166m [12,000 years]
           Berkelium-247 [13,000 years]
           Radium-226 [16,000 years]
           Molybdenum-93 [40,000 years]
           Holmium-153 [45,000 years]
           Curium-246 [47,000 years]
           Carbon-14 [57,000 years]
           Plutonium-240 (65,000 years]
           Thorium-229 [73,000 years]
           Americium-243 [73,000 years]
           Curium-245 [85,000 years]
           Curium-250 [90,000 years]
           Proactinium-231 [327,000 years]
           Lead-202 [537,000 years]
           Lanthanium-137 [600,000 years]

          Halfnium-174, Zinc-70, Rhenium-187, Neodymium-144, Cadmium-113, Vanadium-50, Vanadium-50, Chromium-50, Calcium-48, Zircon-96, Tellurium-130… I could go on and on all night. There's about a thousand of 'em, a bit more than 90 which are particularly nasty and present in significant amounts in spent fuel pools, operating reactors, and fallout plumes from melted, exploded and/or burned reactors.

          4. Yes, air pollution does shorten the lives of many. I consider any and all of the pollutants listed above, plus all the more than 900 not listed above, as well as the beta nobles (to the tune of millions of curies), plus I131 and the cesium sisters [134 & 137] and strontium-90 to be very nasty pollutants that are known to be deadly and should NEVER be released to the atmosphere. Alas, all of them are out there now. Have been since way back in the 1950s. Civilization will not last long enough (nor will the human species) to see the end of their biological damage.

          We all die in the end - nobody gets outta here alive. Cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, liver disease, renal disease, communicable diseases, deficiency diseases, TSEs, violence, natural and unnatural disasters, starvation, war, accidents, plain old old age… I prefer not to be deliberately poisoned - and have my descendants forever deliberately poisoned - by the stupidest means of boiling water that ever arose in the twisted minds of men. You obviously believe differently. It will be the non-economics of nuclear power that delivers the death knell, there's not enough money in the entire world to even replace the nukes we've got now. It will never dent global climate change. Luckily, we have alternatives.

          I'm on the side of deploying them instead of nukes.

          Home Health Physics: Now Bilingual

          The bold is mine.   This explains why the paranoid fear monger doesn't give a fuck about what the World Health Organization - an organization that really knows something about, um, health, as opposed to paranoid clown buzzards who have zero familiarity with the contents of science books - reports as 3.3 million deaths per year half under the age of five, people who won't get to die "of just plain old age" like paranoid ignorance factories.

          I would think though, that statistically, the ignoramus would have been able to guess even one half-life right.

          The list shows, among other things, that you can't be a tiresome, flaky clown anti-nuke if you know how to work a decimal point.

          My personal favorite is the half-life reported by the correspondent for plutonium-239, though, one of the most important nuclei in nuclear technology, and, in my view, the nucleus that represented the last best hope of humanity.    The correspondent, who runs around shooting her insipid mouth claiming the right to bet the planetary atmosphere on her paranoia, reported the half-life of this important nucleus as being, as one can read above, as 480,000 years.   I mean where can one actually invent a number like this?    The actual half-life is 24,110 years.

          The half-lives of radioactive nuclei can be found on the Brookhaven National Laboratory website, and more simply and more quickly by use of the Korean KAERI webpage:

          Table of Nuclides.

          Never let it be said that there is one anti-nuke on this dying planet who has ever shown evidence of ever having opened a science book or even a scientific website, although they all can run at the tip of a typewriter key to all the websites of their vast circle jerk of ignorance.

          The quote above from the dumb, illiterate, climate change denying, cold ass paranoid can be found in a diary I wrote here:

          New Threat to Chernobyl Area Wildlife Observed

          Anyway.   Congratulations anti-nuke on your (literally) pyrrhic coal, oil and gas fueled victory.    In the last week at Mauna Loa, the recorded value for the dangerous and actually deadly dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide rounded up to 400 ppm, being precisely recorded as 399.58 ppm.

          Anyone who has remote familiarity with environmental science will recognize that this is an irreversible tragedy of the first order, this while people who don't know about, or care about, or give a fuck about the environment carry on hoping that at least one person exposed to radiation at Fukushima will die so they can burn a few 100,000 metric tons of coal - killing people in the process - to run servers to spread ignorance on the internet.

          Heckuva fucking job.   The senile old paranoid lazy assed illiterate purveyors of ignorance and fear have won the day, and as my sig line says...

          •  They haven't banned you (0+ / 0-)

            again yet? Surprise, surprise, surprise.

            By the way, you know as well as I do that nuclear can never be a player in dealing with global warming, so you really ought to drop the dishonest pretense. Nobody wants your crazy melt-and-explode technology now that we've seen with our own eyes that they do indeed melt and explode, which is something your industry has been lying about for decades. No utility can afford a Fukushima (or even a Chernobyl), and for the last 5 years project to go to 20 or more, no government can either.

            You might also consider that you've blamed the nukes' inability to be a serious player on the "senile old paranoid lazy assed illiterate purveyors of ignorance and fear." Wow. What wimps you guys are!

            •  Let me tell you a story about this place. (0+ / 0-)

              Some years back, there was a shit-for-brains paranoid CT spewing clown by the name of Joy Busey who used to write here.

              She was pretty typical of the worst sort of anti-nuke paranoid dipshit:   The sort of person who couldn't work a decimal point, hating science because she obviously didn't know any, illiterate, and so unfamiliar with subjects like "health" and "physics" that she didn't realize that people would consider her a real ass for attempting to pass herself off as a professional of any kind, never mind as a "health physicist."   Unfortunately, they don't arrest people for making such a claim, as the might do for a physician, a nurse, or a airline pilot.

              Now, I don't have a clue why the paranoid shit for brains was banned, because at this website, anti-nukism is very popular:   This is decidedly not a website for science or scientists to have their abilities and insights appreciated, and, to be sure, the paranoid mindless consumer brat Joy Busey - who burned metric tons of coal, oil and gas to spew nonsense about how everyone in Harrisburg PA was killed by Three Mile Island, while not giving a fuck about the roughly 105 million people - half under the age of 5 - who died from air pollution in the 35 years since TMI - probably was way closer to what passes for "environmentalism" on this website than I am.

              The moron shouldn't be missed, although there is rumor around that this self same witless moron simply made a sockpuppet for herself, using another name, and then showed up demonstrating disinterest and ignorance of both health and physics while declaring herself a "health physicist" and, of course, a clown, the latter being accurate if we look for scientific malapropisms.

              So be it.   All the stupid remarks in the world however have no bearing on the vast success of nuclear energy, which remains the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.    Now, the world class famous climate scientist Jim Hansen - and yes there are anti-nukes on the front page of this website who genuflect in his direction as if he were an oracle rather than a scientist - recently published a paper in the scientific journal Environmental Science and Technology about the impact that historical nuclear power had on human health and the planetary climate.

              Predictably, there are no anti-nukes who read the paper, since there are no anti-nukes who have ever opened a science book or journal, and none who would be able to make heads or tails of it were they to do so.

              Nevertheless, Dr. Hansen's scientific paper is here:

              Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895

              The title of the paper is:  "Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power."

              It's a scientific paper, not some self referential link by one stupid anti-nuke to the website of another stupid anti-nuke.

              Here's what it says in the text:

              We calculate a mean value of 1.84 million human deaths prevented by world nuclear power production from1971 to 2009 (see Figure 2a for full range), with an average of 76, 000 prevented deaths/year from 2000 to 2009 (range 19000−300 000). Estimates for the top five CO2 emitters, along with full estimate ranges for all regions in our baseline historical scenario, are also shown in Figure 2a. For perspective, results for upper and lower bound scenarios are shown in Figure S1(Supporting Information). In Germany, which has announced plans to shut down all reactors by 2022 (ref 2), we calculate that nuclear power has prevented an average of over 117,000 deaths from 1971 to 2009
              The obvious corollary to Dr. Hansen's is that opposing nuclear power kills people.

              I'm sure that Dr. Hansen, by the way, doesn't give a fuck about illiterate anti-nukes who dabble in climate change denial say about the impact that nuclear energy has had in slowing climate change.   His paper also quantifies the savings to the dumping of dangerous fossil fuel waste directly into the atmosphere.

              We calculate that world nuclear power generation prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq), or 17 GtC-eq, cumulative emissions from 1971 to 2009 (Figure 3a; see full range therein), with an average of 2.6 GtCO2-eq/year prevented annual emissions from2000 to 2009 (range 2.4−2.8 GtCO2/year).
              Now, being illiterate, anti-nukes can't work numbers, as the inability of the dump anti-nuke I cited above to work decimal points showed.   The 64 gigatonnes of CO2 prevented is the equivalent of about two years worth of CO2 dumping at the current rate, which, thanks to the dumbass deadly fear mongering and ignorance of anti-nukes, is now taking place at a rate of between 31-33 MT yr-1, according to data published by the EIA and by the scientific journal Nature.

              In other words, the scientist - who is worshipfully cited by one of the anti-nuke front pagers here - except when he says something that conflicts with anti-nuke ignorance and dogma - says that nuclear energy saves lives and quantitatively addresses the savings, this on a planet where well over twice as many people have died from air pollution since 1978 as died in all nations among all members of the population in World War II.    

              Um, um, um...

              Half of the 105 million people who died from air pollution since 1978 were under the age of five, 50 to 55 million.    

              This is more more than a two million times the number of children who died at Sandy Hook, more than 1 million times the number of children killed by the clown John Gacy, who like other clowns I know, had a depraved indifference to humanity and suffering.

              The atmosphere is collapsing, clown, and it is increasingly unlikely that we will be able to save very much of anything, thanks in part to stupid asses trying to claim that Three Mile Island wiped out Harrisburg, and a whole bunch of other sick perverted horseshit.

                Heckuva job.

              You must be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very proud.

              Have a nice weekend.

    •  I'm looking forward to your diaries (0+ / 0-)

      calling for the banning of tanker trucks, after all this one accident have killed significantly more poeple then the last decade of nuclear power.

  •  Thank you NNadir, as usual. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Excellent points. First, on Joieau, she's welcome here anytime, it's not an issue. She should be a little careful about the implications of me "shilling" (my term, not hers) for the nuke industry. I defend the technology and the state owned, nationalized plans of countries like Vietnam who buy from, state owned nationalized factories and R&D groups in France and Russia. For me it's about solutions to the climate crisis the misery of fossil fuel.

    I post stuff from the WNA because it is NOT an industry lobby. If I wanted to do that, I'd post form what IS an industry lobby, the Nuclear Energy Institute out of DC (they have an excellent blog, BTW but it's...the "Industry" so I won't post from their site).

    The WNA has excellent reporting, run as it is from Europe as some sort of Gov't financed NGO. It of course relies on much industry data, but so does Joieau  since most of everything nuclear comes from The Industry....

    As nnadir notes, we are in crisis mode and we have to review what works, what doesn't and which way forward. I'm in good company (besides nnadir ;), with people such a mark lynas and jim hansen. People are worried about what "might" happen with nuclear meanwhile the heavy freight train of climate change is rumbling down the tracks as us.... and Joieau  and others are worried about jumping out of the way with nuclear because they might twist their ankle. Priorities...they don't have them, at all, as nnadir makes clear.

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:29:00 AM PDT

  •  Reasons I post here. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm a socialist and union member (IBEW 1245) who deeply believe that we need to put human needs before profit. There are many here on the DK with at least agree with the latter part of that sentence above. This is why I generally defend nuclear whistleblowers and support regulations (but sane ones) of the nuclear industry. It's why I think this technology, precisely because it's an answer if not THE answer to our energy need and all the problems of climate change, that it ought to be nationalized and placed at the disposal of the people of the world.

    I don't write to convince Joieau anything and she doesn't write to convince me. We are mere foils in the larger discussion, using each other to convince the hundreds that visit our diaries.

    The number of pro-nuclear DKers has grown exponentially since before I arrived here and started doing my Thorium/LFTR diaries. I come into "hostile" territory precisely because I'm not interested in preaching to the choir on my own pro-nuclear (or others) blogs. Here is where people can question their previously held, mostly non-scientific and unfortunately emotional responses to climate change and their anti-nuclear attitudes and consider nuclear energy as THE alternative to fossil fuel and...and the unreliables of solar and wind.

    I have ZERO to lose and the world to win. For  Joieau? Perhaps it's defending those positions but she wins no one which is not her fault, but because she stays here where most already agree with her.

    Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

    by davidwalters on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:56:14 AM PDT

    •  Actulally....speaking out of my ass here... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The WNA is the following (from their web site)

      Current WNA Members are responsible for virtually all of world uranium mining, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication;  all reactor vendors;  major nuclear engineering, construction, and waste management companies; and nearly 90% of world nuclear generation. Other WNA members provide international services in nuclear transport, law, insurance, brokerage, industry analysis and finance.

      The WNA continues to expand its membership, particularly in non-OECD countries where nuclear power is produced or where this option is under active consideration. Already WNA members are located in countries representing 80% of the world's population.

      The majority, however, comes from public/state enterprises. Most North American private industry groups are not members of the WNA and play no role. Odd, that.

      The other big reason I post here to cut through the BS from the likes of Harvey Wasserman (who I like personally, I should add) and the very naive DKers who think, want to believe and project their own insecurities that the nuclear industry is "dying". Just from a smart political move this is the dumbest and most ignorant of anti-nuclear statements amounting to disinformation and out right lying for those that in fact knowbetter (to be fair, I think 99% of anti-nukers believe this, however).

      this is why I post mostly "new nuclear news" type items instead of the doom-and-gloom views of nuclear one sees here or on the Democratic Underground or Grist. To cut through the BS about the early demise of this great technology.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Fri May 10, 2013 at 09:06:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site