Fred Singer on the benefits of Nuke Power

This is a no brainer, except for the ninnies in the enviro political camp that would prefer silly unworkable alternatives.

Wind and solar take up space, have maintenence problems and are very inefficient and unreliable–with off line backup essential, that puts gas fired plants in the grid for bad sun or wind days.

So these wind and solar projects are not that enviro friendly at all.

Nuke is safe, clean and takes up so little space.

In addition if we could put to death the Carter era rule against recycling nuke fuel, and handle it like the French do, we could do without Yucca Mountain, and we would be lookin’ good.


4 responses to “Fred Singer on the benefits of Nuke Power

  1. Until he passed away in 1993, I corresponded pretty extensively with Professor Petr Beckmann, author of _The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear (1977), and throughout his life he substantially supported a defense of the uranium fuel cycle as the LEAST hazardous method of generating the baseload electrical power needed to maintain an industrial civilization.

    None of his arguments in 1977 or subsequently had ever been (or HAVE yet been) refuted.

    Heck, he’s the guy who first alerted me to the great “greenhouse gas” man-made global warming yammer in 1981, sending along to me a welter of reprint articles on the subject and asking my opinion of this preposterous hokum.

    I replied along the lines of: “I think that they’ve overestimated the greenhouse gas effect of a trace increase in a trace atmospheric gas component by at least three orders of magnitude.”

    Turns out I was lowballing, but I’m just a family doctor, not an atmospheric physicist.

    Meanwhile, light water nuclear fission is a proven technology with higher levels of intrinsic safety at every point from fuel extraction to fuel disposal.

    Run your Geiger counter over the ash produced by a coal-fired powerplant that conforms with E.P.A. regulations, and let’s talk about fission powerplants and the release of radioactivity into the sacred “environment.”

    • Professor Beckmann was right. In 1977 Science published this open debate:

      Was isotopically “strange xenon” in promote meteorites evidence of:

      _ a.) Element synthesis in the Sun, or
      _ b.) Superheavy element fission?

      The University of Chicago scientists lost the debate, but local element in the Sun was ignored anyway. That’s the way Stalin’s lock-step consensus science took over.

    • One word::Hormesis.

      Just a thought.


  2. Thank you, Dr. Singer, for telling the public the truth about nuclear energy.

    FEAR & CHAOS from world-changing but unreported events in Aug-Sept 1945 at Konan, Korea convinced world leaders to forbid public knowledge of the source of energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies – NEUTRON REPULSION

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s