Labels

To Cernavoda, with love


While chowing down on some delightful quinoa salad last night (it's pronounced "kwine-NO-ah"), I spied this interesting story in my old-guy hard-copy edition of the business section of ye olde New York Times. It's about how Romania might be the key to weaning Europe off Russian energy. I was surprised to see Oregon mentioned in the article, not once but twice! Namely:

1.  Romania is about the size of Oregon. Okay, fine.

2.  The Romanians are going to build a couple of those new-design nuclear reactors being peddled by NuScale Power, which is based right here in little old Portlandia. Whoa! I did not know that.

The nuke-leheads are still out there selling "safe and cheap," which has always been a lie, but hey, at this point, with the planet burning from all the fossil fuel exhaust, maybe we have to start letting them go at it again. I'm just glad somebody far, far away is so eager to be the guinea pig.

And of course, there's no solution to that nasty, nasty nuclear waste. It's as bad a stuff as you can get. The more power you make, the more of it you get, no matter the reactor design. But if it prevents your being fried to a crisp by the sun, or frozen to death by Putie, I guess it doesn't seem quite so scary.

We are definitely living world history now. Let's hope for some happier chapters pretty soon.

Labels:

Comments

  1. AnonymousJune 17, 2022 at 11:33 AM

    We aren't going to get fried to death by the Sun. The behind the scenes people pushing "climate change" are the same bunch of filthy rich sycophants' pushing every other "crisis". It's a game of fear and it freaking works great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 17, 2022 at 1:59 PM

      Wouldn't the sycophants be the ones currying favor with the filthy rich? Please explain your theory in further depth.

      Delete
    2. Jack BogdanskiJune 17, 2022 at 4:18 PM

      If you don't think there's a climate change problem, you are delusional.

      Delete
  2. GeoffreyJune 17, 2022 at 2:21 PM

    200,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste is in the possession of the U.S. Department of Energy and that doesn't count the large amounts of spent nuclear fuel on site at existing sites of active and inactive nuclear generating stations around the U.S. Not only do we have no permanent repository for such spent nuclear fuel, but we have no permanent "casks" in which it can be safely stored. We may have no real choice if we are to be rid of fossil fuels and climate change, but what is to be done?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack BogdanskiJune 17, 2022 at 4:20 PM

      Then there's "low level" nuclear waste, which is disposed of more carelessly than household garbage. Please, don't get me started. I spent a few years fussing over this stuff.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousJune 17, 2022 at 11:38 PM

    I'm pretty sure it's pronounced keen waa, but I assume that was a joke.

    I don't really have an opinion about nuclear power. Bad but maybe necessary, like you said.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFpW7eoZxoY

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

The platform used for this blog is awfully wonky when it comes to comments. It may work for you, it may not. It's a Google thing, and beyond my control. Apologies if you can't get through. You can email me a comment at jackbogsblog@comcast.net, and if it's appropriate, I can post it here for you.