1 vote

Texas nuclear plant expansion in doubt

Utility company NRG has put the brakes on a plan to build two new nuclear reactors at its South Texas plant, CEO David Crane said Wednesday.
High levels of uncertainty in the aftermath of Japan's nuclear disasters have led the company to limit work on the project to the licensing and securing of federal loan guarantees, Crane said.

No new nuclear plant has won final approval in the United States since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, although site work is being done at a couple of locations around the country.
Eighty miles southeast of Houston, NRG (NRG, Fortune 500) wants to expand its nuclear facility from two reactors to four -- in part with financing from Tokyo Electric Power Company, the owner of the Fukushima Daiichi plant that was heavily damaged in Japan's earthquake and tsunami.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is an opportunity to go with a different design.

Why not build a "pebble bed" reactor or even a thorium breeder. There should be plenty of thorium cycle data from Shippingport and from the experiments by India.

Dangerous nuclear generated power

has already given way to some safer technologies...

Here's one that uses the sun to help generate power:

BrightSource Energy
Why: It efficiently produces solar thermal power, which focuses sunlight to heat water into steam.
Key innovation: A boiler is heated directly with sunlight that bounces off mirrors.
BrightSource is cutting the cost of solar thermal power by using sunlight directed from thousands of sun-tracking mirrors to heat a boiler placed atop a tower at the center of the installation. While other concentrating solar systems heat tubes of oil that then circulate to the boiler, BrightSource's tower design allows the mirrors to concentrate light directly onto the boiler, where it heats the water to 538 °C, creating superheated steam that is then piped to a conventional turbine to generate electricity. To conserve water in the desert, where the systems will be installed, the steam is cooled and recirculated back into the boiler.


And of course, we've already seen many huge wind turbines being placed across the country by T. Boone Pickens, for the implementation of wind generated power.

So my question is why are we even pursuing the extremely dangerous technology of nuclear generated power at all?

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

One reason might be

that most people usually want to turn their lights on at night, when the sun isn't shining. Or if it's overcast.

And then those solar heaters don't work.

And in the winter, many parts of the US only get about 3-4 hours per day of sufficient sunlight to do that sort of operation.

The key aspect of solar is storage technology, because there are more hours of using than there are hours to collect.

Even the best places in the US might have only 7 hours of good insolation time, so you have to cover at least 17 hours of usage time per day, when the solar system isn't working. Plus, you need to be able to cover the need for several days of bad weather, which can happen sometimes.
It might be partially viable as a daylight power contributor in places like Southern California, but it would be next to useless in many northern states where it would have only few hours of working time and perhaps 21 hours of usage time required after it quits working for the day.

The websight

I provided for BrightSource says that you are mistaken, BigT. The company has signed purchase agreements with Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison for 2.6 gigawatts of power. It plans to build over a dozen plants by 2017 to fulfill those contracts.
BrightSource's first large-scale project in California, a 370-megawatt installation is now under construction in the Mojave Desert.The plant, which will double the amount of solar thermal power capacity in the United States, is scheduled to begin generating electricity in 2013. BrightSource's pilot facility in Israel has already demonstrated the viability of the approach on a smaller scale.
And I'm sure that T. Boone Pickens would also argue that his wind power technology is viable, or he wouldn't have invested so much in
his wind turbines, which are more and more steadily being erected across the country.

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

I wouldn't say

anything in there says "I'm mistaken".
The Mohave desert and Israel aren't exactly Seattle or Bangor.
I already discussed location in my previous post, and SoCal is where they are putting this thing.
And nothing changes about the fact that it doesn't work at night or in overcast conditions.
I'm quite aware of average insolation figures for most of the country, and also the required operating envelopes of solar powered devices, no matter what kind they are. In short, they need the sun to be out. And where average sunlight hours are low, it doesn't work for long each day. As you move further from the equator, the sunlight is less direct and shorter duration. Those are facts. Actual useful light for something like this would be a fraction of daylight hours, between maybe 2-7 hours per day, depending on location and season. And nothing on rainy days or night-time.

So, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at, but the stuff isn't going to work in those conditions of no sun or poor sun, whether they have a contract with PGE or not.

It can be a contributor for their use during sunlight hours. that is ALL it will ever be.

I disagree,

but we'll see, won't we? Time will tell. In the meantime, are you in support, instead, of nuclear generated power, even at the expense of human health and welfare - as we see unfolding before our very eyes in Japan?

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

What's there to disagree about?

It doesn't work if the sun's not available.
Pretty cut-and-dried.

I think it's useful in limited areas which are conducive to that technology during the daytime. It can be a contributor in those areas. It will not be a sole source.

You say these other

You say these other technologies (BrightSource's solar, Picken's wind, or even Tesla's harnessing of naturally occuring energy) won't work. I say they will. We disagree.
I really don't understand how anyone can support a technology, like nuclear power generation, which is capable of causing devastating health issues so easily, through a simple mistake or human error - as we see happening in Japan this month.
On March 24, three workers laying electrical cable in the basement of the No. 1 reactor's turbine building stepped in tainted water, exposing themselves to high levels of radiation. Two suffered direct exposure on their skin.

But the concern, as it was with BP in the Gulf, is not with human life, is it? The concern is all about the almighty dollar.

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi


I don't say that they "don't work".
I just say that they don't work all the time, and they are too limited to take over the current technology.

"The almighty dollar" is pretty important to people who buy energy. If they can't get energy at prices they can afford, they go cold or can't get to work, or don't have lights or refrigeration. So, this is more far reaching than just some corporation that we "love to hate".

When there is a technology that can replace what we have now, with prices to match, and reliable delivery, then it will come.

In the meantime, if these companies want to produce these alternative powerplants using wind or solar or whatever, and can augment part of the power grid, then "more power to 'em"(pun intended).
But the other plants that produce power continuously will still need to run until some other alternative power production that can run continuously is found.

As far as the nuclear power subject is concerned, I live in an area which is serviced by nuclear power, and the plant is about 10 miles from my house. I'm just barely in the 10 mile zone that is the evacuation zone for this plant. It has operated since 1996, and it is working fine. If it melts down, then I'll have to deal with that. I can't shut down the plant, and my neighbors depend on it. It's part of life.

As far as the Tesla technology is concerned, I think that is a generated field, because there is a generator involved with it. The light bulb doesn't light up unless he has his generator on. I think this has potential for risk

Speaking of a different design, why not REALLY go with one?

In Colorado Springs, where he stayed from May 1899 until 1900, Nikola Tesla made what he regarded as his most important discovery - terrestrial stationary waves. By this discovery he proved that the Earth could be used as a conductor and would be as responsive as a tuning fork to electrical vibrations of a certain frequency. He also lighted 200 lamps without wires from a distance of 25 miles( 40 kilometers) and created man-made lightning. At one time he was certain he had received signals from another planet in his Colorado laboratory, a claim that was met with disbelief in some scientific journals.
Financially supported by J. Pierpont Morgan, Tesla built the Wardenclyffe laboratory and its famous transmitting tower in Shoreham, Long Island between 1901 and 1905. The huge magnifying transmitter, discharging high frequency electricity, would turn the earth into a gigantic dynamo which would project its electricity in unlimited amounts anywhere in the world.
[To make a long story short,] because of a dispute between Morgan and Tesla as to the final use of the tower. JP Morgan withdrew his funds. The financier's classic comment was, "If anyone can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?"


What, FREE electricity??!? Lol!! :)

All joking aside, imho experimentation would seem to be more fitting within this realm.

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

One would think

One would think that if the design worked in the Free Market, it would have already marketed.

If my property had a windy disposition, and if I had a little more scratch in my pocket, I'd put up a wind turbine.

If there was a device that would supply all of my electricity needs, I'd consider it.

Until one comes available, how should we proceed as a people?

Nuclear provides the most cost-effective solution in the interim.

The TMI incident was the closest thing to actually directly killing people as a result of nuclear power in this nation since 1961 when a young man became impaled by a control rod in Idaho.

What other industry can say the same?
Yet our fear and loathing as a nation with regards to nuclear power continues, despite factual evidence to the contrary.

erschiessen - I'll "call" your "fear and loathing as a nation"

with regards to nuclear power,
and I'll "raise" you this factual evidence to the contrary...

Sorry to appear argumentative, but not only is the cost of nuclear energy not at all as economical as you portrayed it to be in your comment, as illustrated here:
"Technologically advanced baseload energy systems, such as nuclear electricity, that avoid or internalize potential environmental impacts require a higher initial investment than comparable combustion systems."

...but your endorsement of the safety aspects of nuclear energy, as well, are refuted by Mr. Twain (below), as well as in this very next paragraph of my linked article:
"In the lead-up to COP5 [in 1999], the [nuclear] industry urged supportive governments not to openly endorse [the inclusion of] nuclear for fear of a backlash, especially just after the Tokaimura accident in Japan"

And with the additional safety hazards we've seen come into play just this month, again in Japan, there is not a good safety record at all - as a matter of fact, there seems to be a very poor, as well as a very dangerous safety record - not at all as you portrayed in your comment.


And I'm still waiting for a response to my earlier question about whether the Free Market would actually support Free Electricity? Anyone?

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

Facts, ma'am, just the facts

look up "PAUCITY" - I had to.
There is little to no research in Mark Twain's post... a PAUCITY of research, as his link states.

I first learned of the 1961 incident in 1987 or 88. We didn't have the interwebs, FOIA, wikileaks or wikipedia then, and so I learned it from the source (no pun intended).

If there was an accident at a commercial nuke in the US that even seriously injured a person - it could not be kept a secret. The industry shares information readily between each facility - and even minor issues are posted at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission website.


I GIVE YOU MY WORD - if you come to me with Tesla's product that folks can slap in their backyard that would supply all their electricity needs, I will quit my job and sell your product full time.

GM doesn't care if you put moonshine in your tank, as their vehicles are "shelf ready" and do not require a "subscription" other than fuel to operate.

Katherine Energy (KE) should not care about recurring income... the 100 Million homes or so in this republic are it's intended market. Once and done, have a nice day.

Death downwind of Nuclear Reactors rises!

Rise in cancer & death downwind of Nuclear Reactors!

Drop after closure.

Please consider the travesty against all life forms downwind. It is very significant.

Nuclear disaster is shielded from news.

Take a second to search.

For example:
Infant death and childhood cancer reductions after nuclear plant closings in the United States.

Mangano JJ, Gould JM, Sternglass EJ, Sherman JD, Brown J, McDonnell W.

  1. Infant Death and Childhood Cancer Reductions after Nuclear Plant [closure]... by JJ Mangano - 2002 - Cited by 3 - Related articles Key words: childhood cancer, downwind, infant death, nuclear plant closings, nuclear re- actors, radioactivity. THERE IS A RELATIVE PAUCITY of research ...
  2. Nuclear Power Opponents Cite Link to Infant Death Rates - New York ... Apr 30, 2002 ... Antinuclear campaigners plan to announce today that a new study shows that infant death rates downwind of eight American nuclear power [closure]...
    www.nytimes.com/ .../nuclear-power-opponents-cite-link-to-infant-death-rates.html - Cached - Add to iGoogle
  3. Infant mortality rates drop around five US nuclear power reactors [closure]... Washington, D.C - Infant death rates near five U.S. nuclear plants dropped [after closure]... infant death rates in the downwind counties under 40 miles from the plants ...
    www.whale.to/b/infant13.html - Cached - Similar
  4. Infant Death and Childhood Cancer Reductions after
    Drops after nuclear plants closings; ...
    www.informaworld.com/ .../content~db=all~content=a920921575~frm=abslink

You may refine your search: Search:

  • Nuclear downwind infant death
    About 6,790 results (0.30 seconds)
  • Search: Nuclear Power downwind death
    About 128,000 results (0.22 seconds)
  • Search: Nuclear Plant downwind death
    About 308,000 results (0.20 seconds)

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

I doubt that.

"If there was a device that would supply all of my electricity needs, I'd consider it."

In reality, if you were shown this miracle system, all you would say is either a) it's got this problem or that one or b) sorry, but I don't put much fail in miracles. No solution is without some downfall and too many people won't compromise on anything at all. They want a system that's providing power on the demand as set by their habits 24/7, that's clean, that doesn't look funny on their roof, that doesn't take up more basement space, that's 100% guaranteed safe and that costs so little they can pay it off completely in 1 year or less. You can even give them the opportunity to supply all their energy needs (which now includes heating, cooling and transportation) and they'll still find that one little fault with it.

Oh, and since it's not available on the discount rack at WalMart already, they're not interested either because it's not fully commercialized. Ironically, this it's this mentality that has stopped the truly viable systems from getting to market, not the big oil companies buying stuff out.

Doubting Tamckissick

You don't know me from Adam, yet you feel that you own claim over my integrity.

Do you have one of these that's ready to supply all of my electricity needs? If not, keep dreaming them Star Trek fantasies... you can kiss a green chick every night, AND have "free" energy!

Of course your product will need to fit into my budget... as only Federal Reserve Banksters have unlimited means... and of course if it takes 4 generations to meet a payoff, how much "free" energy is it providing?

I don't need a 1 year pay-off, but 7 is probably too high to market.

Feel free to send me your email addy - or web address when it's ready. Include shipping to N.E. PA in your proposal please.


Would the Free Market actually support Free Electricity? I don't think JP Morgan would have pulled his funding if the market would have supported such a thing. Since there was no profit to be made - there was no "market".

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

You're confusing terms...

JP Morgan is not the free market... you must remember that he was one of the manufacturers of the Creature From Jeckyll Island, the FED... absolutely the farthest thing from a Free Market system.

I would indeed be very silly

I would indeed be very silly not to realize that JP Morgan was not the Free Market! No one person or organization is, after all! But the question remains -- how would Free Electricity fit into the workings of the Free Market - which is not really free after all, but must operate at a profit in order to sustain itself. Free Electricity would have to operate within a totally different system, wouldn't it? JP Morgan knew that, and being a Free Market businessman, he pulled his financing of the project. That doesn't mean that Tesla's system wouldn't work - it just means that it wouldn't work within the Free Market System. Correct?
Actually, from all accountings, Tesla's concept of Free Electricity would work very well, indeed - at least for the general public. And there are some other Free Energy Concepts which would also work for Free, such as solar and others (after the cost of initial set up), which is in reality the problem - that there is not much money to be made in those Free Energy Systems, and so the Free Market System Enterprises such as Big Oil and others, would lose out on their Big Perpetual Profits. And that is the real dilemma, isn't it?

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

I think you should be aware

that electrical fields with frequency have raised concerns about health effects, which were not known in Tesla's time.

The effects on public health with powerful electrical fields in the air at all times to provide general utility power may be even more harmful at those levels.
And it would be everywhere, and nobody could escape it.

I agree that nuclear plants have spent fuel, and can generate fallout when they fail, but how does that risk stack up against exposing everyone in the general population to high-energy frequency fields for their entire lives?
Have you assessed these risks?

Requires consideration

but from my admittedly limited knowledge of Tesla's invention, it gathered electricity from the environment...

I wouldn't think that the e-fields would be on a much larger scale than what one sees in his/her front yard from their 12kV/220V transformer... unless I'm totally off base.

I agree,

though I, too have limited knowledge of the naturally occuring energy fields that surround us all the time. My experience is limited to those little shocks you can generate by getting out of a car and closing the car door or shuffling across a carpeted area and then touching someone - ouch! But it seems to me that harnessing that which occurs naturally wouldn't be terribly dangerous. It certainly would be an interesting, and possibly profitable endeavor of study, albeit probably profitable only at the time of setup and/or repair or replacement of equipment - otherwise it would be completely Free Use - and a most honorable gift to humanity, imho.

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

I agree

Katherine Energy - Freeing Peoples Worldwide!


The manufacturer would be the richest corporation in the world, if such a product existed.

Profit drives the free market. Nothing could be more profitable than freeing people from the chains of others.

This tale is as true as Tesla represented it.

See: Tesla & Mark Twain

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

If only Tesla's concept had been profitable for JP Morgan...

we might not have been faced with this...

UNFCCC's consideration of nuclear

In early 2008, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (AWG-KP) sought ideas on how to enhance and improve the CDM and other emissions reduction mechanisms. Among the ideas proposed by UNFCCC Parties was allowing nuclear power projects under the CDM.
To inform later decisions, the UNFCCC secretariat prepared a technical analysis of the proposals generated at the AWG-KP meeting. The analysis describes the nuclear proposal as allowing "activities relating to new nuclear facilities [to] be registered under the CDM," thus permitting industrialized countries to gain Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) by funding nuclear projects in developing countries.


"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

1979 meltdown: Reports of "Nuclear Power" are an exaggeration?

After the Three Mile Island meltdown in Pennsylvania, ... Tennessee is building one now. Out of mothballs.

Tennessee , State... Nuclear Industry Hub.
Submitted by Mark Twain on Mon, 03/21/2011

----- Mothra! Out of 1985 Mothballs. -----
But officials for both TVA and the Southern Co. ... proceeding... new nuclear plants... Tennessee Valley Authority is building the only nuclear power plant under construction in the United States at its Watts Bar plant near Spring City, Tenn. The federal utility... $2.5 billion... Unit 2 reactor... mothballed at Watts Bar 1985 amid rising safety concerns and construction costs following the 1979 meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant -- America’s worst nuclear plant accident...

[Mothra! Out of Mothballs, from 1985? This cannot be good.]
Mothra! Images of the destructive Nuclear Power of a Godzilla sized moth!

Reports of "Nuclear Power" are an exaggeration.
Submitted by Mark Twain on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 16:27
in Peace / War

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

THIS cannot be good.

By agreeing to go forward with the tests, European leaders are taking a "fundamental" step to ensure the future of nuclear power in Europe, Luis Echávarri, director general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, said Wednesday. "We cannot accept any plant in Europe that has not gone through this assessment," Mr. Echávarri said in an interview.
So far, governments have said the tests should be voluntary. But some analysts have already concluded that stress tests are little more than a hollow slogan that could stoke fears about the adequacy of the nuclear safety regime in Europe.
"By proposing stress tests, are leaders saying that the normal safety inspections aren't being done appropriately?" said Mycle Schneider, an energy analyst in Paris and a critic of the nuclear industry. "That would be a frightening statement."


"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

Your NY Times "Nuclear Inspections" link might do some good.

There might be some good come out of verification inspections above & beyond what is required currently.

Elementally, the Nuclear Power Industry was/is a pawn in the global Nuclear Weapons trade:

  • Electric Power generation is somewhat a byproduct of weapon grade material refining. Heating liquid to boil using thousands of degrees of heat.
    • Absurd way to turn a turbine.
  • Radioactive mining & use, particularly Uranium (U #92), begets Bomb Grade Material.
    Nice decorative antique Uranium Water Pitcher for home use.

  • Thorium (Th #90)
    Not so harmful in use & disposal. Nice decorative antique glowing lamp photos for home use.
      Generally, Thorium is not related to weapons; thus little industrial investment to date, compared to its lethal cousin, U.

    Here is a beautiful pictorial "Table of Elements" Elementally beautiful creations. Imaginative photos & diagrams highlighting the beauty of elements that make our world.

    I am in favor of the multitude of ways to turn turbines for electrical production. My per personal favorites are windmills & waterwheels. Others laugh at me; as well they should. Be when I go visiting, after words, I pick up my mess.

    The Nuclear Industry has blighted neighborhoods for 70 years, & not cleaned up messes they generate. They visit death & destruction worldwide, without paying their tab (heavy governmental subsidy for every tab). When the Innkeeper presents a bill to them, they forward it to some hapless governmental agency.

    The man who controlled the self sustaining first nuclear test. Test site at University of Chicago buried in place near unused squash courts. This engineer because completely disillusioned with the folly of nuclear energy production & weapons. He advised on the Chernobyl disaster. He wrote Seminal Books & Reports about the travesty of the Nuclear Industry hazardous history.

    Checking the Nuclear Power & Weapons Industry credit rating is folly... for they have none. Government contracts using Nuclear fission to produce electricity & weapons are not insured (see Nuclear Insurance Exclusion).

    Apart from the many Nuclear disasters, there remains:

    • Heavy subsidies,
    • Uninsured risks,
    • & radioactive waste.

    Though our opinions very greatly, you certainly see the beauty all around you. See it in different lights... it remains so. Thank you for posting your link to what NY Times senses may be more good than harm. I hope they are correct.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Think for yourself, Mr. Twain, if you must.

Even though this is also from the article:
Schneider, the industry critic, said that rather than stress tests, the review should involve an overhaul of the safety regime to make sure any enhanced inspections are done frequently.
In particular, Mr. Schneider said Europe must move spent fuel held in pools of water, as at the stricken plant in Japan, to dry storage.
Emergency crews in Japan this week were still dumping tons of seawater into a boiling storage pool holding spent nuclear fuel at one of the units there.
"The only reason we don't put fuel in dry storage is because the industry says it's costly," Mr. Schneider said.
"We don't need a new review to learn that."

Just keep this in mind:
"I think nuclear is great; I think its the safest form of energy we
~ Ron Paul

And remember this:
Nuclear Energy is an $18 billion dollar business. Also, as you mentioned, although we have so many other alternatives, the fact remains that the very survival of mankind hangs in the balance.

And here's some trivia for you from wikipedia:
In 1953, US President Dwight Eisenhower gave his "Atoms for Peace" speech at the United Nations, emphasizing the need to develop "peaceful" uses of nuclear power quickly. This was followed by the 1954 Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act which allowed rapid declassification of U.S. reactor technology and encouraged development by the private sector.
Later in 1954, Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission spoke of electricity in the future being "too cheap to meter". Strauss was referring to hydrogen fusion which was secretly being developed as part of Project Sherwood at the time, but Strauss's statement was
interpreted as a promise of very cheap energy from nuclear fission. Significant disappointment would develop later on, when the new nuclear plants did not provide energy "too cheap to meter."

"Stand up for what you believe in. Even if you stand alone."
~ Sophie Magdalena Scholl
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."
~ Ron Paul
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
~ Mahatma Gandhi