SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Alan Schriesheim became the first industry executive to lead a national laboratory when he took the helm of Argonne in 1983, after serving as Exxon’s head of engineering and the director of its research lab, which developed more efficient processes for producing components of gasoline. According to Forbes, as the director emeritus of Argonne National Laboratory, he has said:
No utility executive could propose a nuclear reactor ”in good conscience” in the U.S. today, the director emeritus of Argonne National Laboratory said in Chicago Monday.
At Argonne he championed, among other projects, an integral fast reactor, and he is credited with fostering a revival at Argonne. Now in retirement, he leads the Chicago Council on Science and Technology, which sponsors public talks like the question-and-answer session he offered Monday to students at the University of Illinois, Chicago.
“In the United States the price of natural gas is of such a level that I don’t think a CEO of a utility could in good conscience propose a nuclear-power reactor to his or her board of directors,” Schriesheim told about 75 students at UIC’s engineering building.
Nuclear is infeasible for the next 10 or 15 years in this country, he said, with the price of natural gas as it is.
Do you agree with this view, or do you feel that he is supporting the industry that once employed him?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 13 2014, @02:23AM
he's explained that the Tea Party is basically holding the rest of the party hostage with their demands. So in practice, the Tea Party more or less IS the Republican Party (plus whoever others you seem to be implying call themselves TPers but aren't Rs).
There are two things to note here. Just because someone is "holding" a group "hostage" doesn't make them the group (especially when you acknowledge "plus whoever others you seem to be implying call themselves TPers but aren't Rs"). It just means that they have considerable influence. Your claim in the second paragraph just doesn't follow from the former. But let's consider that you believe this is true. Then why shouldn't the Tea Party get what they want from the Republican Party, if they actually are the Republican Party? It's a democracy, right? The Republican party has elections for a reason, right?
The other thing is that you think that holding the Republican Party hostage is a bad thing. I find it interesting just how undemocratic your views are here. They extend to the point that you not only side against a popular movement which aims to make the Republican party more responsive to a good portion of its actual constituency, but actually will side with the tone-deaf elite who are on the currently losing side of this particular conflict.