The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
A consistent strategy is the key to a successful nuclear future.
In the mid-1990s, many people were ready to write off the nuclear industry. Nuclear power plants were being shut down as troublesome and uneconomical. Four of the nine plants operating in New England closed; as CEO of Yankee Atomic Electric Company, I presided over the closure of the Yankee Rowe plant in western Massachusetts. Neglect in Washington, across several administrations, contributed to this state of affairs. Under President Clinton, support for nuclear-engineering programs was cut for several years.
But while the future of nuclear power was apparently dimming, nuclear utilities improved operations and made money with existing plants. And then the Clinton administration began to quietly renew funding for nuclear research. This resurgence of support was largely driven by global-warming concerns. Although no one was seriously considering opening new nuclear plants in the near term, the U.S. Department of Energy began examining what technologies would be needed in the next 20 to 30 years.
To read the entire article you must log in:
Most of our content — all daily news, blogs, and videos — is free. Magazine stories are paid. To read this story, you must have a subscription or you must use a reading credit. Registration to Technology Review is free and entitles registrants to three free reading credits.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following: