Skip to main content

Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy

Since the start of NEI Nuclear Notes, we've introduced you to a number of significant members of the environmental movement who believe that if we're to strike a balance between economic growth and environmental protection, that nuclear energy must play a larger role in the world's energy mix.

We've told you about James Lovelock, Patrick Moore and Hugh Montefiore. And now, in the May issue of MIT Technology Review, Stewart Brand, legendary computer hacker and founder of the Whole Earth Catalog has joined the ranks of responsible environmentalists who believe nuclear energy is part of the solution:
Can climate change be slowed and catastrophe avoided? They can to the degree that humanity influences climate dynamics. The primary cause of global climate change is our burning of fossil fuels for energy.

So everything must be done to increase energy efficiency and decarbonize energy production. Kyoto accords, radical conservation in energy transmission and use, wind energy, solar energy, passive solar, hydroelectric energy, biomass, the whole gamut. But add them all up and it’s still only a fraction of enough. Massive carbon “sequestration” (extraction) from the atmosphere, perhaps via biotech, is a widely held hope, but it’s just a hope. The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power.

There's plenty more, including a prediction that the global environmental movement will begin to listen more closely to sound science when it comes to meeting our environmental priorities. Read it right now.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds, who is thinking about buying a hybrid, has his own thoughts on Brand's piece over at MSNBC.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Norris McDonald said…
We should have a conference that would include environmentalists for nuclear power. That would be interesting. The nuts would try to kill it and it would probably recruit more informal support. If the foundations were included, it would moderate the antinuclear lunatic fringe. The reasonable groups would not want to be embarrassed in front of the funders. I would still have security there. Hmmmmm. I wonder who should sponsor such a gathering. Sounds like a job for the AFRICAN AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTALIST ASSOCIATION.
Anonymous said…
Norris,

I wonder how you think it helps to post divisive, racist insults?
Brian Mays said…
"Divisive, racist insults"? Huh? Did I miss something here?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…