Following Up on Kristof, Brand

On Saturday, we pointed to a column by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times that called for the expanded use of nuclear energy to help combat global warming. Since then, Kristof's coumn has kicked up a lot of dust -- including from the readers of the Times. Here's William Tucker from Brooklyn:

It is so refreshing to see an environmentalist like Nicholas D. Kristof being sensible about nuclear power.

There really isn't any need to fight over these issues. No one wants air pollution. No one wants to fill the air with carbon dioxide. But there isn't any sensible way around coal except to go with nuclear reactors.

Environmentalists have scared themselves to death on this issue. Or they listen to blather about covering whole states with biofuel crops and windmills just so we don't have to build a few nuclear plants.

It's even better than Mr. Kristof says. Once we get a nuclear fleet up, we can start running cars on electricity or hydrogen from electricity. Then we can kiss our oil dependency goodbye as well.

That letter is by no means the only one, but it's still good news to see voters who consider themselves to be environmentally concious being open to the possibility of new nuclear build. I'll be back later today with more from the energy blogs.

UPDATE: The other article that helped spark an earthquake came from counterculture figure Stewart Brand, who wrote in the pages of MIT Technology Review that it was time to give nuclear energy (along with biotechnology) another chance.

Here's Jonathan Adler at the Commons Blog:

Imagine that, a pro-nuke, pro-biotech environmental movement. If it happens, it will be a dramatic change for the better.

In a two-part post over at Grist, Dave Roberts, though skeptical, admits he's trying to keep an open mind (Part I, Part II):

And then there's nuclear power, about which Gristmill readers are currently debating vigorously. I'm deeply ambivalent about the subject, and I will admit up front that I don't know enough about it to make up my mind firmly one way or the other. There are lots and lots of variables involved, some at a time scale so large as to be virtually impossible to contemplate sensibly.

To which we say, Dave, we want to talk, and engage in a productive dialogue about an energy future that includes a broad portfolio of nuclear energy, clean coal, natural gas and renewables when it comes to electrical generation. Global energy demand is rising too steeply for the world to ignore any source of generation in the future, and we're willing to talk about how we can get there.

Check out some other positive comments from Synthstuff, J-San.net, Demos Greenhouse, and Environmental Sociology.

Technorati tags: Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Comments

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog