Skip to main content

Following Up on Kristof, Brand

By Eric McErlain
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: , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more