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

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more