Skip to main content

Grist Grapples With Nuclear Energy

Yesterday, we told you about how countercultural figure Stewart Brand said it was time for the environmental movement to reconsider its opposition to nuclear energy.

Coming on the heels of public statements by James Lovelock, Patrick Moore and Hugh Montefiore, it seems as if this change of heart is beginning to have an effect inside the environmental movement -- evidence of which can be found over at Grist.

Yesterday, environmental advice columnist Umbra Fisk was forced to admit that if environmentalists want to seriously address climate change, then they have to give nuclear energy a second look.

Over at their blog, Gristmill, there's a spirited debate going on concerning the merits of new nuclear build. Here's what one reader had to say in response to Fisk's reluctant conclusion:
Assuming the demand for power, and therefore power plants, continues to grow - nuclear power seems almost reasonable when compared to coal. Of the two, I would rather a new nuke plant be built in my state

Smokestack releases effecting global climate as well as local health and air quality would be eliminated, and destructive mining practices associated with coal would be reduced (though uranium mining is not benign, it does not consume countless tons of strip-mined material daily).

It might be time to compromise and accept nuclear power to meet the inevitable growth of power demand.

And finally, Grist is also conducting an online poll asking their readers if nuclear energy deserves a second look. The last time I checked, 56 percent of their readers said yes.

Looks to me like things are changing for the better. Too bad the Washington, D.C. Department of Energy doesn't agree.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Norris McDonald said…
The Grist Magazine debate has been fun. There have been some surprisingly enlightened comments made about nuclear power. Of course, the deep ecology anticapitalists will never come around. They would oppose candles on the grounds of indoor air pollution if we did not have electricity.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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…