Skip to main content

Grist Grapples With Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
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.
April 8, 2005 at 9:37 PM
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

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

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

By
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...
4 comments
Read more