Skip to main content

NY Times: Environmental Movement Reconsidering Nuclear Energy

The big news over the weekend was that the New York Times finally noticed something that we've been telling you for a couple of weeks -- that a number of environmentalists are breaking from the pack and endorsing nuclear energy as a way to provide new power generation that doesn't produce greenhouse gas emissions:
Several of the nation's most prominent environmentalists have gone public with the message that nuclear power, long taboo among environmental advocates, should be reconsidered as a remedy for global warming. Their numbers are still small, but they represent growing cracks in what had been a virtually solid wall of opposition to nuclear power among most mainstream environmental groups.
Reactions from around the Blogosphere -- Instapundit:
If you want to have a technological civilization, and not emit C02, nuclear power is pretty much the only way to go at the moment.
Right On The Left Coast is astonished that he agrees with the New York Times. Wilson Fu isn't looking a gift horse in the mouth. PrebleNY has some other thoughts, and so does the Commons Blog.

Here's Powerpundit:
I'm on board with the pro-nuclear attitude of some of these environmental groups, and am pleased that they are finally showing up - albeit tardily - to the nuclear party. We can and should resume the use of nuclear power as an alternative to current energy sources. However, my motivation is not because of the alleged problem of global warming. We must resume the use of nuclear energy because we need a new source of power. Period.
Why do we need a new source of power? Our President and CEO, Skip Bowman, laid out the case a couple of weeks ago in San Antonio in a speech to the nuclear fuel industry:
The numbers also tell us that companies are not investing in new, cleaner, more efficient generating capacity. Nearly 200,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity in the United States is 30 to 40 years old. Approximately 100,000 megawatts is 40 to 50 years old. Together, these aging assets represent roughly one-third of our 900,000 megawatts of installed capacity.
So, in essence, environmentalists who continue to resist the expansion of nuclear energy, would force a choice on us -- to meet new electricity demand with old technologies that emit greenhouse gases and particulate matter, or shut off the lights. That's not a choice most people want forced on them.

The fact is, that electricity demand will rise so rapidly over the coming decades, that we're going to need to rely on every source of clean energy imaginable -- that means renewables, clean coal and nuclear. And when you combine that with the need to replace aging energy infrastructure, you can't afford to take any option off the table.

POSTSCRIPT: It would be remiss not to mention that one of the first prominent environmentalists to speak up in favor of expanded use of nuclear energy, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore, died on Saturday. He was 85. Our condolences to his family and friends.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Norris McDonald said…
I am glad to see that some of my colleagues are leaning towards supporting nuclear power. The African American Environmentalist Association really went out on a limb 5 years ago and we were out there by ourselves. It is good to know that we are getting company. Now more people will not think that we are crazy. It is sweet vindication. Of course, I doubt that we will be credited with being a pioneer in this area. I always knew that the more reasonable groups would give serious consideration to this issue.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

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…