Skip to main content

Sound Science, Not Hysteria

By Eric McErlain
Hydrogen Power News on the recent New York Times piece concerning the growing split in the environmental community over nuclear energy:
The paper also notes the arguments within the environmental movement as many of the hardline nuclear opponents speak in terms more akin to betrayal which is what you would expect if a movement is based on emotion or religion instead of science and facts, some have evidently made up their minds and that’s that. What we need now is clear thinking and if the hydrogen economy is ever going to be anything other than a fantasy, every avenue needs to be explored.
For more on the connection between nuclear energy and a possible future hydrogen economy, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
The problem with nuclear is not that it doesn't work extremely well -- the trouble is that the utility industry, generally, is full of half-baked idiots. The people in charge in the Clinton and Bush administrations deregulated the electricity production industry and sold off most of the best assets, leaving energy traders as the résumés of choice, under the premise that whoever could purchase fuel feedstocks at least cost would win the biggest rewards.

So we end up not with Homer Simpsons in charge, but with the Jeff Skillings. And they, quite simply, can't be trusted with a technology as demanding and (potentially) dangerous as nuclear power. Nuclear power requires skilled professionals averse to risk, hedged to their eyeballs, willing to do what safety requires, not riverboat gamblers.

'Pete' (http://policypete.com)
May 24, 2005 at 6:08 PM
Eric McErlain said…
With all due respect Pete, I've never met a more risk averse and safety concious crew than the folks in the nuclear energy business.

When it comes to industrial safety and security, there's nobody better than these guys, and to lump them together with the criminals at Enron is unfair and innacurate.

This didn't just happen overnight, but rather is the result of decades of work from the nuclear industry, and the efforts of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators -- an organization that effectively uses peer review (and pressure) to keep plants operating safely and efficiently.
May 25, 2005 at 9:31 AM
Lisa Stiles said…
Pete,

I understand your aversion to the folks that drove Enron into the ground, but those kind of crooks do not run nuclear power plants.

Furthermore, even honest CEOs, CFOs, and executives don't run the plants. Highly-trained operators, engineers (like me), and skilled craft do.

I, and my colleagues, are the skilled professionals you speak of and we do everything that safety requires not only because we are ethically and professionally bound to, but because we work at and live near the plants ourselves. Doing anything else would mean jeopardizing our own health and safety and that of our families and friends. Taking such risks is not an option.

Best regards,
Lisa
May 25, 2005 at 11:23 AM
Kelly L Taylor said…
Consider this: those of us who work within the power stations have a close-up, personal view of a station's safety. And on the aggregate, the local communities are in support of having nuclear power stations for neighbors and employers.

Not only that, but nuclear power is now old enough to employ our kids. We are talking about encouraging our kids to become skilled professionals, not simply accepting the employment of last resort. Would those of us who are on the inside encourage our kids, as rising professionals, to work in an unsafe industry? Of course not! And yet we see the next generation of employees often coming from families that are already working nuclear.

We really do have our eyes fixed on the future, not just the present - and in nuclear energy, I like what I see.
May 26, 2005 at 8:26 AM
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