On Environmentalists and Nuclear Energy

Yesterday on NPR's program, Day by Day, correspondent Mike Pesca filed a report that the broadcaster slugged, "Environmentalists Reconsider Nuclear Energy." But after listening to the report, I'd have to say that it left the impression that serious environmentalists weren't really reconsidering their position at all.

Instead of talking to, or mentioning figures like Patrick Moore, James Lovelock and Stewart Brand, Pesca only did interviews with Navin Nyack of U.S. PIRG and Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense. Nyack, as you would have to expect, was hostile, while Krupp's support seemed lukewarm at best. l

At one point in the piece, Nyack began to mention all of the environmental groups that have taken a public stance against nuclear energy. But as we saw last week with the press announcement concerning a coalition of groups repeating their opposition to nuclear energy, those numbers seem to have been padded. And I'll reiterate a point I've made before: the list that was released that day communicated more about the mainstream environmental groups who weren't listed than the ones it did.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Comments

Norris McDonald said…

And the small but powerful African American Environmentalist Association also supports nuclear power. It appears that we are being left out of listings of green group support for nuclear power in various articles. I do not like whining but we do not intend to be ignored. I hope this does not become a distraction. Is there a motive operating here that we need to know about?

June 24, 2005 at 10:00 PM

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

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…

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog