Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
Comments
My understanding of the symbolism is perhaps a bit different from that of the antis. Ice is commonly used to cool something that is too warm. So the message I get from the picture is that the antis are saying, "The solution to global warming is sitting right here in front of us, and we refuse to admit it."
Yes, there were some Entergy employees there. I don't know how many attended, but at least a few of them located in Jackson used their lunch hour to attend the rally. But even if there were nuclear professionals from Grand Gulf in attendance, what does that prove? Entergy employees are the people closest to the operation of the plant. If the claims of antinuclear activists are true, their health and safety, and that of their families are the most at-risk. If the people closest to operations are confident enough in the safety and security of the plant to publicly support new nuclear, I believe it is a powerful demonstration to the layperson that the risks are manageable.
Furthermore, my colleagues from Virginia used their own vacation time and paid their own expenses for the trip. NA-YGN members in North Carolina volunteered their time to make posters for the rally. There are many examples of people volunteering their time and their money to support new nuclear power because they believe it should remain an important part of a balanced energy mix in the this country.
In short, to posit that anyone that supports nuclear power must be a lackey of the big bad corporations is a flimsy, and offensive, attempt to attack the messenger.