Skip to main content

One of These Things is Not Like the Other...

Can you tell the difference?

This photo is from the pro-nuclear rally in Jackson today:



This one is from the anti-nuclear protest a short time later:



Hint: Count the heads!

Comments

Kevin McCoy said…
Lisa, I had read about anti-nukes who used an ice sculpture of a nuclear power plants as part of a publicity stunt, so I was pleased to finally see a picture of such a sculpture. Pretty cool, huh?

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."
Paul Gunter said…
Pretty cool, Entergy bussed a bunch of Grand Goof employees to Jackson.
Anonymous said…
Wow Paul, that kind of creative name calling is sure to convince a lot of people to take up the "No Nukes" mantra ... very professional!
So Paul, did the cost of your trip to Mississippi come out of your own pocket or did NIRS pay for 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.

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…