Skip to main content

Another newspaper in favor of nuclear power

In today's edition of USA Today, in an editorial titled "Former Critics See the Light," the paper discusses what NEI Nuclear Notes has been saying since this blog started:
The nuclear power industry has some surprising new friends: environmentalists.
The editorial goes on to highlight many of the things that the industry has been saying for a long time, including that nuclear power is back. As the piece wraps up it gives another endorsement for the industry's plan to deal with spent fuel by stating the following:
That debate needs to end. Yucca Mountain is the only viable storage site.

Twenty-six years after Three Mile Island, it's time for the nation to update its thinking about nuclear energy. If more reliable and cleaner energy is the goal, nuclear power has to be part of the solution.
We could not agree more.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,


Paul Gunter said…
Not surprising for a pro-nuke blog you forgot to post the counterpoint article that USA Today invited from NIRS and appeared on the same page as the editorial:

USA Today
July 15, 2005 Page 13A

Still dangerous, impractical
Terrorism adds to reasons why U.S. shouldn't resume going nuclear.

By Michael Mariotte

Without a single viable reactor order since October 1973, the nuclear power industry has been moribund for decades. Left to market forces and public opinion, nuclear power would continue on its deserved road to oblivion. And nothing has changed to make nuclear power more attractive:

•It continues to be the most dangerous method ever devised to produce electricity.

•A scientifically defensible radioactive waste program continues to elude the United States and every other nuclear nation.

•Building more nuclear reactors would simply add tempting new terrorist targets across the country.

Donating billions of taxpayer dollars to the nuclear industry — already the most heavily subsidized energy industry over the past 50 years — would provide further confirmation that private investment already has rejected this obsolete technology. If nuclear power, a mature technology by any definition, cannot make it on its own, why should taxpayers have to shoulder a burden that Wall Street has spurned?

Nuclear power's possible role in addressing climate change has been vastly overstated. The nuclear fuel chain is not free of greenhouse gas emissions and, according to several studies, to make even a modest difference in emissions (a 20% or so reduction) would require a nuclear program of incredible magnitude: in the United States alone the construction of some 300 new reactors.

If we started today, that would be one every two months for the next 50 years at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, increased risk of meltdown and the need for several new Yucca Mountain-size radioactive waste sites and proliferation-prone uranium enrichment plants. It's an impossible, and undesirable, task and could not be accomplished in time to prevent global warming.

Diverting our resources to nuclear power now would only prevent the deployment of those underfunded energy technologies that really can make a difference at far less cost, such as improved energy efficiency, wind, solar, non-nuclear hydrogen and better electrical transmission systems.

The issue is not whether we should use nuclear power to address climate change: the choice is to use nuclear power or address climate change. The Earth demands that we choose the latter course.

Michael Mariotte is executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear power group.

Find this article at:
Paul Gunter said…
The editorial and Op Ed appeared in USA Today Monday, July 18, 2005
DV8 2XL said…
Not surprisingly Mr. Mariotte, who must practice dissemination even down to the name of his organization: the “Nuclear Information and Resource Service, parrots the same tired arguments that his kind have been making a living off for the last forty years.

Sir, I would like you to back your assertions and accusations with current facts whose veracity can be checked. I would also like you to prove your claims first; hanging statements out and demanding they be proved wrong is a rhetorical attack which carries no weight with any thinking person.

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 …

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …