Skip to main content

Michael Stuart vs. The Anti-Nukes

By Eric McErlain
One week ago today, we pointed to an op-ed piece in the Clarion-Ledger by anti-nuclear activist Ruth Pullen that pulled out all of the old tropes about the dangers of nuclear energy. In today's paper, NEI Nuclear Notes contributor Michael Stuart fired back:
At present, 80 percent of the nation's electricity comes from either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. How can we meet the nation's energy needs while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels without nuclear energy?

Each year, the burning of fossil fuels pours more and more pollution into the atmosphere resulting in thousands of deaths from mining accidents and respiratory distress. According to many scientists this also brings us much closer to the point of no return in global warming.

But, the good news is that we do not have to choose between plentiful, inexpensive energy and global warming. The technology to produce energy in a clean and efficient manner -- nuclear energy -- has been used and steadily improved over the last 50 years.

The nuclear industry is the only form of electrical generation required to contain its waste. Since a small amount of uranium about the size of the tip of your little finger has the energy equivalent of about 2,000 pounds of coal, the amount of waste it produces is extremely small, and since it remains solid, it is easily contained.

Last year, in Mississippi alone, nuclear energy avoided the emission of 47,800 tons of sulfur dioxide, 16,300 tons of nitrogen oxide, and 9.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

What's more amazing is that used nuclear fuel should not be called "waste," since approximately 95 percent of the energy is still contained in it. It should be reprocessed and recycled as fuel for future energy supplies.

Ruth Pullen is right: It's only "myths" that indicate nuclear power is not the best choice. However, the facts indicate that nuclear power is a far better choice than the alternatives.

Perhaps this is why so many environmentalists including Dr. James Lovelock and Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore have publicly voiced their support for nuclear energy.
Thanks again to Michael for stepping up.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

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