Skip to main content

Columnists Support Nuclear Energy

Support for nuclear energy is a growing trend among columnists at major newspapers, many of whom are self-described environmentalists.

“As a radical environmentalist, I support Progress Energy’s plans to build a nuclear power plant in Florida,” columnist Mike Thomas wrote in the Oct. 11 edition of the Orlando Sentinel.

Michael Fumento, the environment columnists for Scripps Howard News Service, wrote in September that “environmentalists think cheap food and housing are great, yet somehow affordable energy from any source is evil. Saintliness, to them, is achieved by paying through the nose for extravagantly inefficient power sources like windmills and solar panels. Well, let them build a windmill in their backyards. The rest of us need an exorcism from the demons of anti-nuclear hysteria.”

Finally, Oregonian columnist David Reinhard back in June wrote the following in his column entitled At Long Last, It’s Nuclear Option Time: “…as fears about greenhouse gases and global warming grow – and the practical problem of filling the world’s energy needs with non-emission sources becomes ever more apparent – today’s nuclear environmentalists may come to be seen as prophets.”

This does not come as much of a surprise. A May nationwide survey of adults by Bisconti Research Inc./NOP World revealed that 71 percent of environmentalists favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to generate electricity.

Comments

Wineandsky said…
interesting how the columnists consistent revert back to gargantuan mass community solutions. Most of the real extream environmentalists live in small, self sustaining communities bent on working together to grow the food, nurture the people, ail the sick, and create a commerce for themselves.
Wineandsky said…
oops, sorry for the misspelled words....consistently and extreme

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…