Skip to main content

AJC Readers Respond to Senator Frist

The Op-ed authored by Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) that appeared in yesterday's edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has kicked up a lot of dust in some letters to the editor as some anti-nukes came out swinging.

In many ways, I think radical environmentalists are getting so desperate, they're not bothering to see whether their arguments still make any sense. For instance, here's an excerpt from a letter by Alice Slater of the Global Research Action Center for the Environment (GRACE):
Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who received tens of thousands of dollars from the nuclear industry during his last election, omits the astronomical cost of getting nuclear up and running. Nuclear power does not make economic sense.
For starters, this ignores the fact that while nuclear requires higher up front capital costs, operating expenses are far lower due to the low cost of fuel. So, unlike natural gas-fired electric capacity, which has been rocked in recent months, nuclear has what we call forward price stability. If and when it gets added to our energy mix, it can displace natural gas in electric generation markets, and free that supply up for home heating and industrial uses.

But then, she writes this:
Many of the companies that own nuclear reactors are also making record windfalls off our current energy crisis. Frist is wrong to entrust them with our energy future.
Now that's an interesting argument. So, is nuclear uneconomical, or is it the kind of generating capacity that allows utilities to make "record windfalls?" Like I said, they don't know whether they're coming or going. For good measures, she mentions the Rocky Mountain Institute and its research, something we've debunked again and again here at NEI Nuclear Notes.

And here's Ed Arnold of Physicians for Social Responsibility:
He has ignored the "elephant in the room." Nuclear power plants have been described as our most vulnerable risks to terrorism. Examples include: On Oct. 17, 2001, according to plant officials, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania was put on the highest alert after receiving, as described by plant officials, a "credible threat" against it.

In June 2003, the Central Intelligence Agency warned that "Osama bin Laden's operatives may try to launch conventional attacks against the nuclear industrial infrastructure of the United States in a bid to cause contamination, disruption and terror."

Nuclear power plants, the most vulnerable components of the U.S. electric power infrastructure, pose the greatest risk of catastrophic damage.
What we see here is the use of actual facts to come to a conclusion that they don't support. So when Arnold says that nuclear plants are "most vulnerable" you ought to be asking who is making that claim.

Our industry is well aware of the threats outlined in Arnold's letter, and has spent more than $1.2 billion for security upgrades since 9-11. And far from being most vulnerable, the FBI has concluded that nuclear power plants are "difficult targets." And finally, in a study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, nuclear power plants were classified as the "best defended" piece of America's energy infrastructure.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Alice Slater is the house factotum & gofer
at Helaine Heilbrunn Lerner's GRACE foundation, also monikered as Tamarind foundation, 66 million of daddy Heilbrunn's 1950's stock market billions lavished on PETA animal rights, and Slater's antinuke thing.
To retain stature enough to stay at the helm of the $66 million Heilbrun/Lerner money spout, Slater must promote herself endlessly as "A Significant Figure" (mainly to Helaine Lerner).
That's why she puts out position illogic time & time again---- It's how she keeps her job as gofer.

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…