Skip to main content

The Rotten BANANA of the Environmental Movement

After getting to know the folks who make up the fierce opposition to wind power projects, Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post puts her finger on the larger problem when it comes to building new energy infrastructure:
The problem plaguing new energy developments is no longer NIMBYism, the "Not-In-My-Back-Yard" movement. The problem now, as one wind-power executive puts it, is BANANAism: "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything." The anti-wind brigade, fierce though it is, pales beside the opposition to liquid natural gas terminals, and would fade entirely beside the mass movement that will oppose a new nuclear power plant. Indeed, the founders of Cape Wind say they embarked on the project in part because public antipathy prevents most other utility investments in New England.

Still, energy projects don't even have to be viable to spark opposition: Already, there are activists gearing up to fight the nascent biofuel industry, on the grounds that fields of switch grass or cornstalks needed to produce ethanol will replace rainforests and bucolic country landscapes. Soon the nonexistent "hydrogen economy" will doubtless be under attack as well. There's a lot of earnest, even bipartisan talk nowadays about the need for clean, emissions-free energy. But are we really ready, politically, to build any new energy sources at all?
Good question. But as our readers already know, a number of communities are clamoring for the chance to host a new nuclear reactor (click here and here for examples). For more on the opposition to the Cape Wind Project, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,


Don Kosloff said…
But when a community supports nuclear power, five or six "activists" will make a tremendous amount of noise and call in support from the tiny nationwide percentage of anti-nukes spread throughout the country. Their noise is then amplified by the press and electronic media, who are biased in their favor and encouraged by the reality that controversy sells their product.
Nick said…

This is true. It's also true of wind: the great majority of wind projects are welcomed by their communities and neighbors. The small minority of projects which are opposed by a minority of neighbors get all the press.

Even Cape Wind is more popular with the local community than you could tell from most articles. Off shore wind is very popular in Texas.

Sadly, this is a good example of one the real problems for energy planning in this country: media that don't do their homework...
Although you have to admit that nuclear power plants don't involve randomly spinning blades or leveling the rainforest, and actually provide a positive return on energy investment with a useful amount of energy.

We should really just let them help us.
Nick said…

"randomly spinning blades"

What are you referring to? I'm aware of blades flying off of early wind turbines, and I know that wind turbines are normally off-set from other things by roughly 2x turbine height in part because of the theoretical risk of such things, but I'm not aware of any actual incidents in the last 20 years.

"leveling the rainforest"

I assume you're talking about Brazilian sugar-cane based ethanol. I agree, that's a problem.

"actually provide a positive return on energy investment with a useful amount of energy"

I assume you're talking about ethanol again. I understand wind as generally considered to have a E-ROI of about 80 to 1.
Anonymous said…
It's highly misleading to imply that there is more opposition to wind power than there is to new nuclear reactors. Two or three nuclear "company towns" who would accept another unit for more jobs doesn't a groundswell make.
Ken said…
Here is a source for wind turbine accident data:
This is from an anti-wind site so take it for what it is worth. I do know that the cited events in Germany where a blade was thrown and penetrated a house was a notable accident. Apparently blades continue to detach at a relatively regular rate.

Also, relative to the above post, it isn't "2 or 3 company towns", it is virtually every one of the 50 or 60 areas where operating nuclear units are now located. You'd be hard pressed to find a community with real experience with a nuclear plant that wouldn't welcome another.
Jim Hopf said…

Let's not hype up trivial problems associated with wind or other renewables. We all know how we feel when the same is done to nuclear. All this does is energize and solidify our opposition. We can accomplish much using a combination of both nuclear and renewables, both playing a significant role, and both being vastly preferable to any fossil fuel.


What Ken said...

I believe a recent poll covering ALL of the local areas around our (65) nuclear sites showed that 75% of the local population supports adding a new reactor to their local site.

For the industry's purposes, this is all the "groundswell" they need, as 65 sites is enough, and they don't have any plans for reactors on new sites for the foreseeable future, if ever, perhaps.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…