Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy

Another leader in the global environmental movement has broken with orthodoxy, and is now openly advocating the expansion of nuclear energy on a global basis. From Sunday's edition of The Australian:

THE outspoken chief of environment group WWF Australia has gone to London to lobby the international organisation to overturn its anti-nuclear stance.

Greg Bourne flew out on Friday, a day after he rocked the environment movement by declaring Australia was "destined" to expand uranium mining.

Mr Bourne will attend a WWF International global energy taskforce meeting this week with senior managers of one of the world's biggest and most influential conservation groups.

The taskforce aims to formulate an energy policy model for dealing with climate change and restraining global warming to an average 2C above the Earth's global average temperature.

Mr Bourne, former president of BP Australia, will argue the case for nuclear energy to be a part of that energy policy.

Keep an eye on London this week.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Australia, WWF, Greg Bourne

Comments

Anonymous said…

Hi - just wanted to let you know that the article you quote isn’t accurate at all.

In a Letter to the Editor (that remains unpublished to my knowledge) Greg outright refuses the claim. I’ve republished the letter on my personal weblog here.

As for the claim in the article that “ordered the organisation’s global anti-nuclear policy be removed from WWF Australia’s website in March” - I’m the website manager and I can assure you that no such request was made, nor carried out.

Just thought you (and your readers) would like to know the real story.

We are receiving our official briefing from Greg today, but I do know that WWF has not changed it's stance on nuclear.

May 16, 2006 at 10:59 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog