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In a Letter to the Editor (that remains unpublished to my knowledge) Greg outright refuses the claim.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...

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog