Skip to main content

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: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Grant 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In a Letter to the Editor (that remains unpublished to my knowledge) Greg outright refuses the claim.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.
Paul Primavera said…
Grant,

That means that WWF prefers animals as well as humans should die from the air pollution caused by coal fired base-load power plants that only nuclear energy can displace without toxic environmental impact?

No sarcasm intended, but exactly what wild life does WWF protect?

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …