Skip to main content

Myths and Facts on Nuclear Energy

In today's San Jose Mercury-News, you'll find an op-ed under my byline entitled, "Nuclear energy debate fraught with myths." As the tag line on the piece reports, it was based on a detailed post that originally ran here at NEI Nuclear Notes on May 2, 2006 that took issue with a previous op-ed by Silicon Valley businessman Steve Kirsch.

Because of space limitations, we couldn't rebut every one of Kirsch's original charges in detail, so be sure to check our original post when the inevitable charge arises that we left some questions unanswered.

One last point: I think the fact that this piece ran at all is a credit to the Mercury-News, a newspaper that has always been a leader in giving a fair hearing to sources of information, like blogs, that only exist online. And one of the reasons that this blog has any credibility is because of our readers -- and that includes our supporters as well as our detractors.

Thanks for the support. If things continue to develop as we've planned, today's op-ed won't be the last from blog contributors.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

F.A. BRANDT said…
The San Jose Mercury News is not fair in its coverage of the Nuclear Power Option. They tend to favor articles promoting wind and solar power.
I sent the following response to the Kirsch opus.
4/24/06 Fortunately the diatribe against nuclear power by Steve Kirsch on 4/24/06 is on the Merc Editorial OPINION page. Unfortunately his opinions being in print may be accepted as fact.

Fact: currently, nuclear power plants offer the only way to produce economic, reliable electric power without producing greenhouse gas.
Fact: Kirsch’s wish that scientific brainpower will devise a better way to produce economic, reliable electric power in the foreseeable future is a fantasy.
Fact: All alternate energy sources now available never will be able to produce economical, reliable electric power.

The wind does not blow steadily. Data are available to show that the California wind farms produce usable energy 20 % of the day. Solar electricity, available at most 12 hours a day, is off the charts cost wise to produce commercial energy. Both solar and wind plants have to be backed up by reliable power plants. What does Kirsch propose for these?

His arguments after the phrase, “This belief are dead wrong” are mostly themselves “dead wrong” Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but they amortize themselves by producing power at low cost 24/7. Diablo Canyon is a cash cow as are all the other nuclear plants in the world. Storing the small amounts of waste products is a political not engineering problem. In any case we should be reprocessing the waste to get the fuel and valuable isotopes. The insurance argument is not reliable as a measure that nuclear plants are a risk. His argument that coal plants produce greenhouse gasses is correct but using this as an argument that therefore nuclear plants produce greenhouse gasses is specious. Citing previous nuclear plant accidents as proof that future plants will have accidents is speculative at best. His “most powerful argument” is not effective. All countries interested in reducing greenhouse gas production have no alternative other than going to nuclear power if they want economical 24/7 electricity. If they choose to make fully enriched uranium or extract plutonium for bomb use this must be controlled by other means than not using nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

F.A. BRANDT
1231 Janis Way
San Jose, CA

As sent to Merc letters and reader rep
Fortunately the diatribe against nuclear power by Steve Kirsch on 4/24/06 is on
the Merc Editorial OPINION page. Unfortunately his opinions being in print may
be accepted as fact.

Fact: currently, nuclear power plants offer the only way to produce economic,
reliable electric power without producing greenhouse gas.
Fact: Kirsch’s wish that scientific brainpower will devise a better way to
produce economic, reliable electric power in the foreseeable future is a
fantasy.
Fact: All alternate energy sources now available never will be able to produce
economical, reliable electric power.

The wind does not blow steadily. Data are available to show that the California
wind farms produce usable energy 20 percent of the day. Solar electricity is
available at most 12 hours a day. Both are beset with high capital costs because
their energy is so diffuse. Amortization costs are prohibitive because of the
limited time of production. Both solar and wind plants have to be backed up by
reliable power plants. What does Kirsch propose for these?

His arguments after the phrase, “This belief are dead wrong” are mostly
themselves “dead wrong” Nuclear power plants are somewhat more expensive to
build but they amortize their capital cost quickly by producing power at low
cost 24/7. Diablo Canyon is a cash cow as are all the other nuclear plants in
the world. Storing the small amounts of waste products is a political not
engineering problem. In any case we should be reprocessing the waste to get the
fuel and valuable isotopes. The insurance argument is not reliable as a measure
that nuclear plants are a risk. His argument that coal plants produce greenhouse
gasses is correct but using this as an argument that therefore nuclear plants
produce greenhouse gasses is specious. Citing previous nuclear plant accidents
as proof that future plants will have accidents is speculative at best. His
“most powerful argument” is not effective. All countries interested in reducing
greenhouse gas production have no alternative other than going
to nuclear power if they want economical 24/7 electricity. If they choose to
make fully enriched uranium or extract plutonium for bomb use this must be
controlled by other means than not using nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

F.A. BRANDT
1231 Janis Way
San Jose, CA
Fritz said…
I read your essay in the dead-tree Mercury News this morning, found your blog, and mentioned you in my own blog. Keep up the good work.

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 …