Skip to main content

Taking the Nuclear Energy Debate to the Blogosphere

One of the things that has made contributing to NEI Nuclear Notes so enjoyable has been seeing the way the debate about nuclear energy is developing in the blogosphere. Yesterday, I told you about how one Aussie environmentalist was challenging the current orthodoxy in the environmental movement about nuclear energy. Now here's an Aussie blogger, Peter Campbell, that wants a more public debate:
We need to have a genuine debate on whether Australia should embrace nuclear power or not. We need a debate in the federal parliament so we can see and hear what our politicians'’ views are and what they are based on. We also need to see how they are representing their constituent's views.

We need an independent scientific and social enquiry to assess the pros and cons of nuclear power based on factual information, not just opinions, which the Australian public can read and assess. This enquiry should take public submissions.

Then we need a referendum that asks Australian voters whether they support increased uranium exports, investment in nuclear power over renewable energy technologies, and whether they agree with Australian becoming a dumping ground for other country's nuclear waste.
While he might be an anti-nuke, this is just the kind of debate that nuclear energy professionals should embrace. Stop by Peter's blog and let him know what you think about the issue. Thanks to our friend Rod Adams for the pointer.

On the other side of the world, the U.K.-based Institute of Physics has officially launched their own blog, Potential Energy (we jumped the gun last week), that they hope can serve as a vehicle for public debate in the U.K. over nuclear energy. One of the three bloggers they've hired to moderate the debate, Gia Milinovich (who BTW, has an incredibly cool gig on the side), had this to say about the launch over at her personal blog:
None of the writers on the project are nuclear experts, yet all of us have an open mind about nuclear power. Over the next 10 weeks I invite all of you in the UK (and elsewhere, of course) to come along, engage in the conversation and let your voice be heard. So far everyone commenting on the site is pro-nuclearÂ… are there any anti-nuclear people out there?
As we can attest, there are plenty of anti-nuclear people out there -- it's just that pro-nuclear energy supporters are refusing to be silent any longer. Again, be sure to stop by and throw your two cents (or pence) into the debate.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

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…