Skip to main content

Taking the Nuclear Energy Debate to the Blogosphere

By Eric McErlain
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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

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

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more