Another Aussie Cracks the Anti-Nuke Code

After listening to a television interview with a member of the local chapter of the "no solutions" brigade, one Australian blogger needed to vent:

I was just watching the local news, and I was annoyed by the leader of the Greens party here saying that his policy is No to everything nuclear. Such an idiot.

The problem with some environmentalists is that they support policies that actually damage the environment.

If you had the choice between pollution in the air you breathe, versus pollution in barrels in a storage facility, which would you choose? Obviously pollution in barrels is better than in the air.

Apparently, the choice isn't so obvious to everybody. And here's another Aussie who, while undecided on the future of nuclear energy, sees plenty of contradicitons inherent in the positions of local anti-nukes.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Australia, Green Party

Comments

Anonymous said…

Calling someone an "idiot" without addressing the issues is not exactly devasting refutation.

July 26, 2006 at 1:04 PM

Eric McErlain said…

Then again, that's not the point of the post. What we are demonstrating is that the message of many anti-nuke groups -- one that hasn't changed in tenor or tone for decades -- isn't nearly as effective as it once was.

Whether you admire his style of argument or not, it's clear that a number of folks are beginning to tune out the same old message.

July 26, 2006 at 1:51 PM

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog