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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog