Skip to main content

More Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
If I had to come up with a short list of pro-nuclear blogs, I'm pretty sure TreeHugger wouldn't make the list. In general, I think it's safe to say that most of their contributors range from neutral to overtly hostile when it comes to the question of nuclear energy.

The readers, however, seem to be a different story. Because whenever somebody attacks nuclear energy, supporters of the technology manage to chime in and fight the good fight. Take a look at just a few of the comments that were inspired to respond to a post at TreeHugger on the recent UCS report:
This report seems to focus only on older plants. So what about the Third and Fourth Generation nuclear plants being developed to replace the old? And "Chernobyl Like Disaster"? Please spare me the scare tactics.

[ ... ]

This article seems designed to turn up the FUD factor on nuclear power. Read the PM (Popular Mechanics) articles on new reactor designs.

[ ... ]

AS I have posted here before nuclear is no more expensive than other methods of energy production. The info is out there.
This is not the first time we've seen this, and it won't be the last. I know this evidence is simply anecdotal, but when combined with the public opinion data that NEI has been tracking for years, it's clear that something different is going on in the environmental movement today.

If you're out there, know that we're ready to talk. And we're ready right now.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

valiens said…
It's amazing to me the environmental movement hasn't embraced nuclear energy. It seems like the cleanest of all. There's this pervasive notion that older is better, fossil fuel, bicycles, horses. And technology is always bad/unnatural/worthy of suspicion. Their motives seem to come from somewhere other than realistic solution- and fact-based ideas.

Why is there still such a fearful attitude? What will it take to change it?
September 21, 2006 at 11:15 PM
Anonymous said…
Many years ago, the Sierra Club did support nuclear power plants as an alternative to building dams.

However, they now advocate magic as the best way to generate electricity.
September 25, 2006 at 9:19 AM
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