Skip to main content

More Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy

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?
Don Kosloff 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.

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 …

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …