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: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Electricity, Union of Concerned Scientists

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

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.

September 25, 2006 at 9:19 AM

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog