Revisiting Al Gore and Nuclear Energy

From time to time, we've taken a look at former Vice President Al Gore's position on how much nuclear energy can contribute to constraining carbon emissions. And while I've found Gore's position to be wanting (among others), I understand that others disagree. So in the interest of equal time, I'm pointing to an argument from one of our friends at The Atomic Show that looks at things from another angle.

And when you get a chance, check out Episode #30 of The Atomic Show.

UPDATE: We Support Lee has been doing some more digging.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Technology, Environment, Electricity, GHG, Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

Comments

Anonymous said…

I can see the practicality of Al Gore making statements in this way, if he doesn't think nuclear energy isn't going to be able to take a strong role in reducing CO2 emissions. But the problem is a political one and he's a politician. He could just as easily go on a public education campaign as he has done with global warming, but he has not done that. The fact remains he has decided to make it a priority to change public opinion on the issue of global warming, but he has not done so with nuclear power. That's the difference and that's why we say he's downplaying nuclear energy.

October 2, 2006 at 2:24 PM

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

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

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

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog