Skip to main content

On Al Gore and the Future of Nuclear Energy

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore is in Australia promoting his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Over at the World Nuclear Organization blog, Ian Hore-Lacy has some dissenting thoughts.

For more on the nuclear energy debate in Australia, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Brian Mays said…
Hmm ... are these reporters recycling old stories and quotes (sound bites?) or is Gore just reading from the same cue card over and over?

"Nuclear power plants are the costliest to build and they take the longest time and at present they come in only one size — extra large."

It seems to me that I've heard these words before.

Wait! News flash! The situation has become more serious: apparently "at stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilisation!"

Well, grand hyperbole aside, to read this I would think the we could use a few more "extra large," emission-free 1000 MW, 1500 MW, and 1600 MW nuclear power plants. Don't you think?

Costly, you say? Well, exactly how much is "human civilisation" worth to you?

That's what's so sad about Gore. I realize that he's nothing but a politician, playing political games, but he's not even a good politician. He's not dynamic, he's stiff, he uses ridiculous, overblown rhetoric ("moral issue" and whatnot), and he leaves no room for compromise. His position on nuclear — which should be clear to anyone reading this article from Australia is in the "anti" camp — is just another example of his pathetic environmentalist hogwash, taken straight off of the scripts of various Green Left organizations.

Unless he starts promoting some real solutions — something other than "join Kyoto," which will accomplish almost nothing, since many countries who have signed the treaty are not going to meet their commitments — then he has done nothing. Well, I suppose if you have a vested interest in selling solar panels or Toyota Prius cars, then he has done something for you, but other than that ... ?

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 …

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 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…