AAEA Supporting Clinton ESP

The fight for the Clinton ESP is going hot and heavy, and our friend Norris McDonald of the African-American Environmentalists Association is in the thick of the fight:

In 2005, Norris McDonald, president of the African American Environmentalists Association, drove from Virginia to Clinton to support nuclear power at a meeting about the environmental impact statement included in the permit.

"Clinton stands at the crest of our energy future. This situation here is incredibly important. We would drive here, and I brought my son, we would come back again and drive 13 hours, this is just how important Clinton is," he said at the meeting, according to a transcript.

Global warming is the biggest threat to the country today, McDonald said in an interview, and by attending meetings such as the one in Clinton, he can bring a much-needed attention to an effective power source that is mostly carbon free.

For our archive of posts on the Clinton ESP application, click here.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Clinton ESP, Illinois, Exelon

Comments

Anonymous said…

Is this group funded by the nuclear industry?

December 8, 2006 at 11:21 AM

Norris McDonald said…

AAEA is not funded by the nuclear industry although we would welcome a multimillion dollar grant from the nuclear industry to make us comopetitive with their multimillion dollar environmental community adversaries.

And if the $6 billion per year environmental movement thinks our position is for sale, why don't they make us an offer?

December 8, 2006 at 10:48 PM

Anonymous said…

Thanks for the clarification Norris. Though I have to laugh at the assertion that the nuclear industry is outfunded by environmentalists. AREVA, GE, Westinghouse, Toshiba...all those poor little mom-and-pop operations, struggling just to get by.

December 11, 2006 at 11:35 AM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog