Skip to main content

Earth Day Canada Kicks Up The FUD on Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
Earth Day Canada has just started a new blog called Eco Kids. Earlier today, they decided that their topic of the day would be nuclear power:
There are several pros and cons of nuclear power. One pro is: it does not directly produce pollution. Cons of nuclear power are: it produces nuclear waste that is dangerous to humans and ecosystems; nuclear waste takes millions of years to decompose; and, it takes a lot of energy to mine the uranium used to create nuclear power. Thousands of gallons of petroleum are used in the mining process, releasing a lot of greenhouse gases.
My, what a balanced presentation! I count at least three half-truths and one outright error. How about you?

I left a comment directing their readers to NEI's Science Club, our own Web property geared toward school age children, but my comment has yet to be moderated. I wonder if it ever will.

As always, if you stop by to leave a comment, please be polite.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Your admirably low-key comment is now visible. Nice contrast to the sudden outbreak of hysteria in middle of their main article.
January 18, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Lisa Stiles said…
The comment I left wasn't nearly as low-key but it was not impolite. I pointed out some of the misleading statements and questioned whether this was the best approach to encourage critical thinking in children. It's been nearly 24 hours and my comment has not appeared. Has anyone else tried?
January 19, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Anonymous said…
LEAVE it to NEI to attempt lying to little children....Sure my comments will be removed from that sight, but perhaps the teacher will have enough sense to look into the true ills associated with nuclear power. Perhaps the teacher will realize NEI is the propaganda and lobbying arm of the nuclear industry.
January 20, 2007 at 2:35 AM
Lisa Stiles said…
Wow. Did you even look at the NEI science club site for kids? There isn't anything on there that isn't scientific or demonstrated fact. It isn't trying to tell kids that nuclear is the answer to every problem. Issues that are certainly debatable among reasonable adults, issues that we debate here on the blog and elsewhere, aren't found on the site for children. Sure NEI has a few lobbyists but its mission is much broader and as a nuclear engineer I'm proud to be a part of the organization because I believe nuclear is an important part of our energy mix. And obviously we don't try to squelch discussion on the issues or your comment and many others would be removed. So I fail to see how this falls into the realm of "lies and propaganda."
January 20, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more