Skip to main content

NY Times Reporter Misses The Nuclear Energy Bus In Davos

By Eric McErlain
Here's an article from yesterday's New York Times that caught my eye. It's by Mark Landler and he's reporting from the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos:
FEW subjects seem less suited to the intoxicating air of the World Economic Forum’s annual conference than nuclear energy. Aging, expensive, unpopular, and still vulnerable to catastrophic accidents, it is the antithesis of the kinds of cutting-edge solutions that beguile the wealthy and well intentioned, who gather each winter in this Alpine ski resort.
In the balance of the piece, Landler plays a lot of catch up concerning the resurgence of interest in nuclear energy in Europe, though he falls prey to the common canard used by anti-nukes that the industry and its supporters are touting nuclear energy as the "one" solution to global climate change.

But what really caught my attention was the absence of one name: Tony Blair. If there is anyone in Europe who has been sounding the alarm on climate change while touting nuclear energy as part of the solution to keep the lights on in a carbon constrained world, it's been the U.K. Prime Minister.

Funny enough, Blair was at the WEF on Friday where he had this to say:
The U.K. needs nuclear power to meet its twin challenges of securing energy supplies and reducing emissions of gases that cause global warming, Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

``I don't think we will tackle climate change'' and energy security ``effectively unless nuclear power is part of it,'' Blair said in Davos, Switzerland, where he's attending the World Economic Forum.

The U.K. government is likely to approve a new generation of nuclear power stations in coming months as the country attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and secure alternatives to fading North Sea oil and gas reserves.

``We are going to move from self sufficiency in gas to importing 90 percent of it,'' he said. Faced with that reality and the need to reduce carbon emissions he said, ``how are we going to do that without nuclear being part of this mix?''

Blair said a new ``climate change bill in the next few weeks'' will allow ``individuals and businesses to help'' reduce emissions.
I wonder why those comments didn't find their way into Landler's story? Feel free to discuss it at your leisure.

UPDATE: The Knight Science Journalism Tracker also picked up the story.

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

Comments

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