Skip to main content

NY Times Reporter Misses The Nuclear Energy Bus In Davos

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

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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…