Skip to main content

Atomic Insights: Don't Give Up on the Anti-Nukes

After reading the latest nonsense from groups like Greenpeace and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, it's hard not to despair that those groups will ever abandon their religious opposition to nuclear energy.

But Rod Adams has another idea:
I know that most of you think that there is no hope of changing the positions taken by these groups - and others like them - but we are doomed to failure if we do not try. Make every effort you can to contact the groups and let them know how you feel about their continuing illogical position regarding nuclear fission in a world whose very survival may be threatened by continued burning of increasingly massive quantities of fossil fuel.group.
I guess if Patrick Moore can change, perhaps we shouldn't give up on anybody.

Comments

Doug said…
I have found many people spouting the same dogma throughout the bloggosphere, and I don't think it's possible to reason with them. Some have even admitted that if it comes to it, they'd rather mankind slide back into the middle ages than develop nuclear power.

I don't think we're doomed if we fail to convince these folks. Sure their groups enjoy a lot of popular support, but that support evaporates the instant the rolling blackouts start. You'll notice that when a power capacity crunch actually hits, these groups go silent. That won't continue to be a successful strategy; power plants of some sort will have to be built. Eventually these groups will have nowhere to hide - it'll be put up or shut up time. The dogma won't survive being put to the reality test.
Don kosloff said…
I wonder if they still applying those "Split Wood - Not Atoms" bumper stickers when they buy an electic car?

Whenever I see one of those bumper stickers I think of all of the people that have been killed by the use of wood stoves and fireplaces. Then again, maybe that is the whole point of the bumper sticker. Psuedo-evironmentalist dogma holds that fewer people are better for the environment. Usually they aren't specific about how to get rid of the millions of people who they want to eliminate.

By the way, Harry Reid has just complained about "tax money" being used for continuing development of the Yucca Mountain beneficial solution.
Anonymous said…
People who advocate splitting wood not atoms are causing global warming in two ways. First, they're burning a carbon-based fuel that releases GHGs into the biosphere. Second, by cutting down trees, they're removing CO2 absorbers and oxygen generators. I'd say advocates of wood power are far more environmentally irresponsible than nuclear advocates.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

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…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…