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

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 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…