Skip to main content

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

By Eric McErlain
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.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous 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.
February 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Anonymous 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.
February 7, 2007 at 9:35 AM
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.
February 8, 2007 at 9:09 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