Seven Reasons to Back Nuclear Power

I can think of many more but there's a great article from Fin24.com:

NUCLEAR power has two paradoxes. The first is that an energy source that has proved itself over decades to be safe, clean and economic should be perceived as being dangerous, dirty and expensive.
The second is that a technology that is so well understood and on which information is so easy to obtain should be the subject of such wild ignorance. Andreas Späth's article, "Six Reasons to Ditch Nuclear Power" (News24, February 27) neatly illustrates both. I shall answer each point in favour of nuclear power and add a seventh.

Be sure to check out his sources for future use.

Comments

Anonymous said…

It is really, really, really difficult to conceive why the dogma about this spectacularly successful form of energy persist.

I have been fielding this misconceptions for many years and no matter how much reason and data I put forth, at the end of the day, with a pile of numbers and facts, I am met with blank assertions of unreality.

I actually don't think that those engaged in irrational denial are popular, so much as they are loud, though. I could be wrong about that, but I think the truth is really starting to sink in.

-NNadir

March 2, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Fat Man said…

My belief is that opposition to all things nuclear was "ideological and memetic warfare"* against the United States which "... has been a favored tactic for all of America's three great adversaries of the last hundred years..."*

"... it was the Soviet Union, in its day, that was the master of this game. They made dezinformatsiya (disinformation) a central weapon of their war against "the main adversary", the U.S. They conducted memetic subversion against the U.S. on many levels at a scale that is only now becoming clear as historians burrow through their archives and ex-KGB officers sell their memoirs."*

What better way to defeat one's enemy than to get him to throw his most valuable weapons away.

*Reference.

March 2, 2007 at 9:22 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog