Skip to main content

USA Today: "Some rethinking nuke opposition"

From today's edition:
Other environmentalists say the need to address global warming means taking a harder look at nuclear.

Besides Pew, at least three leading environmental organizations — Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Defense — say they are willing to consider nuclear power as part of a long-term solution to global warming.

Bill Chameides, chief scientist for Environmental Defense, says his group's position "has evolved."

"Global warming is the environmental issue of our generation," he says. "Clearly to solve this problem we need to have all technologies on the table. Therefore, nuclear energy … needs to be considered."

However, he says a big expansion of nuclear power would be "foolhardy" until a solution is found for where to put nuclear wastes.

Christopher Paine, senior nuclear analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, says his group is also willing to give nuclear a look.

"Our position is that nuclear is not off the table as an energy source, but we believe there are cheaper, cleaner and faster ways to reduce pollution and provide reliable energy than nuclear power," Paine said.

Even the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has been sounding alarms about nuclear safety since before Three Mile Island, said in a position paper revised this month that nukes "should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate."
And some folks like to make it look like Patrick Moore is the only one coming to this sort of conclusion.

UPDATE: Captain's Quarters has some related thoughts:
Nuclear power has proven itself more reliable, less damaging to the environment, and safer than coal for creating energy. Dozens of miners die every year retrieving coal to produce our electricity, but no one has died from operating a nuclear power plant in the US. The worst accident we had, Three Mile Island in 1979, killed no one and resulted in only a short, small release of radioactivity outside the plant. Although older plants have operated for decades since then, the US has not built another reactor since Three Mile Island, just as we have not built an oil refinery since before that.

We have to start getting realistic about our energy needs. We need to start tapping our own oil resources for national security purposes as well as economic health; we send far too much of our money outside the US for oil. We need to expand our refining capability to meet the expanding needs of our population, at least in the short term. If environmentalists believe these to be dangerous, then they need to allow for the use of nuclear power as a replacement for coal, at least.

Comments

Joffan said…
It is a shift by these groups, and as such to be welcomed, I guess, but the shifts are small and grudging (like my reaction!).

Saying "you have to try everything else first" is still effectively saying "no nuclear", but in a way that sounds more reasonable. I like the new Environmental Defense position best.

Hopefully this is a transitional step, to ease followers over to a revised position, and not merely posturing.
Anonymous said…
Union of Concerned Scientists responded:

"Nonetheless, our position - which is not new - includes some major caveats that the article glosses over. Yes, the United States should be re-examining all low- and zero-carbon energy options, but expanding U.S.
nuclear power capacity anytime soon will present the same serious
liabilities that the Union of Concerned Scientists has been pointing out
for years...

There are faster, safer and cheaper ways to meet our energy needs, including renewable energy sources and cogeneration technologies, which
combine heat and power."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/03/nuclear_power_h.html
gunter said…
Thanks for finally taking comments on the March 23rd USA Today editorial claiming major environmental groups were rethinking the role of nuclear power as a solution to rapid climate change.

In response, Aldon Meyer of UCS wrote in a letter to the editor disclaiming nuclear power in the near term as a solution to global warming because of the well recognized risks including the industry's abysmal economic track record and the untenable and unresolved hazards of nuclear weapons and nuclear waste. Given the fact it takes an excessive long lead time its a increasingly risky gamble to offer it up as even a solution in the "long term" given just how long we continue to delay in addressing rapid climate change.

In addition to UCS, NRDC's chief scientist Chris Paine added his organization's clarification to the USA Today's misguided cheerleading for nuclear power. In another letter to the editor posted April 6, Mr. Paine reiterates the many hazards and drawbacks that make "Nuclear Energy Not An Answer To Global Warming."

The historically exaggerated claims of the nuclear industry and its puiblicists are evermore dangerous as time runs out on implementing an aggressive energy policy to avert global disaster.

gunter, nirs

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…