Skip to main content

Crow Learning Same Old Anti-Nuke Talking Points

After traveling around the nation with "global warming activist" Laurie David, singer Sheryl Crow claims she's been "learning" about nuclear energy:
[W]e've been getting lots of questions about nuclear. I know that nuclear is better than fossil fuels when it comes to carbon dioxide, but nuclear energy is by no means clean. We don't know what to do with the waste we already have and it seems like a bad idea to me to make more when we have so many cleaner options such as wind and solar.
I think it's safe to say Crow probably didn't bother talking to Bill Maher too closely after he had the temerity to disagree with her on his show last Friday night.

In any case, we call nuclear, "clean air energy" for more reasons than just carbon dioxide. Click here for our section of the Web dealing with nuclear energy's environmental benefits.


Anonymous said…
Only trouble is, we don't have the "options" of wind and solar in any realistic sense for meeting the majority of projected need. Those are intermittant energy sources with capacity factors in the range of 25%, availability not much better in most places, and in some places a lot worse. The maximum potential I've seen for all of these "options" combined is something like 20% of the projected demand. So where do we go for the other 80%, even if by some unlikely happenstance we were to fully develop the potential of "renewables"? Seems like we're spending a lot of effort developing and talking about things that are meeting something like 1% of our needs now, and have at most the potential to meet a fifth of our requirements. Meanwhile the elephant in the living room, the other 80% of the demand, remains to be addressed.
Anonymous said…
Why would we need a rock star to tell us about energy?

From what I can discern, rock stars are not especially qualified to speak about dentistry, bridge building, oceanography, or even the chemistry of gemstones.

Of course, if one is a rock star, one could in theory learn about energy.

I would guess that the lights and amplifiers at most of Crow's concerts are powered by coal, except of course, when she plays Paris.

Sting, who devoted a whole song to some dribble about carbon 14 (and the tune was catchy), made of film that was, well, all about Sting and Sting playing Paris. For about one month Sting paid to have Sting filmed renting a chateau where Sting consumed oodles and oodles of power conspicuously, all the time posturing about how Sting was the most Sting like concerned person about the world's environmental issues as enunciated by Sting.

So what?

Anonymous said…
Fact is, show biz people use hundreds, if not thousands of tons more carbon than the rest of us. Making movies, doing concerts, all of these consume vastly more energy than the rest of us use in our ordinary jobs. Flying around in private jets, tooling from concert to concert in limos or buses (and no, I'm not impressed with the "biodiesel bus"), leaves a carbon footprint that exceeds what many of us leave in a lifetime. But, that's okay, they're rock stars, they're "concerned" about the environment. That gives them leave to abuse it while lecturing the rest of us on what we should or shouldn't advocate.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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?

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.


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…