Skip to main content

Crow Learning Same Old Anti-Nuke Talking Points

By Eric McErlain
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.
Labels:

Comments

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.
April 20, 2007 at 12:22 PM
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?

-NNadir
April 21, 2007 at 11:16 PM
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.
April 22, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more