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

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