Skip to main content

Third Way Memo Supports Expansion of Nuclear Energy

Third Way, a strategy center for progressives, today released a policy memo entitled, Another Inconvenient Truth: Solving Global Warming and Energy Security Requires Nuclear Power. The memo supports expansion of nuclear power and calls on political progressives to support it for three reasons:

1. Expanding nuclear power will make a difference in addressing the problem of global warming.

2. Embracing nuclear power by progressive leaders would have a galvanizing impact on the public, demonstrating the severity of the climate change problem and the need for everyone to make hard choices.

3. Moving forward efficiently on nuclear power could help provide momentum to take additional steps to curb carbon emissions.

But what really caught my eye in the report was this passage concerning the position of environmental activists on the expansion of nuclear energy:
Many advocates have taken this approach, attempting to keep the debate fixed solely on conservation and renewable sources. And no one denies that both are crucial to addressing the problem of global warming—a solution is impossible without real shifts in public behavior and a huge increase in our investment in renewable energy.

But we believe that by talking only about conservation and renewable energy,
advocates have undercut the seriousness of their own argument on climate change.
The American public may not know much about base-load capacity, but they understand that we are not going to get out of our CO2 problem by relying solely on wind farms or geothermal power at this point in time. And they may be reluctant to make hard changes in their own lives—or demand policy fixes to climate change—until environmentalists start making some tough choices too.

Indeed, if advocates were to embrace nuclear power, which many have spent their careers fighting, it would help prove to the public that a dramatic shift in our thinking as a nation is required when our way of life or very existence may be at risk.
To download the PDF, click here.

Comments

DV8 2XL said…
Another Inconvenient Truth:

I love it. Made my day.
Anonymous said…
I am going to steal this link and use it for my own purposes.

;-)

At the end of the day, I predict that nuclear energy is going to be so popular with environmentalists that we're going to see a lot of fashionable "pro-nukes" concerts with rock stars falling over themselves.

Of course, there is good reason for this: Nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly energy source there is.

-NNadir.
Rod Adams said…
NNadir:

The other consideration is the realization that a rock star would get far more of the attention that they seek by being a pro-nuclear activist, at least right now.

As we all know, dog bites man is not a story, but man bites dog - that makes the front pages.
kconrad said…
That anyone in their right mind could think that nuclear power is environmentally sound is beyond comprehension.

Start with the mining of uranium - thousands of acres of mill tailings and workers with health problems.

Then enrichment uses incredible amounts of electricity (primarily coal-fired).

Then construction needs hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline to fuel vehicles, generators, etc. Electricity from outside sources is needed to run equipment during construction.

Offsite electricity is needed during operation of the plants.

If waste is ever to be transported, more gasoline will be needed.

Dismantling uses more energy and gasoline.

You don't just smap your fingers and presto! a plant arises and operates.

Nuclear plants need to operate at FULL POWER for decades to compensate for all the carbons generated to put them in place and continue their operation. Do you know of any nuclear plant that operates at FULL POWER for that amount of time?

Not.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

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.

Huh?

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…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…