Skip to main content

Show 'Em It's Not a Knee-Jerk

Last Thursday, Eric reported on the nuclear debate in Canada, but he missed what I thought was the most interesting part of the article.

The reporter said that there is a ...
[N]uance creeping into the language of some environmentalists who are still far from sold on nuclear power. Even David Suzuki, the public face and living patron saint of the Canadian green movement, has raised eyebrows by declaring in at least two broadcast interviews that he doesn't take a "knee-jerk" position against nuclear energy, although he remains, for now at least, firmly opposed.

In an email exchange with Maclean's, Suzuki explained his position.

"I don't say unequivocally that nuclear is not an option. It may very well be sometime in the future," he wrote. "But right now, I think it's nuts to even suggest nuclear.
It seems that I have heard a lot of similar talk south of the border. Antis want to appear to be open to reason. But to say that "it's nuts to even suggest nuclear" rather spoils the effect.

So here is some advice to anti-nukes. If you want to show people how open you are to reason, tell them about the splendid safety record of nuclear power plants, about how small the related carbon emissions are, how the radiation workers in the plants are healthier than the population as a whole, and how the volume of spent fuel is so small that power plants can (and do!) keep decades worth on site.

Mention that some countries recycle the fuel. And, of course, be sure to mention the low-cost, reliable electric power. If you do that, people will know that your opposition is not a knee-jerk reaction. Then leave your comments here so everyone will know how your message is received.

I'll be waiting.

Comments

Joffan said…
The David Suzuki Foundation has a fairly reflexive "anti" position on nuclear power, with misleading statements and lopsided analysis. I was wondering whether some correspondence with Dr Suzuki would shift their position at least to neutral (although perhaps there is no such position).
Anonymous said…
I can appreciate the dilemma faced by the environmental movement. Logic, reason, and practicality has never been their strong suite. The issues of global warming and Nuclear power vs. fossil fuel usage presents them a real credibility challenge. I'm delighted to see continuing evidence of an internal debate and a self examination of their anti-nuclear dogma. Maybe these are baby steps, but for once they may be headed in the right direction. Give'm another 6 months, and maybe they will start to invite US to join with THEM? I'm always optimistic.

--Bill Vidalin

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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…