Skip to main content

Show 'Em It's Not a Knee-Jerk

By Kevin McCoy
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.
Labels:

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).
May 8, 2007 at 12:57 PM
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
May 8, 2007 at 9:18 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