Skip to main content

Talking The Talk on Nuclear Energy

It's one thing to be a blogger, but speaking to your local Rotary Club is another great way to get the message out about our industry and how it can protect the environment while supporting energy security.

Comments

gunter said…
Not surprising that the GE engineer is peddling such misinformation as "nuclear plants give off no toxic emissions as their only airborne discharge is steam (water)."

This is simply not true.
Carbon emissions aside, which he did not qualify in his statement, from the fuel fabrication process, routine operations release a wide variety of radioisotopes to both the air and water and eventually the soil. Simply look at the annual radioactive discharge reports for each and every nuclear power station and you will see a wide variety of routine release rates.

Oyster Creek for example released more than 1 million curies out the elevated stack in 1979 alone and nobody at NRC as much as batted an eye.

Such claims are also in denial of the radioactive waste stream that comes from reactors and remains unresolved.

So alot more than water vapor is coming off every reactor. Clearly the hope here is that if you tell a lie enough times, people will start to believe it.
Anonymous said…
gunter wrote: "Clearly the hope here is that if you tell a lie enough times, people will start to believe it."

Well, Mr. Gunter, working for NIRS, you should be well equipped to educate us about that. Only, you call them "factoids."
Anonymous said…
Weak gunter, weak. Try a little harder with the misinformation. I mean it's only misinformation if it's somewhat plausible, yet not really true. Your post here doesn't even qualify as misinformation because it is so obviously false.

Anyone in the nuclear power industry can tell you that routine discharges from commercial nuclear power are trivial by way of comparison with the fluctuation in natural background radiation. Note I said the "fluctuation" and not the actual level. Even releases from incidents such as TMI-2 were inconsequential.

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…