Winning the Public Relations Battle One Mind at a Time

A few days ago, I noted a post from Steven Aplin about how Ontario's achievements in carbon emissions reduction are being purposely ignored by environmental activists.

Then again, there are others who understand the need for new nuclear, like David Goodings of Burlington, Ontario, who wrote the following in a letter to the editor in the Toronto Star:

Like the proverbial generals who continue to fight the last war while preparing for the next one, Greenpeace Canada's Dave Martin continues to tilt against nuclear power with 30-year-old arguments – despite the fact that the world around him has dramatically changed.

An entirely different opinion was recently expressed by the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, who had this to say in a May 11, 2007 article in the Hamilton Spectator: "When I helped found Greenpeace in Vancouver in the 1970s, my colleagues and I were firmly opposed to nuclear energy. But times have changed. I now realize nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy Canada's growing demand for energy."

Environmentalist James Lovelock has also recognized nuclear energy's contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Three years ago, he wrote: "We cannot continue drawing energy from fossil fuels, and there is no chance that the renewables – wind, tide and water power – can provide enough energy and in time.... Only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy."

As society shifts away from coal, oil and natural gas, it is inevitable that demand for electrical power will grow, despite efforts aimed at conservation and energy efficiency. It is fortunate that public opinion in Ontario, the U.K. and elsewhere appears to be moving rapidly toward accepting nuclear energy.

Looks like a battle that's going to be won one person at a time.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog