Skip to main content

CCAN on New Nuclear Build

Here's something that might be of interest to the friends of the nuclear power plants at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland and North Anna in Virginia. The folks over at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network blog are asking their readers what they think of nuclear energy. Here's their position:
In terms of greenhouse gas reductions [nuclear energy] is not a deal breaker. Despite the many negatives of nuclear energy, one positive is that it generates almost no carbon dioxide. [CCAN does] not advocate building a single new nuclear power plant, but neither [does it] advocate shutting down existing ones in the face of rapid global warming.
While I'm happy to see the folks at CCAN acknowledging the contribution that nuclear energy plays in helping to constrain greenhouse gas emissions going forward, I can't help but be struck by this balancing act. After all, if you're going to concede that point, isn't it implicit in this position that environmentalists were wrong to oppose nuclear energy in the first place?

In any case, I'm happy to see some evolution in their position, and hold out hope that we might see some more. I'm also heartened by the fact that they seem to be open to a dialog with outsiders. So be sure to stop by and join the debate.

Comments

>>After all, if you're going to concede that point, isn't it implicit in this position that environmentalists were wrong to oppose nuclear energy in the first place?

No, not at all. They think it will make the problem worse, regardless of any evidence that we present.

Does it follow? No. If you ask them, will they respond with something other than a list of the industry's attitude problems from the 1970s? No. Can they make a sensible argument against it without rationalizations? No. Does it matter to them more than their loyalty to opposing the environmentalist "bad stuff" list, of which nuclear power is a charter member? Of course not.

Our task is to remove these people's base of support so that they're irrelevant.

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 …

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …