Skip to main content

Salon Features YouTube and Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
If there's one media outlet that's gotten the story right over the online battle over nuclear energy and loan guarantees, it's Salon and reporter Katharine Mieszkowski. Go there right now to read, Nuclear War on YouTube. And be sure to watch the companion video that cuts all of the videos together in such a way that none of the anti-nuke charges goes unanswered.



I hope the folks at our member companies are taking notice of this. If our industry is going to fight and win online the fight over this music video ought to serve as a blueprint for how we go forward.

UPDATE: More from Rod Adams.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
What other choices but Nuclear Energy do we have? Well at the present time Fossil Fuels are polluting the environment. Solar and wind Power are a joke. I've been a reactor operator for over 30 and I can tell you there isn’t a safer industry in the country. How many people have died at chemical plants compared to Nuclear Power plants? I would be worried about the train running next to your house carrying a load of chlorine are acetone before I would worry about a nuclear power plant. We need more liable nuclear power plants in this country. We need to be self-reliant when it comes to electricity production in this country. There are new nuclear power plants being built all over the world. WANO (World Association of Nuclear Operators) is the watchdog for this industry. Let them do their job. Check out their web site http://www.wano.org.uk/index.asp.
October 24, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Anonymous said…
Right now I am sitting about 30 feet from the core of an operating reactor. I have been on the job for over 20 years. About a half-mile away is an at-grade rail crossing. Now, in the time I have been here, which of the two, reactor or railroad, do you think has had more accidents (including the need for evacuation)? Give you a hint: it isn't the reactor.
October 24, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Fat Man said…
The Salon link only gives part of the article and the Next Link on that page does nothing.
October 24, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Anonymous said…
I felt compelled to make a reply to that video on Youtube. Their position is pretty weak.
October 25, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Anonymous said…
Wow this is ridiculous. I love how they can't seem to separate this uber-pacifism from anti-nuclear agendas. Apparently there is some sort of belief that nuclear energy is somehow the same as all-out war with nuclear weapons. I saw some idiot asking "How would the victims of Hiroshima feel..."

My question: "Considering how many more died in the Tokyo firebombing raids, how can you condone combustion? Combustion is obviously evil because it can be used in weaponry."

Also... Due to all the people who've been severely beaten, I find mechanical energy to be absolutely repulsive and inexcusable!
October 26, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Lorna said…
I think we do have other choices - greater fuel efficiency and more renewable energy. The loan guarantees in the nuclear provision is essentially giving the nuclear industry a virtual blank check from taxpayers. Nuclear waste is an environmental hazard we are going to have to face for centuries to come. It would wipe out any environmental gains achieved by a 35 mpg Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard and 15% Renewable Electricity Standard with toxic nuclear waste.

If you support a fuel efficiency and renewable energy in our new 2007 energy bill, sign this petition:

Energy Bill 2007

If you oppose more nuclear power sign this petition:

Nuke Free Energy Bill 2007
October 28, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Anonymous said…
"Nuke-free" energy is just what we don't want. Conservation doesn't result in a single watt of additional capacity. So-called "renewables" can't carry the load, as they found out in California and are coming to realize in Sweden and Germany. Nuclear produces very little "waste" compared with the amount of emissions-free energy it produces, and what waste is produced is in immobile, readily-managable form (compare that with CO2 and SO4 produced from combustion of carbon fuels, which is what you'll have more of if you go "nuke free"). If you're really, truly concerned about the environment and climate change, the last thing you want is "nuke-free".
October 29, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

By
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 …
1 comment
Read more

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

By
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…
Post a Comment
Read more

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

By
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…
Post a Comment
Read more