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
Unknown 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

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

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

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more