Skip to main content

Nuclear Myth-Busting at Spiked Online

Rob Johnston put together some great nuclear myth-busting in anticipation of the UK's "green light to the building of new nuclear power stations in the UK." My favorite myth is number 6:
6) Building reactors takes too long

This is perhaps the most ironic of the anti-nuclear arguments, since the legal manoeuvrings of Greenpeace delayed the UK government’s nuclear decision by a year and it is the very opposition of greens that will cause most of the future delays.

Comments

Joffan said…
My two rhetorical responses to the nuclear build schedule objection are:

1. So, were you supporting new nuclear build ten years ago, when it wasn't "too late"?

and

2. Do you really think we won't need any more low-carbon energy in ten years' time?

although I should maybe add a third arising from this:

3. Do you solemnly swear not to delay the nuclear build process?

There is also of course the example of France, that went nuclear in a total timescale of about 20 years.
Anonymous said…
It's a similar strategy used in the opposition to the waste disposal process. The no-nooks claim that nuclear is bad because "there is no where to store the waste". But look who are the ones who rise up in opposition to Yucca Mountain. Sure, there is "no where to store the waste" if you prevent development of a storage facility.

So then we ask, well, you're against Yucca Mountain, where to you want us to store it? And they say, "at the plant sites". But then they turn around and hammer the industry for storing spent fuel at the plants, because "that makes them a terrorist target". But, gee, you're the ones opposing Yucca Mountain, we can't ship it off site because you say we should keep the fuel at the plants, but that's bad so we should do it? I mean, make up your mind, wackos.

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 …