Skip to main content

On Nuclear Energy and Drought

Yesterday, the Drudge Report fronted an AP story by Mitch Weiss entitled, "Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns". To say the least, we're just a little exasperated around here, especially since we've gone to the trouble over and over again of letting folks know that water use isn't solely an issue for nuclear plants, it's an issue for any kind of electrical generating station that uses the steam cycle. Further, despite the claims of anti-nuclear activists, we don't believe this is a major issue.

The best short answer to this comes from Dr. Michael Ivanco, who wrote the following in a letter to the editor that was published by the Hamilton Spectator back in August 2006:
The impact of drought in Europe on electricity supply is not a "nuclear" problem, as the writer suggests, rather it affects all electricity generating stations that use a steam cycle: nuclear, coal, gas and oil.

These account for over 80 per cent of all electricity generated on our planet. While water shortages have caused some thermo-electric plants to scale back production, it is important to note that they have not been required to shut down.

During the heat wave that hit Europe in the summer of 2003, by contrast, the contribution of wind-generated electricity to the electrical grids was virtually zero, since the wind did not blow.

While the overall output of nuclear plants may vary slightly due to other weather conditions, it will not drop to zero as some renewable sources do.

The single largest nuclear facility in North America is in the middle of the desert in Arizona and it does not suffer from any drought-related setbacks, simply because water conservation was built into its design.

There is no technical reason preventing future plants from being built to minimize water usage.
Ok? Yet over and over again, packs of reporters continue to revel in their scientific illiteracy, by reporting the same talking points from anti-nuclear activists over and over again. Here is a list of all the posts we've done over the past few years concerning this issue:

NPR, the Steam Cycle and Nuclear Energy
On Nuclear Energy, Cooling and the Steam Cycle
Nuclear Energy, Increased Temperatures and the Truth About the Steam Cycle
The Truth About Nuclear Power and Increased Water Temperatures
Countering More Propaganda

Are these reporters lazy? Are they stupid? Is it a little bit of both? Who knows?

More on this momentarily. Stay tuned, you don't want to miss this.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Yeah, that must be it. Reporters are lazy and stupid. Be sure to mention that to them often.

No wonder this industry isn't getting better press.

Instead of killing the messenger on a blog page almost no one outside the industry reads, why not focus on getting your message around?
bryfry said…
Lazy? Stupid? I vote for a lot of both.

Apparently, they're stubborn and persistent as well.
Anonymous said…
Still declining to post comments that disagree with you, I see.
David Bradish said…
"Instead of killing the messenger on a blog page almost no one outside the industry reads, why not focus on getting your message around?"

So we can't criticize the reporters but you can belittle our blog. Double standard?

Part of getting our message out is by posting blogs. That way it will get picked up by Google and other search engines for people who really want to know about the issue.
Randal Leavitt said…
I dont think that "lazy" or "stupid" applies, but "commissioned" might.
Starvid said…
Or plain "anti-nuclear".
Anonymous said…
"So we can't criticize the reporters but you can belittle our blog. Double standard?"

"Lazy" and "stupid" is not criticism. It's ad hominem.

You can say whatever you want, it's a free country and (at least for now) internet. But you can't have it both ways, i.e., whining about the poor treatment the nuclear industry gets in the press while at the same time calling them lazy and stupid. How does that help our industry with the media?
Eric McErlain said…
With all due respect, we've been dealing with this issue over and over again with the media over the last 18 months. As you can see from the above post, we've stressed over and over again that this is not a situation that is unique to nuclear power plants. Yet time after time, our comments are completely ignored and the same exact charge, without any significant adjustments, is leveled repeatedly. This even after we communicate this point directly to reporters without fail.

In short, we have been focusing on getting our message out. And on this issue at least, plenty of reporters seem to be focusing on parroting anti-nuclear talking points without vetting them at all.

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…