Christopher Paine, the Washington-based director of the nuclear program for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, had seemed for awhile to be considering nuclear energy as a viable addition to the energy mix, especially as increased awareness of climate change altered the terms of the discussion.
About a year ago, he said this:
"Our position is that nuclear is not off the table as an energy source, but we believe there are cheaper, cleaner and faster ways to reduce pollution and provide reliable energy than nuclear power."
But Paine has now been making the rounds in Utah with the old arguments made in the old way.
Right now, at a time when nuclear power is increasingly being considered a cleaner source of energy than coal-fired plants, Paine questions the claim by some that the alternative of actually scaling up nuclear power production can be done safely around the world, even under international ownership and control.
"If history is a guide, then the peaceful atom has turned into the military atom quite a few times," Paine said.
Actually, it seems the other way around, but the closer you can link the promise of nuclear energy with a big boom, the more points you get. Feels very eighties, very stale.
Here's a little more:
Nuclear reactors are too expensive, he told an audience at the University of Utah Wednesday. They can't be built fast enough in enough places to truly offset the gasses blamed for global warming. And expanding nuclear technology to new countries spreads the risks of accidents and proliferation, he said.
I guess he's given nuclear energy some thought and decided to think no more.
----
On the other hand:Nearly one fifth of New Zealanders now favour nuclear power as the best energy source for the country in the next 10 years, according to a survey.
This is remarkable because New Zealand has been one of the least nuclear friendly countries. The poll shows them enamored of wind and solar energy, but then, so are we. It's all in the mix and if the Kiwis see the value of nuclear energy in it, er, power to them.
Comments
"If history is a guide, then the peaceful atom has turned into the military atom quite a few times," Paine said.
Ah, I love that argument!
Nuclear is not a solution for the World hence we cannot use it.
That train of thinking is so ridiculous and so full of itself, so pretentious. Navel gazing idiots!
How about the NRDC tones down its delusions of grandeur and global leadership and, first things first, tries to solve the problem at home? Or, at least, tries not to be a roadblock for nuclear power in the US?
Of course, nuclear power is above all a solution for first world countries. But those first world countries, which have proven that nuclear power can be deployed safely and efficiently, are also the largest energy users. If they switch to nuclear power, it will free up a lot of resources for less advance countries to use and fuel their development.
Not so...no permit has been applied for let alone fact that construction has not even started and FPL projections to Florida Public Service Commission for a $9 to 12 billion unit (a tad higher than NEI's $3.5 billion/unit cost)---- not result of lawsuit.
Plain and simple, its an exobediently expensive technology for boiling water.
That said, you all can count on legal challenges and assertions of what due process is still provided.
This just in, Bellefonte joins South Texas COLA with the filing deadline just extended by 60 days. Poor applications.
This is a completely different topic but would you mind telling us where NIRS and Beyond Nuclear get there funding? Many on this blog and other blogs have been speculating and wondering who funds many of the anti-nuclear groups. Thanks.
Given most nuclear utilities also operate fossil-fired capacity, I'd wager NEI gets a lot more money from the coal industry than does the anti-nuclear movement.
Given most nuclear utilities also operate fossil-fired capacity, I'd wager NEI gets a lot more money from the coal industry than does the anti-nuclear movement.
Probably not. One nuclear plant's annual revenue is about $500-$600M. NEI's budget is less than one-tenth of that.
So you're saying the anti-nuclear movement gets money from the coal industry?
I'M not saying anti-nukes get $ from Big Coal. They're not as far as I know. But that's what a lot of bloggers here like to suggest, always without any supporting evidence.
Those who think there's some vast, well-funded anti-nuclear conspiracy have obviously never been to any of these groups' offices. Most of them operate each year on less than any one of NEI's top executives takes home annually (before bonuses).
Where's YOUR supporting evidence?
You didn't answer my question. I asked you to prove this statement: I'M not saying anti-nukes get $ from Big Coal. They're not as far as I know. But that's what a lot of bloggers here like to suggest, always without any supporting evidence.
Everyone here is aware of NEI's tax filings. We want to see the tax filings from NIRS and Beyond Nuclear. So far you or Paul can't answer my original question.
Not if it's a gas-cooled nuclear reactor in a Brayton cycle power plant.
Anyway, as far as common Rankine cycle power plants using water as the working fluid go, nuclear fission heat sources are certainly economically competitive.
Unfortunately your blog's search engine does not return results from comments. But I've seen several such remarks in the last year.
As for these groups' tax returns, I can't provide them; have no affiliation with them. But if they're a 501(c)(3) or other tax-exempt group, they're publicly available. Do a little legwork.
you'd laugh me out of the room if I said, with no evidence to back me, "PROVE NEI is not funded by the Moonies."
Those who believe there's an anti-nuke cabal with Big Coal should support their claims; it's not someone else's burden to refute it.
I assume you were just hoping no one would actually read these completely tangential posts about how Australian and German politicians don't like nukes. So freekin what?
so, back to you: as you say, PROVE IT.
I see you anti-nukes can't handle defense without getting all hot and bothered.