Gordon Brown's Energy Policy and the Fourth Estate

Is there anything more tedious than hearing someone rant about media bias? (Of course there is, but for the sake of this blog post, the answer to the rhetorical question is, "no.") And while I'm sure those who call in to C-SPAN's Washington Journal to expose the agenda of the moderator* are certain they are saving the Republic, I'm not one of 'em. That said, this lede from The Scotsman, caught my eye:

A THOUSAND new nuclear power stations are needed across the world to tackle the oil crisis, Gordon Brown warned yesterday.

Warned?

Here's how London's Independent wrote the story,

Gordon Brown has signalled he wants Britain to play a major role in the race to build an extra 1,000 nuclear power stations across the world as part of his vision for ending the global "addiction to oil".

And The Guardian,

Brown also suggested it would be necessary to build 1,000 nuclear power stations worldwide to combat climate change and end what he described as the world's oil addiction.

And the BBC,

Speaking at his monthly media conference, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the world may need another 1,000 nuclear power stations to bolster energy security and fight climate change.

So what am I saying? The Scotsman reporter, Ross Lydall, is clearly not a fan of nuclear and his editorializing is showing. Meanwhile, The Independent, The Guardian (both left-leaning papers), and the BBC all stick to straight reporting.

* Full Discloure: I have a bit of a media crush on Greta Wodele.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Greta Wodele is no Brian Lamb.

Hey now!

June 13, 2008 at 1:06 PM

KB said…

@anonymous. Indeed.

Found this buried in a BBC liveblog (?!) of Brown's press conference. I wonder if the journalist asking the question was Ross Lydall.

>1130: A journalist asked how many of the 1,000 new nuclear power stations which Mr Brown suggested might need to be built around the world would be constructed in Scotland. The prime minister does not give a figure, instead stressing the need to replace existing nuclear power stations in the UK, and the importance of the current consultation on the matter.

June 13, 2008 at 2:15 PM

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 …

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog