Check out this quiz over at the American Petroleum Institute to see how well you know nuclear's competitors. I scored nine out of ten.
A tip of the hat to Nick Loris.
A tip of the hat to Nick Loris.
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...
Comments
No mention of how much oil can be drilled on US offshore, how quickly can it be put to market and how long it lasts.
No mention of how much EROEI the Canadian tar sands have, and its polluting effects.
No mention of how close we are to next generation biofuels and how much land is needed to cater to US oil needs by growing switchgrass.
No mention of how much needs to be invested on trains and electrifying the transport sector. No mention of how that compares to investing in oil.
Oil is a weak thing as compared to coal, you don't need nuclear to beat oil. Oil could be beaten by pretty much anything.. natural gas, wind, biofuels.
Fighting oil is not an environmental issue, it is purely an issue of economic security.
Nuclear is needed when we talk of replacing coal, this is the true environmental issue.
One fact that the major oil and gas companies keep touting as a positive is something that I believe is actually quite negative - insiders own less than 5% of the stock in the company. They are managers with interests other than the best interests of the stockholders. Their compensation is based on metrics that might not be best for the long term health of the company.
I think it is very telling that ExxonMobil has poured more than $118 billion of its capital in the past five years into stock purchase plans. The main purpose of such plans is to bump the stock price - usually temporarily. If they really wanted to return the money to the investors - especially tax exempt pension funds, they would raise the dividends, not buy back stock.
ExxonMobil is not the only major making that choice. From my point of view it really makes it clear that their message of "do not raise our taxes, we need the money for investing in future energy" a blatant lie.
Keep comming!!!
Abhishek
http://innovideas.blogspot.com