Anyone Listening to Dr. Caldicott Anymore?

Doesn’t look like it. Apparently she’s trying to create controversy with many in the environmental community over nuclear. Maybe nuclear really isn’t as bad as she believes . . .

Comments

DV8 2XL said…

Caldicott has become irrelevant, her particular brand of hyperbole is now passe. Even in antinuclear circles she no longer commands the respect she once did.

January 12, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Anonymous said…

Never underestimate the power of zealots, especially when the mainstream media is on their side.

If an energy bill with strong nuclear provisions approaches passage, she and her ilk may come roaring back.

January 13, 2010 at 7:33 AM

Anonymous said…

especially when the mainstream media is on their side.

this inaccurate cliche is getting tired. maybe this was true right after TMI, but most nuclear power stories in the MSM today are quite balanced, pointing out that many support a "nuclear renaissance" to help address global warming. Patrick Moore and James Lovelock quoted everywhere, NEI quoted everywhere. So where's this supposed media bias?

Unless by "on their side" you mean that not every MSM outlet (except possibly Fox) is not rabidly and exclusively PRO-nuclear.

January 13, 2010 at 10:47 AM

gmax137 said…

I just read the comments on the linked piece. If you want yet more examples of what the anti-nukes are saying, go read them yourself. They are basically closed minds repeating the same old stuff over & over again, with a sprinkling of back-to-nature decentralizers & doomers. So while Dr Caldicott may be on the marginalizing slope, she still has followers ("Helen is a genius...")

January 13, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Unknown said…

Dr. Caldicott is not only right, but should be considered the SAINT of this Earth. I just can not believe how many people are ignorant on the subject of nuclear energy..., not knowing that nuclear power plants produce deadly radioactive wastes, that will be active for thousands of years!!! and if we will not stop nuclear industry right now we'll destroy Life on Earth completely !!! and our duty is to protect it!!!

March 7, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog