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...
Comments
Surely, if the NRC spokesman was interested in sharing information about Vermont Yankee's safety and reliable performance, he could have invited Ms. Lyon into the building, given her a cup of coffee and showed her exactly where to look on the web site for the information that she needed.
The more I watched that segment - and I repeated it several times - the more angry I became and the more I suspected that there was a plan being executed.
Here is a link my post on the topic.
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/02/cnns-carefully-timed-attack-on-nuclear-energy-and-nrc-credibility.html
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
I would like to commend Rod Adams, Meredith Angwin, and every single person responsible for the NEI Nuclear Notes blog here for their complete evisceration of the CNN report. A fantastic, and accurate, response to the malarkey they're trying to push nowadays.
When it comes to regulating things nuclear, the NRC does a very good job. NEI also does a good job of commenting on biased media reports.