Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy and Those Who Are Reasonable

It should come as no surprise that environmentalists oppose the use of nuclear energy in the same way they oppose coal or the fracking technology that is unlocking huge new reserves of natural gas. Currently nuclear energy provides about twenty percent of the electricity used in the U.S. Their attack on coal—led by the Obama administration—has driven its use down from just over fifty percent a few years ago to about 47% today.

Not to mention the rise of natural gas. But you’ve got to take your triumphs as they come.

---

In Germany:

[Holger] Arntzen is now project manager of Wind Comm, a nonprofit that supports wind farm development. For him, the key to stopping the backlash against the power lines is to do more to inform Germans that the nuclear phase out comes with a price and changes in lifestyle.

"To show what is possible, and how I, as a citizen, can influence the load on the grid, like putting on my dishwasher only when the sun shines, because we have a lot of photovoltaics. Or waiting on my dishwasher if we have no wind," he says. "People must accept that the post-nuclear phase has a direct impact on how I live, how they live."

Here’s hoping Arntzen, the wind and his dishwasher stay synced or he’ll be eating off the floor in no time.

---

From Andy Lemke at Forbes, providing a primer on issues around nuclear energy.

At the time of this writing, nuclear energy has support from both Democrats and Republicans in the United States. While it isn’t a  partisan issue, it is generally divided by those well informed on the topic and those who are uninformed. Between those who trust the  scientists / engineers and those who do not. Between those who are reasonable vs. general skeptics.

A pro-nuclear energy writer trying really hard to be even handed. (still good and he’s right - nuclear energy lost its partisan flavor some time ago.) 

Comments

CaptD said…
RE: At the time of this writing, nuclear energy has support from both Democrats and Republicans in the United States. While it isn’t a partisan issue, it is generally divided by those well informed on the topic and those who are uninformed. Between those who trust the scientists / engineers and those who do not. Between those who are reasonable vs. general skeptics.

HA HA HA That is N☢T even Close...


This is PURE Nuclear Baloney*, the USA (and other Countries) are being forced to accept RISKY nuclear when Fukushima proved that Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!

Where would the USA get the money to pay for a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster if one happened in the US?

Besides the cost of Nuclear is skyrocketing while Solar (of all flavors) cost is going down monthly if not sooner, and N☢ Decommissioning costs added onto rate payer monthly bills!

* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+Baloney

Popular posts from this blog

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 …