Skip to main content

Can You Make an Ethical Case for Nuclear Energy?

By Eric McErlain
Over the course of the history of NEI Nuclear Notes, I've assiduously avoided sharing coverage from the financial press for a variety of reasons, foremost of which is the fact that we shouldn't be in the business of providing investment advice.

But this morning I'm compelled to share a clip from a U.K. publication called Financial Reporter after I read the following passage in a story by James Howard titled, "Ten reasons to go with ethical investments."
1. They can avoid the negatives. Ethical investment ensures their money isn’t supporting companies which engage in activities they might disapprove of, such as animal testing, deforestation, arms manufacture, or nuclear energy.
Now, I don't want to tell folks who have a beef with nuclear energy how to invest their own money, but I do have a real problem with anyone who tries to make the case that investing -- and by extension working in the nuclear energy industry -- isn't an ethical endeavor. In fact, it's impossible not to feel downright insulted at the suggestion.

Better still. thanks to climate scientist James Hansen, I've got the numbers to back up the emotion (thanks to our friends at Energy Northwest for the cool graphic):

And that's just the start. According to Hansen's projections, the widespread adoption of nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels could save up to 7 million more lives in the next four decades. If that's not an ethical energy choice, I don't know what possibly could be.
Labels:

Comments

gmax137 said…
Also, notice the difference in the wording of Item 1 (quoted above) and Item 2:

"2. They can support the positives. They can actively choose to support companies or projects which have positive social and environmental policies in place, such as renewable energy, carbon offsetting, sustainable timber, or poverty reduction."

While negatives are portrayed as a matter of the investor's opinion ("which they might disapprove of...") the positives simply *are* positive ("which have positive social and environmental policies...").

This kind of spin is disgusting and pernicious. "Journalist" was briefly an honorable calling, but not for a long time now.
May 16, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Anonymous said…
Isn't saying the entire profession of journalism is now dishorable the same sort of insult that the original blog post complains about (labelling nuclear energy as "unethical")?
May 16, 2013 at 1:20 PM
gmax137 said…
To Anonymous: Yes, point taken. I suppose if I spent enough time looking I could find a journalist worthy of the name, who works honorably in the tradition of the greats in that field.
May 16, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Andrew Jaremko said…
The mention of ethics in connection with electricity generation options reminded me of a calculation I did some time ago. It's the dark side of James Hansen's arithmetic. Since a lot of my electricity is generated by coal (there's no nuclear power here in Alberta, but some hydro), considering my lifetime electricity use, how many deaths am I personally causing? What am I responsible for?

My answer is that it's about 0.2 deaths. The number would go up if I included the coal burned in creating all of my 'stuff' and my share of the high-energy world I live in. Can I claim to be ethical when I am causing a share of the world's misery?
May 16, 2013 at 6:24 PM
jimwg said…
Seems to me if one's going to play the ethics game in energy investments then it pays not to be hypocritical than overtly cherry picking favorite pets. I'm afraid most "green" investors would royally fluke this test.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
May 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM
DV8 2XL said…
Can You Make an Ethical Case for Nuclear Energy? More to the point can anyone make an ethical case against it at this juncture.
May 13, 2014 at 12:52 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more

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

By
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...
4 comments
Read more