Skip to main content

Can You Make an Ethical Case for Nuclear Energy?

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.

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.
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")?
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.
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?
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
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.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…