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
James Greenidge
Queens NY
This is demonstrably false.
Moniz has chosen a long-time Union of Concerned "Scientists" wonk as his chief of staff. Despite the UCS's protestations to the contrary, the UCS has been stridently anti-nuclear in their entire ~40 year history. From their anti-nuclear ads in SciAm in the mid-late 70s to their spokesperson's whacky statement on NPR a few years ago, "Nuclear winter is not the answer to global warming" to every policy paper they've ever written that mentions nuclear.
If Moniz actually supported the expansion of nuclear power, he would not have chosen a person with absolutely no energy science credentials and nothing but anti-nuclear and anti-science policy credentials as his chief of staff.
But, hey, go on whistling if it makes you feel better over there in the dark.