Monday, May 19, 2014

Nothing Comes from Understating Nuclear

FTlogoHere’s an odd one. Edward Luce writes in The Financial Times that the drive for natural gas is pushing other energy types out of the way, risk be damned. So far, so good, if a bit overstated.

Then, this:

America has likewise turned away from nuclear power. In his first term Mr. Obama announced plans to revive a sector that had essentially been frozen since the Three Mile Island leakage of 1978. Nothing has come of it. Only one new US nuclear power plant is planned and that is years away.

When did he write this? The mention of Obama suggests it was more recently than 1995, but the content is bizarrely off. Five reactors are in progress and FPL is at least giving some thought to two more. That’s not nothing and it’s more than “only one new” plant.

Major fail – weird for this outlet.

1 comment:

jimwg said...

But it's NOT a "major fail" if there's no one publicly calling out FN's misleading statement with equal volume which has the intended effect of making the mass unwashed doubt and reject nuclear power even more. Like far too many periodicals, that coyly FUD article knows exactly what it's doing in the face of any non-challenge and is royally getting over to boot. Five new reactors in 30 years isn't anything to cluck about and the anti-nukers will cite that to anyone who tries to correct them in public. Anti-nukers score another one. The answer is to constantly hawk (educate-educate-eduate) nuclear in public, just like gas/oil is doing quite well or you're just a mysterious scary commodity to the public.

James Greenidge
Queens NY