Skip to main content

"The Solar Industry Doesn't Need the Sierra Club."

By
The quote of the day that's getting passed around this morning at NEI comes from Suzzanne Shelton of the Shelton Group. She was in attendance last week at Fortune's Brainstorm Green 2014, and shared her top five takeaways from the conference on her blog before the start of the long holiday weekend.


Not surprisingly, this aside involved Mike Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute and his ongoing struggle to get other environmentalists to understand that constraining carbon emissions and keeping the lights on is going to mean relying on a diverse set of energy sources that includes nuclear energy:
The solar industry doesn't need the Sierra Club. There was a very interesting point/counterpoint discussion between Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, and Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute. It appears the two men are/were friends, and Shellenberger was practically doing an on-stage intervention with Brune, begging him to stop embarrassing himself by being so quixotically focused on supporting only solar and wind as the way forward, without consideration at all for natural gas in the short term and nuclear in the long term. Based on other panel discussions (and what we're seeing in market data), renewables are doing really, really well and will continue to do well. So perhaps it's time for the Sierra Club to focus its considerable energy on another fight.
As long-time readers of NEI Nuclear Notes know, this isn't the first time someone has petitioned the Sierra Club to come to the table to discuss practical solutions to environmental challenges. Nope, not at all.

UPDATE: Thanks to Jessica Lovering of The Breakthrough Institute, we've got the link to the video of the exchange between Shellenberger and Michael Brune of the Sierra Club:



For more, please visit The Breakthrough Institute.

Labels:

Comments

jimwg said…
Maybe the real question is, would the solar and wind camps ever declare in one breath that we need nuclear to at least take up their slack on still windless nights? Unless they say THAT, it doesn't matter what green groups they're having hissy-fits with, they're still anti-nuke.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
May 27, 2014 at 12:29 PM
Marcel F. Williams said…
Solar advocates pretend to be concerned about the relatively tiny amount of toxic waste produced from spent fuel by the nuclear industry yet the production of photovoltaics produces tens of thousands of times more toxic waste than the nuclear industry.

http://www.thingsworsethannuclearpower.com/2012/09/the-real-waste-problem-solar-edition.html

Marcel
May 27, 2014 at 1:08 PM
jimwg said…
If "Nuclear Matters" (http://www.nuclearmatters.com) wishes to make a difference in stemming the tide of nuclear plant closures it's going to have to steer off the well-beaten futile path to Capital Hill. My first question to them: How large is your mass nuclear publicity and education till and how can your supporters directly contribute to IT? Two, what types of mass media nuclear education programs do you have in mind and when and what (Ad) agency is performing it? Deuce Sweet. Forget the seemingly logical path of "enlightening" or buttering up politicians to our side; You have to be pragmatically street-wise here and take the "Mad Men" route here -- directly hit the FUD-drenched public with your pitch, NOT after wallflower politicians who will just follow where the public wind blows. You have to stem the breach and bleeding antis inflict by hitting FUD back with hard-core adult nuclear education at the same volume the antis have successfully plied theirs. Blogs are very noble efforts but Kellogg and General Motors and other corporations never scored their mega sales or product recognition this way-- only mass media education will do, and the media's grass-roots battleground for minds and reason is where the fight for fact over fear and truth over lies must be fought. Nuclear Matters, don't avail a tired old road -- unclueless and educate a skittish public who don't know the difference between a solar system and a galaxy about nuclear power! Mass media nuclear education Ads is the way to go! I can't afford much but I'll splurge it to you IF I knew that's exactly where my contribution's going!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
May 27, 2014 at 1:17 PM
Dan Williamson said…
Along those lines, has NEI ever lobbied Showtime or HBO to air "Pandora's Promise?" Those outlets seem perfectly willing to air documentary films....mainly of a leftward tilt. What does it take to get that done?
May 29, 2014 at 7:29 AM
Dan Williamson said…
Hmmmm....I guess that CAN'T be done.
June 4, 2014 at 6:49 AM
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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 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