Skip to main content

Cascading Ironies and the Nuclear Green Option

trojans Kids today! From the Daily Trojan, the paper of the University of Southern California:

Nuclear power production has rapidly grown since the 1930s …

Indeed it has. They don’t reference President Roosevelt’s famous “We have nothing to fear but a nuclear-free future” speech, but otherwise, all systems go.

Joshing aside, the editorial is very favorable to nuclear energy:

Nevertheless, it’s time for opponents to realize that compared to other energy sources, including wind, solar and coal, nuclear energy is the best possible option.

They make what we could call “the green argument - ” not just for nuclear energy as a source carbon emission-free energy, but against renewable energy because it gobbles up land. I thought when reading this that it relates to a Los Angeleno sensitivity to overcrowding, but judge for yourself.

Proponents of other energy sources such as wind and solar argue that these energy sources also emit less carbon than coal. Wind farms and solar photovoltaic parks, however, occupy much more space than nuclear power plants. They can require anywhere between 50,000 and 180,000 acres, compared to an average of approximately 400 acres for a nuclear power plant.

In addition to using more space, solar and wind sources actually produce less energy than nuclear for each dollar spent on energy production. If one of these options became the United States’ primary energy source, we would be sacrificing vast amounts of space for a relatively small amount of energy.

One of these will not become a primary source of electricity anytime soon due to intermittency. Let’s add too that 180,000 acres put aside today will be better used as wind and solar technologies improve. Nuclear energy facilities, after all, have experienced higher output over the years through equipment upgrades and efficiency gains. Nothing is frozen in place.

But from a land conservationist’s point of view, there’s merit to the argument. The editorial also discusses perceived issues with nuclear energy, which you can read yourself. And the green argument against renewable energy? Not entirely fair, but we appreciate the cascading irony of it.

Comments

jimwg said…
When I see the mass media pick up on articles as the Daily Trojan which are stuck and mute in the solitary backwaters of niche blogs, I'll pop chamapange.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…