NEI Nuclear Notes

In a speech at the Western Energy Summit last month, NRC Commissioner Pete Lyons delivered the message that there's no free lunch when it comes to generating energy: To sustain your population and economic growth into the future, your choices for new energy sources are going to be increasingly confined to those three sustainable (coal, renewables, nuclear energy) sources. And – to remind you of the title of my talk – there simply is “no free lunch” as you make those choices. You’ll be faced with the reality that every source of energy brings with it a set of costs or risks as well as benefits that have to be carefully weighed. That's something folks in Scotland are discovering, as Greenpeace has decided to oppose the construction of what would be the world's largest wind farm on an island off the Scottish coast. That's bad news, as worldwide energy demand isn't going to slacken. In the end, we're going to need every possible source of energy -- including clean...

On Saturday, we pointed to a column by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times that called for the expanded use of nuclear energy to help combat global warming. Since then, Kristof's coumn has kicked up a lot of dust -- including from the readers of the Times . Here's William Tucker from Brooklyn: It is so refreshing to see an environmentalist like Nicholas D. Kristof being sensible about nuclear power. There really isn't any need to fight over these issues. No one wants air pollution. No one wants to fill the air with carbon dioxide. But there isn't any sensible way around coal except to go with nuclear reactors. Environmentalists have scared themselves to death on this issue. Or they listen to blather about covering whole states with biofuel crops and windmills just so we don't have to build a few nuclear plants. It's even better than Mr. Kristof says. Once we get a nuclear fleet up, we can start running cars on electricity or hydrogen from electricity. Then ...

From a speech by Energy Secretary Sam Bodman delivered last week at the Sandia Labs International Security Conference : The need for expanding nuclear energy production is clear. The International Energy Agency predicts that global demand for energy will rise by about 60 percent over the next 25 years, and that two-thirds of the increase will come from developing nations. Countries like China already have begun building emission-free nuclear plants to help meet future energy needs. But with broader use of nuclear power comes greater responsibility. The nuclear energy sector’s top priority must always be safety -- avoiding accidents -- and security -- preventing the malicious use of nuclear technology and materials. This is more than a slogan. The concepts approved for Generation IV development are those that optimize safety and proliferation resistance. Proliferation resistance is also a goal of a common Action Plan adopted in 2002 by six U.S. National Laboratories, including ...

A couple of weeks ago in the New York Times , columnist Tom Friedman offered his endorsement of new nuclear build. In today's edition of the paper, columnist Nicholas Kristof offers a similar endorsement : If there was one thing that used to be crystal clear to any environmentalist, it was that nuclear energy was the deadliest threat this planet faced. That's why Dick Gregory pledged at a huge anti-nuke demonstration in 1979 that he would eat no solid food until all nuclear plants in the U.S. were shut down. Mr. Gregory may be getting hungry. But it's time for the rest of us to drop that hostility to nuclear power. It's increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming, and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green. Technorati tags: Environment , Energy , Politics , Technology , Economics

Stewart Brand's piece on "Environmental Heresy" in MIT Technology Review continues to spark discussion. Be sure to Check out Hydrogen Power News , planetkris and jonreese . I liked this passage from Hydrogen Power News the best: No matter your view of nuclear energy, but especially if you are opposed to it, consider Brand’s views. They can at least be the basis for a public debate possibly leading to an informed consensus instead of the quasi-religious animosity that exists today. Amen. See you all again on Monday. Technorati tags: Environment , Energy , Politics , Technology , Economics

Yesterday, we told you about how countercultural figure Stewart Brand said it was time for the environmental movement to reconsider its opposition to nuclear energy . Coming on the heels of public statements by James Lovelock , Patrick Moore and Hugh Montefiore , it seems as if this change of heart is beginning to have an effect inside the environmental movement -- evidence of which can be found over at Grist . Yesterday, environmental advice columnist Umbra Fisk was forced to admit that if environmentalists want to seriously address climate change, then they have to give nuclear energy a second look . Over at their blog, Gristmill , there's a spirited debate going on concerning the merits of new nuclear build . Here's what one reader had to say in response to Fisk's reluctant conclusion: Assuming the demand for power, and therefore power plants, continues to grow - nuclear power seems almost reasonable when compared to coal. Of the two, I would rather a new nuke plant be...

From the Associated Press : Duke Energy Corp. will lobby for a tax on carbon dioxide emissions that would reduce fossil fuel consumption and begin dealing with the global warming problem, the company's chairman said Thursday. "Personally, I feel the time has come to act - to take steps as a nation to reduce the carbon intensity of our economy," Paul Anderson told several hundred Charlotte business and civil leaders at a breakfast meeting. "And it's going to take all of us to do it." Anderson acknowledged a national carbon tax would mean bigger utility bills and higher prices at the gas pump. But unless industry leaders take the lead, he said, the long-term outcome could be even more disastrous. "If we (the U.S. energy industry) ignore the issue, we would be the easy target," he said. "The worst scenario would be if all 50 states took separate actions and we have to comply with 50 different laws." For more information on Duke's environ...