Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy

Philip Stott of EnviroSpin Watch reports that an online poll conducted by U.K. political magazine New Statesman went pro-nuclear with more than 73 percent of the vote.

Stott also points to an article by Mark Lynas in the most recent edition of the magazine (subscription required), where the author, a committed environmentalist, talks about his conversion experience with nuclear energy:

I did attend the Energy . . . Beyond Oil conference in Oxford earlier this month. The meeting focused on what could replace fossil fuels, and I arrived convinced - as I wrote in these pages a few weeks ago - that opting for nuclear power would be a disastrous mistake. Before long my comfortable green certainties were in tatters.

After reviewing each of the renewable options and deciding that they couldn't generate enough power to even replace the electricity that nuclear energy already generates in the U.K. (never mind contribute to additional baseload capacity), he came to this conclusion:

I'm not suggesting that nuclear is a panacea. It can reduce carbon emissions only as part of a combined dash for renewables and energy efficiency, buying us time while truly clean energy systems are developed . . .

If you ask me, anything is preferable to planetary climatic meltdown combined with a 1930s-style collapse into political darkness. Even nuclear power.

You can find Mark's Web site on energy and sustainability issues here.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Comments

Anonymous said…

I find the poll results interesting and heart warming. I would be interested to know how reliable they are. I am sure that the anti-nuclear environmentalists were just as active as the pro-nuclear environmentalists in encouraging people to vote, obviously the two didn't cancel each other out. Does anyone know how they compare to polls conducted by professional pollsters?

May 26, 2005 at 4:40 PM

Kevin McCoy said…

I found that Mark Lynas's column was available even without a subscription at http://www.newstatesman.com/
200505300014.

May 27, 2005 at 12:20 PM

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog