Skip to main content

Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy

Meet URUBURU:
A lot of people realize that global heating is the biggest environmental problem mankind currently faces. On a short term, nuclear energy is the only realistic and economically viable option to fight this.

Greenpeace, however, will not accept this as a fact nor start promoting nuclear energy as a lesser evil than fossil energy. Since the organisation has been very succesful in fighting nuclear energy since the seventies (and boosting CO2-emissions), this would be like a guilt confession admitting they are an actual accomplice of the greenhouse effect. Which, of course, they are.

By sustaining old fashioned, dogmatic and simplistic environmentalist ideas, organisations like Greenpeace show they are ultimatley more interested in their own survival as a charitative organisation, than in the endurance of our world.
As we've seen in the past, not everyone associated with Greenpeace is engaging in hysteria any longer.

UPDATE: Meet the Neo-Libertarian:
If you're worried about global warming, carbon/methane pollution, or the cost of oil/gas, then let's get some more nuclear plants in construction. More research would also be really great (especially if they ever prove cold fusion as possible).

It's great for the people scared of global warming, because it doesn't throw carbon, methane and other heat-trapping elements into the sky. Personally I have my doubts about some of the features of global warming theory, mostly focused on our inability to really prove much of anything about it, but it's moot if we move to nuclear power.

For those concerned about the negative effects of air pollution, nuclear power's negative pollution is more easily contained and controlled. I'll concede that disposing of nuclear waste is definitely an issue, especially given lengthy half-life issues, but I'll take pollution we can handle, transport and bury over pollution that's simply thrown up into the air. Nuclear waste is one of the biggest problems connected to the source, but I'd argue that it's more controllable and ultimately safer.
And here's the New York College Republican on why New York needs nuclear energy now:
There's never been a better time. Petroleum-based fuel prices are at their highest, making public awareness about the importance of "energy independence" (don't the words just roll off your tongue?) at the highest you'll see it for a long time (before the supply problems *really* start to set in)... These aren't your grandfather's nuclear power plants: their cores run for longer without refueling. They're more efficient, providing more energy and producing less waste, and most importantly, they're safer.
Technorati tags:

Comments

Matthew66 said…
ABC News (Australia) reports that Greenpeace Australia has condemned the latest report on Chernobyl. It has found other "evidence" that supports its view that nuclear power is dangerous. This does not surprise me. Ideologues usually ignore or condemn evidence that does not support, or contradicts their views, and go to great lengths to find "evidence" that supports their view. Personally, I prefer to examine all the evidence available from reputable sources (and I consider the UN to be a reputable source) and draw conclusions from that. This sometimes leads me to change a previously held opinion, including changing my previously held view that nuclear power is too dangerous to use. I now believe, based on reports such as the 2001 UNSCEAR report and many others, that nuclear power is the safest option for new baseload electricity generating facilities, and for desalination of water in preference to damming rivers for drinking water.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers? In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate. For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum

New Home for Our Blog: Join Us on NEI.org

On February 27, NEI launched the new NEI.org . We overhauled the public site, framing all of our content around the National Nuclear Energy Strategy. So, what's changed? Our top priority was to put you, the user, first. Now you can quickly get the information you need.  You'll enjoy visiting the site with its intuitive navigation, social media integration and compelling and shareable visuals.  We've added a feature called Nuclear Now, which showcases the latest industry news and resources like fact sheets and reports. It's one of the first sections you'll see on our home page and it can be accessed anywhere throughout the site by clicking on the atom symbol in the top right corner of the page. Most importantly for you, our loyal NEI Nuclear Notes readers, is that we've migrated the blog to the new site. Moving forward,  all blog posts will be published in the News section , along with our press releases, Nuclear Energy Overview stories and more. Just l

Hurricane Harvey Couldn't Stop the South Texas Project

The South Texas Project As Hurricane Harvey battered southeast Texas over the past week, the devastation and loss of life in its wake have kept our attention and been a cause of grief. Through the tragedy, many stories of heroics and sacrifice have emerged. Among those who have sacrificed are nearly 250 workers who have been hunkered down at the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear plant in Matagorda County, Texas. STP’s priorities were always the safety of their employees and the communities they serve. We are proud that STP continued to operate at full power throughout the storm. It is a true testament to the reliability and resiliency of not only the operators but of our industry. The world is starting to notice what a feat it is to have maintained operations through the catastrophic event. Forbes’ Rod Adams did an excellent job describing the contribution of these men and women : “STP storm crew members deserve to be proud of the work that they are doing. Their famil