Skip to main content

The Environmental Architects of Fear

By Eric McErlain
Over at Gristmill, the reflexively anti-nuclear David Roberts is upset that environmentalists like Patrick Moore, James Lovelock and Stewart Brand come out in favor of an expanded use of nuclear energy:
An equally irksome tic is the notion that Brand represents some sort of next-gen environmentalism. There are basically three of these guys, these new nuclear proponents: Brand, Patrick Moore, and James Lovelock. Every story about one of these guys -- and there are plenty -- tries to spin the next-gen angle. Finally environmentalists are letting go of their old ideas, right?

But I don't see anything new here, much less any brave new environmentalism. I see three guys approaching their twilight years, worn down from a lifetime of fighting, making a desperate bet based on fear.
As someone who just saw An Inconvenient Truth for the first time a few weeks ago, I had to laugh when I read that last line. Talk about a lack of self-awareness.

There's a lot that's just plain wrong elsewhere in what Roberts writes -- remember, this is the same David Roberts who wants to hold a "climate Nuremberg" for folks who deign to disagree with him -- inlcuding the old straw man that nuclear couldn't possibly provide all of the electricity we need.

But as readers of this blog know, the industry position is quite clear: If we want to continue to provide affordable and reliable electricity, nuclear energy needs to be part of a diverse global energy mix going forward. If we do what environmental radicals like Roberts propose and rule nuclear completely out of the equation, constraining emissions of all kinds while continuing to provide reliable and affordable electricity will be that much more difficult, if not impossible.

Luckily, thanks to the Web, Roberts doesn't have the floor to himself. You can listen to Moore, Brand and Lovelock all on your own and decide for yourself who is doing the real fearmongering on the one hand, and who is calling for a rational response on the other.
Labels:

Comments

Randal Leavitt said…
Thanks for this item. I learned a new point from reading it, namely that the anti-nuke cultists argue that we have to listen to the scientists and technicians to understand global warming, but we should not listen to the scientists and technicians to understand nuclear power.
March 1, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Anonymous said…
The industry does itself a disservice in terms of public acceptance by dismissing everyone who challenges nuclear power as "reflexive" or "cultists."
March 5, 2007 at 11:26 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