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

Wednesday Update

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
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...
1 comment
Read more

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