Skip to main content

Why Doesn't Al Gore Embrace Nuclear Energy?

By Eric McErlain
From The Daily Inter Lake, (Mont.):
Al Gore, the former vice president and recent Oscar recipient, sanctimoniously decrees that Americans should reduce their “carbon footprints” while he runs up electric bills that could power an entire neighborhood. He exonerates himself by purchasing “carbon offsets” from a company that he has a financial interest in. The company invests in wind power or other green projects, and presto, his conscience is clean. Just like purchasing a medieval indulgence for cleansing away sins.

Gore never talks about one source of energy that would greatly reduce carbon emissions, and that’s nuclear energy. Why doesn’t Gore urge Congress to provide incentives for nuclear power development, a change that would vastly reduce the nation’s carbon footprint?

Because the left has long detested and protested nuclear power plants. And Gore certainly isn’t going to counter that position, because he has become a national environmental leader.
As we've noted before, not every environmentalist is anti-nuclear energy. Here's hoping folks like that start getting more attention.
Labels:

Comments

Joffan said…
Quotes like that one illustrate how to lose friends on the left. Using a RW script and ignoring the positive, NEI Nuclear Notes will make no left-leaning friends with such a link.

I'd like Gore to talk about nuclear too, but anything that highlights the dangers of coal is implicitly good for nuclear. You could regard Gore as an ally, if not yet a friend.
March 26, 2007 at 3:56 PM
brewski said…
Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to it. When mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included, a big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year.

Most comments I read in the press talk only about emmission from an operating plant, but not from the entire life-cycle. This is misleading.
March 26, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Eric McErlain said…
Incorrect. That's a charge that's regularly leveled at the industry, and it simply isn't true. Click here for more.

The total lifecycle emissions for nuclear are roughly equivalent to that of hydropower. Just because you repeat the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true.
March 26, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Stewart Peterson said…
Y'all are missing the point: there is no mechanism in a nuclear reactor that produces or emits carbon dioxide. Any emissions on the part of suppliers are the fault of the polluters and they should pay, not the customer.
March 27, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Anonymous said…
Well consider this:

There is no one on the planet, no one, who could give nuclear a warmer embrace than Al Gore.

It ain't over until the fat man loses weight.

-NNadir.
March 28, 2007 at 8:48 PM
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