Skip to main content

CCAN on New Nuclear Build

Here's something that might be of interest to the friends of the nuclear power plants at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland and North Anna in Virginia. The folks over at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network blog are asking their readers what they think of nuclear energy. Here's their position:
In terms of greenhouse gas reductions [nuclear energy] is not a deal breaker. Despite the many negatives of nuclear energy, one positive is that it generates almost no carbon dioxide. [CCAN does] not advocate building a single new nuclear power plant, but neither [does it] advocate shutting down existing ones in the face of rapid global warming.
While I'm happy to see the folks at CCAN acknowledging the contribution that nuclear energy plays in helping to constrain greenhouse gas emissions going forward, I can't help but be struck by this balancing act. After all, if you're going to concede that point, isn't it implicit in this position that environmentalists were wrong to oppose nuclear energy in the first place?

In any case, I'm happy to see some evolution in their position, and hold out hope that we might see some more. I'm also heartened by the fact that they seem to be open to a dialog with outsiders. So be sure to stop by and join the debate.

Comments

>>After all, if you're going to concede that point, isn't it implicit in this position that environmentalists were wrong to oppose nuclear energy in the first place?

No, not at all. They think it will make the problem worse, regardless of any evidence that we present.

Does it follow? No. If you ask them, will they respond with something other than a list of the industry's attitude problems from the 1970s? No. Can they make a sensible argument against it without rationalizations? No. Does it matter to them more than their loyalty to opposing the environmentalist "bad stuff" list, of which nuclear power is a charter member? Of course not.

Our task is to remove these people's base of support so that they're irrelevant.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…