Skip to main content

CCAN on New Nuclear Build

By Eric McErlain
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.
Labels:

Comments

Stewart Peterson said…
>>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.
September 20, 2007 at 1:07 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