Skip to main content

The "Conversation" About Nuclear Energy

Want to know what public attitudes are like in one of the most anti-nuclear energy regions in the world? Just take a listen to a few minutes of yesterday's edition of The Conversation, a program on KUOW-FM 94.9 in Seattle. Click here (MP3) or here (Real Audio) to listen.

I understand that the region has its own problematic history with nuclear energy, but that's no excuse for some of the nonsense that the host, Guy Nelson, who immediately repeats an utter falsehood about total lifecycle emissions and nuclear energy. After listening for a few minutes, I was impressed with the bravery of a number of listeners who called to make the case for nuclear energy.

Comments

LetsSaveThePlanet said…
It's too bad that anti-nuke nutcases actually convince some people by using arguments against the 1970s era power plants or even out-and-out lies like in this case. The fact is nobody wants more 1970s type nuke plants. They were too expensive to build and the technology has improved by leaps and bounds since then.

Being pro-nuke means being against using foreign oil (our gas guzzling cars), against sulphur and other poisons in the air (coal plants), against carbon emissions that will destroy this planet and everyone on it (natural gas power plants), and against power supply problems like brownouts and blackouts.

With new designs like pebble bed reactors there is no possibility of melt-down because even with a complete coolant failure the reactor reaches thermal equilibrium. And the pebble bed reactor is modular so most parts can be mass produced and shipped to the site, and a community can start with a small reactor and add additional reactors as their power needs grow.

Other new reactor designs will enable cheaper hydrogen production by producing steam of high enough temperature to separate the hydrogen from seawater.

Nuclear power has never been more needed than right now. Mankind faces great peril (or extinction) without it.

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …