Skip to main content

John Edwards and his Backwards Anti-Nuclear Energy Stance

Presidential candidate John Edwards was endorsed by Friends of the Earth Action last Sunday primarily because of his stance against nuclear power.
Mr. Edwards, accepting the endorsement, said: “I am opposed to the building of new nuclear power plants, which is different from the position taken by Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.
FOEA’s president Brent Blackwelder had this to say:
“Edwards is razor sharp and clear: we don’t want to go the route of nuclear power plants,” said Mr. Blackwelder, whereas Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted to explore the nuclear option.

“We intend to run an independent campaign to educate the voters,” Mr. Blackwelder said. The canvassing, advertisements and seminars will take place mostly in New Hampshire, where the nuclear issue has resonance because of the nuclear power plant at Seabrook, as well as in other states.

Educate the voters? I wonder if they’ll include these educational facts on nuclear in New Hampshire? In 2006, the only nuclear plant in the state, Seabrook, generated 42 percent of the state’s electricity. Gas generated 27% of the state’s electricity; coal generated 17%; hydro, 8%; renewables, 5%; and oil 1%.

I wonder if Edwards knew those numbers. I would guess no because why would anyone advocate shutting down a nuclear plant that generates the state’s largest bulk of electricity while producing zero greenhouse-gas emissions?

Let’s try a tougher one. According to EPA’s 8-hour ozone designations, parts of the counties of Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham and Strafford in New Hampshire are in non-attainment. For those who don’t know, “ozone contributes to smog, which can lead to asthma attacks and respiratory impairment in young children and the elderly” (NEI NH fact sheet). The Seabrook plant located in Rockingham County helps alleviate this ozone situation by producing emission-free power to the area.

It appears Edwards and FOEA have their priorities backwards. Why spend time educating voters about the “so-called” dangers of nuclear power when there are important issues such as how to reduce air emissions and reliably meet our growing energy needs? Nuclear plants and nuclear used fuel have not injured or killed one person in the U.S. Yet emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels kill everyday.

By rejecting new nuclear plants in the U.S., Edwards will essentially make it impossible to reduce emissions in a way that doesn’t harm the economy. There’s a reason why the Electric Power Research Institute, the National Petroleum Council and Princeton University, to name a few, say that nuclear power must be expanded. It’s because it’s the only base-load, emission-free source of power that has demonstrated it can be built on a large-scale to meet our growing energy demands.

Comments

Matthew66 said…
Fortunately, for the north eastern USA, the Canadian Province of New Brunswick is studying the feasibility of adding another reactor to Point Lepreau to export electricity to the USA.
Norris McDonald said…
I have known Brent Blackwelder for 28 years. Brent is a great person. I consider Brent to be a friend. Brent is wrong on nuclear power. So is John Edwards.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…