Skip to main content

Tucker Carlson on Nuclear Energy

Click here for a clip from Tucker Carlson's MSNBC program that took a look at nuclear energy. There's a lot of talk, along with a short interview with CASEnergy's Patrick Moore.

Comments

Howie G said…
Promoting nuclear energy by using the boogie man of the man made global warming threat of CO2 is not going to work, because it is a fraud. See http://greendebate.blogspot.com/2007/11/co2-science-org-is-very-good-people-for.html for more details.
Left Atomics said…
Howie...1 GW of nuclear energy can shutdown 1 GW of coal generated power. Over a year, it's about 9 million tons of CO2 or there abouts.

Now, explain to us *exactly* how the nuclear energy does NOT cancel out the CO2 from the coal plant?

David Walters
bryfry said…
It doesn't matter whether global warming is a fraud or not.

There are plenty of other good reasons to promote increasing the use of nuclear energy world-wide, beyond just the threat of climate change.

Take your pick.
Matthew66 said…
I live in Astoria in Queens County New York. Within one mile of my apartment there are two major fossil fuel burning power stations. They burn natural gas, or when that gets too expensive oil or kerosene. All of this degrades the atmosphere in my neighborhood, giving it the nickname "asthma alley". In the 1960s ConEd proposed replacing both these facilities with a subterranean nuclear power station. That would have resulted in much cleaner air, even if CO2 emissions weren't associated with global warming. Clean air legislation was one of the drivers behind building nuclear power stations in the 1960s and 1970s and I happily support their use for that reason.

Right now, pebble bed reactors could provide in city power with no air pollution and no risk of fuel melting. I would happily support replacing the fossil burners at the Keyspan and ConEd facilities with PBMRs or similar electricity generators.

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…