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

Howiecopywriter 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.

November 13, 2007 at 4:03 PM

D. Walters 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

November 13, 2007 at 10:42 PM

Anonymous 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.

November 14, 2007 at 6:24 AM

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.

November 15, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog