Skip to main content

Dispelling Myths About Nuclear Energy

Over at the Heritage Foundation, Jack Spencer and Nick Loris wrote an excellent nuclear myth-busting piece on topics about proliferation, terrorism, waste, lifecycle emissions, and economics just to name a few. Enjoy.

MYTH: There is no solution to the problem of nuclear waste.

FACT: The nuclear industry solved the nuclear waste problem decades ago.

Spent nuclear fuel can be removed from the reac­tor, reprocessed to separate unused fuel, and then used again. The remaining waste could then be placed in either interim or long-term storage, such as in the Yucca Mountain repository. France and other countries carry out some version of this pro­cess safely every day. Furthermore, technology ad­vances could yield greater efficiencies and improve the process. The argument that there is no solution to the waste problem is simply wrong.

...

MYTH: Incidents at Davis-Besse, Vermont Yankee, and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa demonstrate that continued use of nuclear power will lead to another Chernobyl.

FACT: The real consequences of these three inci­dents demonstrate that nuclear power is safe.

Perhaps the greatest myths surrounding nuclear power concern the consequences of past accidents and their association with current risks. All of these myths depend on a basic construct of flawed logic and misrepresentations that is riddled with logical and factual errors.

...

MYTH: Nuclear energy is not economically viable.

FACT: Nuclear energy already provides about 20 percent of America's electricity.

Investors are not averse to nuclear power. Utility companies with nuclear experience have sought to purchase existing plants, are upgrading their exist­ing power plants, and are extending their operating licenses so that they can produce more energy for a longer time. Indeed, nuclear energy is so economi­cally viable that it provides about 20 percent of America's electricity despite the incredibly high reg­ulatory burden.

...

Comments

CandyMan said…
About the Myth/Fact format, it doesn't work. You should really rephrase the myths such that statements like "nuclear energy is not economically viable" do not appear or simply do not state the myth at all. A recent study from the University of Michigan (Washington Post arcticle about it here ) shows that if you put the false statement next to the true statement, people of all ages will remember 40% of the myths as fact after only 3 days. Except now it's worse, since the source (the article example includes a CDC myth/fact release on the flu) was credible. So in general, those who read the pamphlet truly believe as fact 40% of what the CDC said is NOT true.

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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…