Skip to main content

Another Call for Nuclear Advocates

A few weeks back, we asked our readers to participate in an LA Times poll on the continued operation of the San Onofre nuclear power plant. Earlier today, the San Diego Union-Tribune posted their own poll on the ultimate fate of the facility:

If you support the continued operation of the plant, please take a moment to vote.

Comments

jimwg said…
How about starting a game like "How To Tell If A Fair And Accurate Reporter Is Secretly Anti-Nuclear?"

Like --

A. If he/she keeps saying that a reactor is "spewing" out radioactivity.

B. Fukushima is a "nuclear accident" instead of a "tsunami accident" (since people are killed in disasters).

C. Keeps showing crying little kids being swept by Geiger counters.

D. Gives a pro-nuker a five second bite in a three minute nuclear report.

E. Has deep ominous music playing in the background while showing clips of nuke plants under dark cloudy skies.

F. Keeps filming huge looming cooling towers like they ARE the reactors.

Etc...

James Greenidge
Queens NY
jimwg said…
Pardon my error!

Correction for "B" is:

B. Fukushima is a "nuclear disaster" instead of a "tsunami disaster" (since people are killed in disasters).

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Jeff Schmidt said…
I have a few problems with such polls:

* First, such polls are definitely not scientific, and so are likely to be innaccurate - as an example, you have NEI calling on members to vote, and no doubt you probably have anti-nuclear organizations call upon their supporters to vote, and so the results could just reflect what organizations noticed the poll, and which are best organized to get member response quickly to such things.

* Even if you had a formal, official "voted" during an election, the question of whether to shutdown an individual nuclear plant should not be up for majority opinion. The majority can vote on overall policy - I suppose if a majority of Americans wanted to shutdown all nuclear power plants, that would be a legitimate exercise of democracy, but when it comes to individual plants, it should be owners, and regulators (e.g. NRC) who decide on technical and legal grounds whether the plant qualifies to be licensed and operate, not MOB RULE.
Anonymous said…
Fortunately, the United States is not a democracy. The Founders knew better than to base our government on such a historically unstable system. We should count our blessings that we live in a Constitutional Republic. Ochlocracies generally end badly for everyone.

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…