Skip to main content

Can You Make an Ethical Case for Nuclear Energy?

Over the course of the history of NEI Nuclear Notes, I've assiduously avoided sharing coverage from the financial press for a variety of reasons, foremost of which is the fact that we shouldn't be in the business of providing investment advice.

But this morning I'm compelled to share a clip from a U.K. publication called Financial Reporter after I read the following passage in a story by James Howard titled, "Ten reasons to go with ethical investments."
1. They can avoid the negatives. Ethical investment ensures their money isn’t supporting companies which engage in activities they might disapprove of, such as animal testing, deforestation, arms manufacture, or nuclear energy.
Now, I don't want to tell folks who have a beef with nuclear energy how to invest their own money, but I do have a real problem with anyone who tries to make the case that investing -- and by extension working in the nuclear energy industry -- isn't an ethical endeavor. In fact, it's impossible not to feel downright insulted at the suggestion.

Better still. thanks to climate scientist James Hansen, I've got the numbers to back up the emotion (thanks to our friends at Energy Northwest for the cool graphic):

And that's just the start. According to Hansen's projections, the widespread adoption of nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels could save up to 7 million more lives in the next four decades. If that's not an ethical energy choice, I don't know what possibly could be.

Comments

gmax137 said…
Also, notice the difference in the wording of Item 1 (quoted above) and Item 2:

"2. They can support the positives. They can actively choose to support companies or projects which have positive social and environmental policies in place, such as renewable energy, carbon offsetting, sustainable timber, or poverty reduction."

While negatives are portrayed as a matter of the investor's opinion ("which they might disapprove of...") the positives simply *are* positive ("which have positive social and environmental policies...").

This kind of spin is disgusting and pernicious. "Journalist" was briefly an honorable calling, but not for a long time now.
Anonymous said…
Isn't saying the entire profession of journalism is now dishorable the same sort of insult that the original blog post complains about (labelling nuclear energy as "unethical")?
gmax137 said…
To Anonymous: Yes, point taken. I suppose if I spent enough time looking I could find a journalist worthy of the name, who works honorably in the tradition of the greats in that field.
Andrew Jaremko said…
The mention of ethics in connection with electricity generation options reminded me of a calculation I did some time ago. It's the dark side of James Hansen's arithmetic. Since a lot of my electricity is generated by coal (there's no nuclear power here in Alberta, but some hydro), considering my lifetime electricity use, how many deaths am I personally causing? What am I responsible for?

My answer is that it's about 0.2 deaths. The number would go up if I included the coal burned in creating all of my 'stuff' and my share of the high-energy world I live in. Can I claim to be ethical when I am causing a share of the world's misery?
jimwg said…
Seems to me if one's going to play the ethics game in energy investments then it pays not to be hypocritical than overtly cherry picking favorite pets. I'm afraid most "green" investors would royally fluke this test.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
DV8 2XL said…
Can You Make an Ethical Case for Nuclear Energy? More to the point can anyone make an ethical case against it at this juncture.

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …