Environment and Energy Daily online TV has a segment running today with the Nuclear Energy Institute's Scott Peterson talking about climate change and nuclear power's future. It's worth watching, whichever side you're on.
I'd be more likely to listen to NEI's PR if its shills didn't seem to be so blithely making stuff up. For instance, Peterson says, "there is growing public awareness of the clean-air benefits of nuclear energy," and more than three-fourths of the country supports more nuclear generation. That shift must have happened not in year but in months: Last June, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, 64 percent of the country opposed new nuclear plants.
E&E's Brian Stempbeck presses Peterson hard on the waste issue, on government subsidies and on the finances of nuclear plants, which leads Peterson to underestimate costs (Yucca Mountain hasn't cost just $6 billion so far -- last I heard it was $8 billion), claim that he's "very confident in the scientific pedigree" of Yucca Mountain and boast of a new "wave of enthusiasm" on Wall Street.
In other words, Peterson claims that nuclear energy is all benefit and no cost. It's clean, reliable and safe; we already know what to do with the waste; the public loves it and investors can't wait to fund it. New plants, therefore, will start going up in 2007.
Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.laweekly.com/mt-tb.cgi/35537
Comments
There are 4 comments posted for this article.
NEI messed up big time on this one, I agree.
But we do know what to do with the waste. Reactors have been developed that can use waste for fuel, chiefly the Canadian CANDU and the experimental Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) developed at Argonne, both of which can use light-water waste directly. The IFR does not even require offsite reprocessing or separation of fissile material. Nuclear batteries using the short-life fission products produced by these reactors have been around for 40 years.
I don't like the idea of Yucca Mountain. However, I suggest you read here about the effects of releasing fission products and transuranics into the environment.
As for their statistic, I believe they are referring to a poll they commissioned which sampled all of 1,152 cherry-picked people around nuclear power plants. More than three-quarters of them do support nuclear energy, but this is of dubious statistical value. That statement is not at all connected with the previous one; people are becoming more aware of the fact that nuclear energy is a zero-emission baseload electricity source. Do more than 75% support nuclear energy as a result? Of course not.
Posted on December 7, 2005 8:12 PM by Stewart Peterson
At NEI, we don't quite see it the same way, especially when we're accused of "blithely making stuff up." Click here for our rebuttal.
Posted on December 9, 2005 8:12 AM by emcerlain
Judith:
Of course Mr. Peterson gave an optimistic talk that focused on good news - that is his job.
I personally believe, however, that NEI and its members are being very conservative with their comments and plans.
Nuclear is not zero cost, but it is so much better than its competition on so many measures that new plants should be already under construction. Unfortunately, most NEI members spent the last 15-20 years investing in equipment that can only burn natural gas or oil to produce electricity.
Those numerous investment decisions were based on optimistic reports from the natural gas and petroleum industries and the culpable federal government that indicated that those precious commodities would always be available and would experience moderate price increases averaging something like 2-3% per year.
Instead, we have had several years in a row with increases of 30-70% year over year and last Friday natural gas at Henry Hub traded for more than $15.00 per million BTU. When I put Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. into a sleep mode due to lack of customer interest in 1996, all of my potential customers were buying gas at $1.80 per million BTU and expecting to keep paying similar prices into the distant future.
They were wrong, and their mistake has contributed to a rather severe risk of economic recession due to having hugely expensive fuel bills that restrict all other consumer spending.
Posted on December 11, 2005 10:12 PM by Rod Adams
Easy Handset Settings for Swedish Operator
with a Mobile Device Management (MDM) solution from SmartTrust that will
Posted on June 8, 2006 12:06 PM by live with a Mobile