ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE AN IRRATIONAL HATRED OF NUCLEAR POWER

ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE AN IRRATIONAL HATRED OF NUCLEAR POWER

Published: January 2, 2015
http://disinfo.com/2015/01/environmentalists-irrational-hatred-nuclear-power/

The first American nuclear reactor of the 21st century, Watts-Barr will soon begin operating west of Knoxville in Tennessee. This reactor will almost continuously generate 1,150 megawatts of electricity for the next 60 years at $0.06/kWhr, with near-zero carbon emissions (over the same period a coal plant would release 500 million tons of CO2, for reference the US releases 6,526 million metric tons CO2 annually). With this happy marriage of steadily satisfying consumer demand yet generating very little CO2, one would imagine that greenies everywhere like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund and thousands of other environmental groups would be out in the streets rejoicing and calling for more nuclear plants! However, it seems that environmental groups roundly and universally decry the vast potential of nuclear technology. But why?

We in the pro-nuclear community have yet to collate and diagnose the almost-dogmatic hatred of nuclear power in the environmental movement, but it seems to stem from several uninformed but understandable complaints:

1) People seem to widely conflate ‘nuclear power’ with ‘nuclear weapons,’ however the danger of a nuclear explosion occurring at a power plant is the same danger as a 1988 Ford Pinto going 250 mph, that is, not any danger at all.

2) Many people seem to think that nuclear reactors regularly release radiation (they absolutely do not, in fact a coal plant releases substantially more radiation) and fear the radioactive waste that a reactor produces (if we recycled the uranium fuel like France we would have FAR less waste).

3) People also mistakenly believe that our current fleet of water-cooled reactors, which have a very small but ever-present danger of meltdown, are the only types of reactors that humans can build.

Quite to the contrary. I found out a year ago that there are many exciting and ingenious reactor designs that excel in safety, efficiency, ease of operation and cheapness. Some of these designs already exist and many more are in development all around the world.

Unfortunately for the earth, almost all environmental groups campaign feverishly against nuclear energy, fighting our greatest zero-carbon ally with every bone in their body. The Sierra Club, Greenpeace (whose founder Dr Patrick Moore has advocated for nuclear energy for years) and smaller outfits like The Energy Justice Network all call for a future without nuclear energy. Their assertions range from reasonable-yet-melodramatic to downright ignorant.

For example the Sierra Club calls spent fuel pools a ‘dangerous terrorist target with no option for permanent storage,’ which is correct though melodramatic because there are many devastating terrorist targets lying unguarded in the United States and our solution to the permanent storage problem can be to simply burn the existing waste to almost nothing in an advanced reactor. The Energy Justice Network, which probably has a smaller budget for scientific review of policy stances, calls nuclear power “racist” (???) and absurdly claims that “Strontium-90, a radioactive pollutant, is released from nuclear reactors,” I don’t know what their source is but under normal circumstances there is absolutely NO release of radioactive materials from a nuclear reactor. In over 60 years of operating this technology and with 435 plants operating worldwide today, the list of radioactive releases from nuclear sites numbers a total of only 26 times, only 4 of which have been a “level 5″ or above.

Environmentalists, and all citizens with an inkling of the dangers of climate change and ocean acidification, insist that we need a future where we are getting nearly ALL of our energy from non-carbon sources. But how do they realistically suppose we will do that? Will we build hundreds square miles of solar energy facilities to SOMEHOW store enough energy in the summer to power Toronto, Portland, New York, and Chicago, through the winter? How exactly ARE we going to store that gargantuan amount of energy? (I’ve got a hint: we aren’t.)

Even though the average environmental group would like you to believe that they have already mapped out a plan for our carbon-free and nuclear-free future through satisfying everyone’s energy demands with only solar and wind, when it comes to number crunching such a notion falls flat on its face. A more realistic plan for environmental harmony would be what was fictionally portrayed in Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: an environmental terrorist group engineers a virus designed to wipe out the human race to save the planet from death by resource-exploitation.

NO, WE DON’T HAVE TO REDUCE THE POPULATION OF THE HUMAN RACE, AND WE DON’T NEED TO LIVE LIKE ENERGY MISERS WAITING FOR THE SUN TO COME OUT SO WE CAN WATCH TV. WE ALREADY HAVE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL FOR NEAR-ZERO CARBON ENERGY IN THE TECHNOLOGY OF NUCLEAR FISSION; WHICH IF DONE RIGHT IS SAFE, CHEAP, AND GREEN.

One comment

  • theunhivedmind

    You have to understand that New Venice’s green policies are genocide to meet the goals of Global 2000 Report of the Club of Rome. Nuclear energy will progress mankind both technologically and in population. The Club of Rome wants the very opposite so they attack nuclear energy is every way they can. To understand this agenda more then take a look at the book ‘Nuclear Power: Anathema to the New World Order’ by Dr John Coleman.

    -= The Unhived Mind

Leave a Reply