Comments on: Los Angeles Times deconstructs nuclear power http://understory.ran.org/2007/07/24/los-angeles-times-deconstructs-nuclear-power/ The Understory is the official blog of Rainforest Action Network. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:08:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: James Aach http://understory.ran.org/2007/07/24/los-angeles-times-deconstructs-nuclear-power/comment-page-1/#comment-110901 James Aach Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:47:59 +0000 http://understory.ran.org/2007/07/24/los-angeles-times-deconstructs-nuclear-power/#comment-110901 Every energy source has its good and bad points. I'm not sure how aware the LA Times was of that when it singled out nuclear. The paper could write a similar negative report on every power source. Were they aware that while wind power is nearly limitless it is hard to collect in mass quantities, and since electricity is almost impossible to store in any large degree, the intermittent nature of wind is a huge drawback? Or that for fossil-fuel plants to continue to be a key provider without adding to CO2 emissions that new, untried CO2 sequestration methods would need to be implemented on a massive scale? And what is the context behind statements like nuclear power is "extremely risky" - how does it compare to the risk of other options (CO2, coal particulate in the air, brownouts during summertime, etc.)? The first step to choosing the best energy future is understanding the energy present - what the good and bad things actually are. It's not clear at all that this was the case with the Times editorial. Were this done, perhaps nuclear would still lose, but for the right reasons. Nuclear power is a very hard subject to understand for the lay person - there is just propaganda on both sides. For an insider's look at nuclear in the form of a thriller novel, see "Rad Decision" at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . There is no cost to website readers. Both the good AND the bad of atomic energy are portrayed. "Rad Decision" has also been endorsed by Stewart Brand, the founder of "The Whole Earth Catalog". Conservation should be the top priority of any energy plan. The cheapest, safest energy is that which you don't use. Every energy source has its good and bad points. I’m not sure how aware the LA Times was of that when it singled out nuclear. The paper could write a similar negative report on every power source. Were they aware that while wind power is nearly limitless it is hard to collect in mass quantities, and since electricity is almost impossible to store in any large degree, the intermittent nature of wind is a huge drawback? Or that for fossil-fuel plants to continue to be a key provider without adding to CO2 emissions that new, untried CO2 sequestration methods would need to be implemented on a massive scale? And what is the context behind statements like nuclear power is “extremely risky” – how does it compare to the risk of other options (CO2, coal particulate in the air, brownouts during summertime, etc.)? The first step to choosing the best energy future is understanding the energy present – what the good and bad things actually are. It’s not clear at all that this was the case with the Times editorial. Were this done, perhaps nuclear would still lose, but for the right reasons.

Nuclear power is a very hard subject to understand for the lay person – there is just propaganda on both sides. For an insider’s look at nuclear in the form of a thriller novel, see “Rad Decision” at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . There is no cost to website readers. Both the good AND the bad of atomic energy are portrayed. “Rad Decision” has also been endorsed by Stewart Brand, the founder of “The Whole Earth Catalog”.

Conservation should be the top priority of any energy plan. The cheapest, safest energy is that which you don’t use.

]]>