Pro-nuclear journalists nuke mainstream news media; fall-out is wasted time in addressing global warming

In the past week, both Eduardo Porter, a left-leaning columnist from the New York Times and Hendrik Hertzberg, a centrist-looking-left columnist at the New Yorker have advocated nuclear power as the necessary bridge to solar and wind power.

Both writers use the same arguments: We can’t produce enough energy—by which they mean electricity—by solar and wind, so we need nuclear to replace carbon-spewing coal and oil if we are to address global warming in time.  Porter and Hertzberg make two assumptions: 1)  we must wait for the market to develop for solar and wind as opposed to making massive government investment to create the market; and 2) the only viable solutions involve central generation of electricity controlled by large companies and the decentralized solutions such as mini-generators in neighborhoods and solar panels for heating space and water are unacceptable.

But using nuclear energy to produce electricity strikes a bargain with a devil as pernicious to the earth as global warming. The safety problems with nuclear power are numerous and well documented. Briefly, a major accident spewing significant radiation has occurred somewhere in the world about every 10 years since the 1950’s, including Chalk River, Kyshtym, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, to name some of the more notorious accidents.

There is also the issue of storage. The United States still hasn’t found a permanent place to store nuclear wastes, so it sits at the plants or in temporary locations smoldering  and spewing radioactivity.  The half life of some nuclear waste is 25,000 years, which means that in 25,000 years half of the radioactivity will have dissipated. That’s more than twice the length of time that humans have had civilizations with written records and agriculture. How many people can speak the languages humans spoke 25,000 years ago? When I think of storage of nuclear waste, I always imagine future intelligent life discovering cavernous vaults with strange hieroglyphics on them, wondering what the symbols mean and eager to break open the vault and see what is inside. They drill through only to let the radioactivity escape and poison them and those in nearby settlements.

By spending money on building more plants for the nuclear generation of electricity we deny resources that could make solar viable. Instead of the private sector investing in nuclear, why can’t the government increases taxes on the private sector’s use of coal and oil and use the funds to buy solar-based batteries, solar roof panels for heating federal buildings and other existing solar products? Making solar and wind more competitive does not have to involve only making them cheaper; it can also involve making coal and oil more expensive by raising taxes or withdrawing current tax breaks. The government could also give greater tax breaks for developing wind mills and solar plants. It could pass a law that makes it harder for rich folk to pursue lawsuits because their view of the Atlantic is impeded by a windmill.

Why waste precious public and private resources in nuclear energy? Let’s go right to what must be the energy of the future—solar and wind.




One comment on “Pro-nuclear journalists nuke mainstream news media; fall-out is wasted time in addressing global warming
  1. CaptD says:

    Good Luck using Nuclear Power Plants because ratepayers will see ever increasing rates and/or costs while your Decision Makers and your Utility shareholders profit for many decades to come. I think of it as, The Nuclear FIX is in…

    Nuclear offers a very long income stream for those that run and/or operate it, which is a huge incentive to building them in Countries where Political Leaders/Decision makers are prone to accepting BIG donations in return for project approvals.

    Not so important to them, but vitally important to their ratepayers/end users is that because they have to use nuclear, they become enslaved to their Utilities for many, many decades, instead of being able to become energy independent, after the initial payback period, an option which Solar (of all flavors) offers.

    Also left unmentioned is the huge RISK that using nuclear entails should anything go wrong, something the Japanese now know all to well!

    With the prices of Solar (of all flavors) dropping monthly, while nuclear spirals ever upward it is easy to see which countries leaders are thinking more about providing for their own income stream than they are about providing safe, low cost energy to the people that they were elected/appointed to serve…

    Some of the above was submitted here:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


thirteen + 7 =