> The climate crisis is urgent. The world has neither the financial resources nor the luxury of time to expand nuclear power. As physicist and energy analyst Amory Lovins argued: “… to protect the climate, we must save the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time.”
> Expanding nuclear energy only makes the climate problem worse.
> The money invested in nuclear energy would save far more carbon dioxide if it were instead invested in renewables.
> And the reduction in emissions from investing in renewables would be far quicker.
These statements may wind up being correct, but they’re speculative, and they’re anti-nuclear.
To the point of the Wikipedia page, a couple selected publications - although in fairness I haven’t read the publications and am just judging from the titles:
> Nuclear power: Economic, safety, health, and environmental issues of near-term technologies, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34, 2009, 127-152
> Beyond our imagination: Fukushima and the problem of assessing risk, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2011, 19 April
> Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future, 2007, Available at www. npec-web. org/Frameset. asp
Again, all of these could be entirely factual and well defended, but the author is clearly not a disinterested observer.
I’m more pro-nuclear than the author, and mostly I’m skeptical about good scalable solutions to the storage problem. I’d prefer renewables + storage to be the answer, but I think we made a mistake when we halted nuclear development and I don’t think we’re doing ourselves any favors by not pursuing the technology.
I’m not saying anti-nuclear as a slander, but that’s clearly their position. Given their resume, I believe they came by it honestly, via years of experience and study. I don’t think I’m besmirching them by saying they’re anti-nuclear, and I think given the tenor of the article, they’d agree with me.
It is, however, something to be aware of when reading an article they wrote: they are not a fully disinterested observer, they have a pre-existing belief about nuclear, and their arguments for this article agree with those beliefs. That’s a thing to be aware of when one evaluates the set of facts they’ve chosen to present.
It isn't, because I don't think it's possible. Because of that, I think it's relevant to know what an author's preexisting opinions and beliefs were when writing the article. If, for instance, the author had been strongly pro-nuclear, then their conclusion that SMRs are a dead end would carry more weight, as they would have had to overcome their own biases. Articles that confirm an author's beliefs, on the other hand, are much easier to write.
> The climate crisis is urgent. The world has neither the financial resources nor the luxury of time to expand nuclear power. As physicist and energy analyst Amory Lovins argued: “… to protect the climate, we must save the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time.”
> Expanding nuclear energy only makes the climate problem worse.
> The money invested in nuclear energy would save far more carbon dioxide if it were instead invested in renewables.
> And the reduction in emissions from investing in renewables would be far quicker.
These statements may wind up being correct, but they’re speculative, and they’re anti-nuclear.
To the point of the Wikipedia page, a couple selected publications - although in fairness I haven’t read the publications and am just judging from the titles:
> Nuclear power: Economic, safety, health, and environmental issues of near-term technologies, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34, 2009, 127-152
> Beyond our imagination: Fukushima and the problem of assessing risk, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2011, 19 April
> Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future, 2007, Available at www. npec-web. org/Frameset. asp
Again, all of these could be entirely factual and well defended, but the author is clearly not a disinterested observer.
I’m more pro-nuclear than the author, and mostly I’m skeptical about good scalable solutions to the storage problem. I’d prefer renewables + storage to be the answer, but I think we made a mistake when we halted nuclear development and I don’t think we’re doing ourselves any favors by not pursuing the technology.