Environmental Groups Change Tune on Nuclear Power

[thackney]

Environmental Groups Change Tune on Nuclear Power
http://www.wsj.com/articles/environmental-groups-change-tune-on-nuclear-power-1466100644
June 16, 2016

Some of the nation’s most influential environmental groups are softening their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, marking a significant shift in the antinuclear movement as environmentalists’ priority shifts to climate change.

The change is lowering one of the biggest political hurdles facing the nuclear power industry in the U.S. and comes at a critical time, as several financially struggling reactors are set to shut down.

“Because the historical context is that these groups were opposed to nuclear, their absence on the opposition front is noticed,” said Joe Dominguez, executive vice president for governmental and regulatory affairs for  Exelon Corp. , the biggest owner of nuclear plants in the U.S. “I think it’s pretty significant.”

Nuclear power, which emits no greenhouse gases, provides roughly 20% of U.S. electricity and 60% of carbon-free electricity, according to federal data. Pressed by cheap natural gas and state policies that favor renewables over nuclear power, roughly a dozen reactors are either poised to shut down in the coming years or have already.

The Sierra Club, the country’s oldest and largest environmental group, is debating whether to halt its longtime position in support of shuttering all existing nuclear-power plants earlier than required by their federal operating licenses. The environmental group’s leaders see existing reactors as a bridge to renewable electricity and an alternative source of energy as the group campaigns to shut down coal and natural gas plants.

The Environmental Defense Fund is similarly deciding to what extent it should adjust its policy, potentially lending its support to keeping open financially struggling reactors.

In Illinois, the Natural Resources Defense Council, along with the Sierra Club and EDF, are among the advocacy groups working with Exelon and state lawmakers on a legislative deal that would reverse a decision the company made in early June to close two nuclear reactors in the next two years....

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Environmental Groups Change Tune on Nuclear Power
http://www.wsj.com/articles/environmental-groups-change-tune-on-nuclear-power-1466100644
June 16, 2016

Some of the nation’s most influential environmental groups are softening their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, marking a significant shift in the antinuclear movement as environmentalists’ priority shifts to climate change.

The change is lowering one of the biggest political hurdles facing the nuclear power industry in the U.S. and comes at a critical time, as several financially struggling reactors are set to shut down.

“Because the historical context is that these groups were opposed to nuclear, their absence on the opposition front is noticed,” said Joe Dominguez, executive vice president for governmental and regulatory affairs for  Exelon Corp. , the biggest owner of nuclear plants in the U.S. “I think it’s pretty significant.”

Nuclear power, which emits no greenhouse gases, provides roughly 20% of U.S. electricity and 60% of carbon-free electricity, according to federal data. Pressed by cheap natural gas and state policies that favor renewables over nuclear power, roughly a dozen reactors are either poised to shut down in the coming years or have already.

The Sierra Club, the country’s oldest and largest environmental group, is debating whether to halt its longtime position in support of shuttering all existing nuclear-power plants earlier than required by their federal operating licenses. The environmental group’s leaders see existing reactors as a bridge to renewable electricity and an alternative source of energy as the group campaigns to shut down coal and natural gas plants.

The Environmental Defense Fund is similarly deciding to what extent it should adjust its policy, potentially lending its support to keeping open financially struggling reactors.

In Illinois, the Natural Resources Defense Council, along with the Sierra Club and EDF, are among the advocacy groups working with Exelon and state lawmakers on a legislative deal that would reverse a decision the company made in early June to close two nuclear reactors in the next two years....

Interesting read, but darn if I would build a multi-million dollar nuclear power plant and get a court-ordered injunction from operating it after it is built like Shoreham.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[Suppressed]

Some of the nation’s most influential environmental groups are softening their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, marking a significant shift in the antinuclear movement as environmentalists’ priority shifts to climate change.

I've found Millennials to be very pro-nuclear, in general.  Surprised me.  Perhaps someday soon, nukes will return.

[Smokin Joe]

I've found Millennials to be very pro-nuclear, in general.  Surprised me.  Perhaps someday soon, nukes will return.

They never sang "Duck and Cover" so they missed out on the whole MAD aspect of the nuclear program. They never looked under that corner of the bed, and besides, they are going to need SOMEthing reliable to charge their i-phones and the solar bird burners and the Eagle-matics (when they are whirlygigging along) just might leave them a watt or so short...

To them, the boogeyman is the oceans rising 1 cm a year and flooding out all the land.  Of course, the next Ice age would be around long before that, but who's doing the math? It's hard, and nobody wants to.

[DB]

Diablo Canyon, the last nuclear plant in California is going to close by 2025 - or sooner if their permits are not renewed. It produces 9% of California's electricity.

The environazies have made nuclear power too expensive. Electricity in California is going to get considerably more expensive and less reliable. Progressive regressives...

[DB]

To them, the boogeyman is the oceans rising 1 cm a year and flooding out all the land.  Of course, the next Ice age would be around long before that, but who's doing the math? It's hard, and nobody wants to.

It is kind of amazing really. Much of Canada and the northern US were covered with a couple of miles deep of ice 13,000 or so years ago. There's been a whole lot of warming going on since that time... Yet now essentially all warming is attributed to man... And they call that "science"... The idiots do run the asylum these days...

[Suppressed]

It is kind of amazing really. Much of Canada and the northern US were covered with a couple of miles deep of ice 13,000 or so years ago. There's been a whole lot of warming going on since that time... Yet now essentially all warming is attributed to man... And they call that "science"... The idiots do run the asylum these days...

In that 13,000 years, the temperature changed at a slower rate than now.  It's not just a question of whether climates change, but rates and how.

Also, if you go back through previous glacial cycles of the Quaternary Period, we should be getting cooler now (remember the famous Newsweek story). Yet, we're not.

There are huge problems in the field of climate science these days, but it's not as cut-and-dried as many people would try to make you believe.

@DB

[Smokin Joe]

In that 13,000 years, the temperature changed at a slower rate than now.  It's not just a question of whether climates change, but rates and how.

Also, if you go back through previous glacial cycles of the Quaternary Period, we should be getting cooler now (remember the famous Newsweek story). Yet, we're not.

There are huge problems in the field of climate science these days, but it's not as cut-and-dried as many people would try to make you believe.

@DB

Apparently not. When I was an undergrad, the rage was the coming ice age.

As for whether we should be heating or cooling, where is the manual? While cycles are generally similar, there is no set schedule, either for intensity or timing. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, and while cycles follow similar patterns, timing is subject to all sorts of peturbation. A couple of volcanic eruptions, a bolide, and all bets are off.

[DB]

In that 13,000 years, the temperature changed at a slower rate than now.  It's not just a question of whether climates change, but rates and how.

Also, if you go back through previous glacial cycles of the Quaternary Period, we should be getting cooler now (remember the famous Newsweek story). Yet, we're not.

There are huge problems in the field of climate science these days, but it's not as cut-and-dried as many people would try to make you believe.

@DB

Those cycles have a wide variance. Somewhat like earthquakes. To say we are past due now and that it means something significant really isn't true. As far as the rate of change being higher now, I don't buy that. Near transition periods the changes were very rapid. It has been much warmer and much cooler for very long periods of time relative to now. If anything it has been unusually stable for the last several thousand years. If it were really warming much faster now, the sea levels would reflect that, but have not and even it it were, that isn't evidence it is caused by man. I have little faith in politically driven science where "consensus" is the rule and not the scientific method.

The tectonic plates are moving both above and below sea level causing shifts in the sea currents and the sun is changing. The earth has a long history of change and will continue to change. To attribute suddenly all change on man in the last 100 years isn't rational.

[Oceander]

If the enviro-wackos really wanted clean energy, they'd be pushing nuclear like it was the best thing since sliced bread.

[Fishrrman]

Suppressed wrote above:
"Also, if you go back through previous glacial cycles of the Quaternary Period, we should be getting cooler now (remember the famous Newsweek story). Yet, we're not."

I live in western Connecticut near the border with New York state.

It's June.
And in early June, the heat was still coming on at night here.
(And I don't keep it set very high, either)