Now that the "nuclear renaissance" is dead following the Fukushima catastrophe, the nuclear corporations will not accept defeat. Their new strategy is to develop small modular reactors (SMRs), allegedly free of the dangers inherent in large reactors. But their claims are fallacious.
New York State is prepared to close 40 years of intermittent and costly legal wrangling over the annual destruction of billions of fish by the twin Indian Point nuclear power plants in the productive Hudson River estuary if the plant agrees to shut down during peak spawning and hatching seasons for the river's major fish populations.
There is an extraordinary push by certain individuals to extol the wonders of thorium-fueled nuclear reactors. In fact, so concerted is this push that some blame me for preventing the ongoing expansion of such technology. So here are the facts about thorium for those who are interested.
To praise Iran's president for his diplomatic successes means forgetting all too easily that the situation within the country has changed little, if at all, since his election.
It passed some time since this year's CERAWeek 2014 kicked off in Houston, Texas from March third to seventh. This conference is, in my opinion, one of the best energy conferences I have attended (and I attended many over the last couple of years.)
If it seems like I'm overreacting a little bit, it's only because I know how serious the consequences of cat litter not soaking up toxic chemicals can be. I've smelled what can happen.
Are these technological solutions to some of the damage humans have done to ourselves and the natural world, or are they just versions of Castle Bravo and the Oxygen Destroyer, escalations of a self-destructive technological death spiral?
On too many occasions, politics and vested interests have trumped the solid scientific evidence we need to help make decisions at the state and federal level. Here, from the Got Science desk, is a roundup of the month's top five reasons it's high time to stand up for science.
Exelon's brazenly dishonest campaign against wind and other renewables has outraged environmentalists and nuclear watchdog groups. But it also has aroused the ire of some of its own industry fraternity members.
Nuclear Matters is just the latest gambit of a very powerful political player. Over the last five years, Exelon has spent millions on political candidates and tens of millions on lobbying, and has taken advantage of its close ties with the Obama administration to weaken or stymie stronger nuclear plant safeguards.
Just because the proposal is located in the ocean, presumably out of sight, it must not be out of mind. The reviews and guarantees must be more strict, not less. There is much at stake, not just the health and safety of human life, but the health and safety of a natural system on which the whole earth depends.
What is good for Turkey, and what is good for the world? People understandably don't want a nuclear power plant in their backyard, or for their land to be flooded or their rivers destroyed. But a country like Turkey is likely going to need more energy, even if it manages to become far more efficient.
The planet has safer, cheaper options for energy that do not emit greenhouse gases and do not present the same dangers as nuclear power.
Wouldn't the world be a better place if political candidates were held accountable for lies, intentional distortions, character assassination and over-the-line hyperbole? And wouldn't it be interesting if entire industries were held to the same higher standard?
Dr. James Hansen, a leading world expert on climate change, has brought me great disappointment. On Nov. 3, 2013, Dr. Hansen decided to support the construction of large numbers of nuclear plants as a way to save the day for climate change.
Renewables are now a lot cheaper and better than they were when the last IPCC report came out seven years ago. It's time to put them to use.