Dems need to consider nuclear energy
Commentator Will Marshall says there's a missing element in the Democratic party's platform that needs to be looked at more closely -- the future of nuclear power.
Will Marshall (Progressive Policy Institute)
More on Commentaries, Politics
Links
TEXT OF STORY
KAI RYSSDAL: Hillary Clinton is going to be the headliner tonight at the Democratic National Convention. She and the other speakers taking the podium can be expected to hammer the Republicans on the economy. While the convention's on we've asked Democratic policy junkies to tell us about an issue they think the party's neglecting. Today, commentator Will Marshall says Democrats are short one plank in their energy platform.
Will Marshall: Party platforms aren't exactly beach reading. But they do tee-up the critical choices voters will face in this fall's presidential election.
The Democrats, for instance, devote big chunks of their platform to energy security and climate change. They rightly blast the Bush-Cheney policies that have turned a blind eye to science and made our country more dependent than ever on fossil fuels. And they spell out a smart, clean energy alternative.
But there's a missing element in the party's platform, and that's any discussion of the future of nuclear energy. In fact, nuclear power doesn't rate a single mention in 57 pages.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, especially in a document that calls man-made climate change the greatest threat to our planet. If that's true -- and most scientists believe it is -- shouldn't we be expanding nuclear energy, instead of ignoring it?
Nuclear energy has a huge advantage over coal. It's climate friendly. It doesn't pump any carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere. And it generates loads of power -- almost 20 percent of America's electricity needs.
Nuclear energy is no panacea. It's expensive and generates a lot of waste we haven't figured out how to get rid of yet. And Democrats are absolutely right that our country needs to invest big-time in clean and renewable fuels. But in the near term, there just isn't going to be enough solar, wind, hydro or geothermal power to keep the lights on in our offices and factories and heat our homes in the winter.
If we don't expand nuclear energy, we'll have to turn to coal and gas to meet America's growing appetite for electricity. That's an inconvenient truth for environmentalists whose hostility to nuclear power hasn't changed since the Three Mile Island incident back in 1979.
Other countries aren't so superstitious. China has plans to build dozens of new nuclear plants. And France already gets 80 percent of its electricity from atomic energy.
It's time for U.S. progressives and Democrats to break the taboo on nuclear energy. What better way to show we're serious about protecting our planet?
RYSSDAL: Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute. That's a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
09/29/2008
The Nuclear Industry spends tens of millions of dollars every year blocking clean energy legislation and trying to make us forget that nuclear is 200X more expensive than wind and solar.
Excerpt from: Nuclear’s Power Play: Give Us Subsidies or Give Us Death
By Tyson Slocum
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2008/092008/slocum.html
"'The supposed nuclear revival is a carefully manufactured illusion that seeks to become a self-fulfilling prophecy,” write Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, “yet it cannot actually occur in a market economy, as many energy-industry leaders privately acknowledge.”
Lovins and Sheikh, and other nuclear critics, say nuclear power is so uneconomic that there is no reason to debate how safe it is — the technology should be ruled out on economic grounds alone. Write Lovins and Sheikh, “In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded and obsolete — so hopelessly uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe.'"
From Cortland, IL, 09/02/2008
Interesting that the people point out the large carbon footprint brought to manufacture a nuclear plant. The process is the same for wind mills and solar, dont forget they have steel components just like nuclear plants. The waste products from solar panel processing are far more harmful than the radioactive waste produced in nuke plants. And as for subsidies, the reason wind power is so 'big on investors' is the over 70% subsidy wond power currently enjoys. Spin the facts both ways .....
From Tucson, AZ, 08/30/2008
To the staff and management at Marketplace:
I have heard several pro-nuclear pieces on Marketplace, complete with misinformation, over the last couple of years. Compared with these past inaccuracies, Will Marshall also has not gotten his facts straight. He says that nuclear energy does not pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Nuclear energy has 20 steps of the fuel cycle, 18 of which require coal and other fossil fuel. For example, mining and milling of uranium is taking more and more coal and oil energy each year as ore quality has been quickly declining. The whole nuclear fuel cycle puts substantial amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, contrary to Will’s opinion piece. That Will presents himself as founder of the Progressive Policy Institute is amazing: commercial nuclear energy is a regressive 20th Century technology, not progressive. Please bring on a qualified guest to balance Will’s perspective, like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute or Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Also see our website SafeEnergyAnalyst.org for more information on the fuel cycle.
(Lowes is pronounced like Rose.)
08/29/2008
Thanks to several of you for the reference:
"See www.ieer.org, download CARBON-FREE AND NUCLEAR-FREE, A Roadmap for US Energy Policy."
I did download and read the report. After reading it, I am more convinced than ever that we need nuclear power.
From East Moriches, NY, 08/29/2008
Who is this Will Marshall, somebody's brother-in-law? Can you not find someone who can pronounce the name of the subject on which he is commentating?? There is no cue in nuclear. None. Never. What else did he get wrong? He has zero credibility.
From Kokomo, IN, 08/28/2008
As someone who actually works at producing electricity (nuclear at the moment), it is frustrating to hear commentary only from policy wonks, spokespeople and reporters about our energy future - when it is clear most of us don't understand our energy present. If we want to know what war is like, we ask soldiers. But for energy matters, we only ask people far, far removed from the actions on the ground.
So how is electricity actually produced? In my own area of expertise, what's the good and bad of nuclear? (There's plenty of both.) I've answered these questions within a thriller novel to make them easier to digest. It's free online at RadDecision.blogspot.com (and also in paperback). Readers seem to like it.
From Florence, MA, 08/28/2008
Misplaced subsidies makes nuclear look much more inexpensive than it really is. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute believes that the "free" market has already ruled out nuclear. No one is investing in it! Plus, the nuclear cycle from mining uranium to storing wastes uses much more fossil fuel than is generally recognized. Let's go clean--wind, solar, geo-thermal, tides--and begin trying to save the environment and the planet
Will -- I am serious about protecting our planet -- we are in Climate Crisis -- AND I oppose nuclear energy. We have to stop burning coal, however it is a false dichotomy to say that expanding nuclear power is the only near-term option to do this. A major investor who is worried about rapid energy transition (Pickens) is not investing in new nukes -- not only do they cost too much, they take too long-- it takes 6 -- 12 years to get a new nuke on line! The nuclear supply-chain is broken -- the supply of key reactor components worldwide in 2007 would build a total of 4 western nuclear power plants. Ramping up solar is actually more feasible -- and wind is already the fastest growing new capacity on the planet. Social investment in new nukes would squander the precious resources we have for real solutions to the Climate Crisis challenge. I want to bring to your attention a new study published within the last year: "Carbon Free, Nuclear Free: A Roadmap for US Energy Policy, by Dr. Arjun Makhijani. This book offers a path of transition to NO COAL and NO NUKES (no new ones and also phasing out the ones we have) by 2050. Makhijani was a skeptic when asked to answer the question whether this is possible. He surprised himself -- and hopefully the rest of the thoughtful world -- with the answer: not only is carbon-free AND nuclear-free possible by 2050 -- it is cheaper than business as usual or new nukes. The entire book is available to download at no charge at http://www.ieer.org. Please do!
Kai -- to be fair and balanced -- please get Dr. Makhijani on your show FAST!
Sincerely,
Douglas Renick
From Stockton, CA, 08/28/2008
What isn't mentioned in the Democrats Platform, I am willing to bet, is the need to control human numbers as an energy conservation, peace and justice strategy. There can be no energy future or peace and justice on the planet without reducing both our numbers and our consumption rates. Energy sources such as fossil fuels and uranium are finite and are no long term solution. Nuclear involves dangerous wastes and expensive decomissioning. Building nuclear powers plants and drilling for more oil are not viable solutions to the problem of too many of us. Overpopulation requires contraceptive strategies and motivational education or just a plain old epidmic or famine if using our smarts doesn't work.
I would also point out that with rising sea levels some of our nuclear power plant may be subject to flooding in the future. Better watch where they are built, if we should be so stupid as to build more of them.
From Wadesboro, NC, 08/27/2008
I don't believe Will Marshall IS a Progressive. If he was, he would be smarter than to buy the lie that more nuclear power is needed - just to boil water! Here are some easily verifiable facts:
-Nuclear energy wastes millions of gallons of water per day, totally unthinkable in times of drought.
-France had to shut down 3/4 of its nuclear reactors last summer, just when they were needed most...because the cooling water was too warm. France is facing waste storage, water pollution and other problems. Countries like Cloudy Germany and Oil-rich Abu Dhabi are using the latest in SOLAR energy.
-No one knows what to do with nuclear waste. It stays a killer for thousands of years!
-The pretext of nuclear energy encourages the restart of nuclear proliferation and gives countries like Iran an excuse to work with it.
-Old uranium mines out West are still contaminating and poisoning people - you may SAY nuclear plants are safe, but they do pollute air and water. Very likely that nuclear power contaminants are to blame for the huge increase in cancers in the US. Just because no one sees black smoke out of the stacks doesn't mean "Clean".
-The cost would be in the tens of billions of dollars per plant, take 10 years to build and divert time and funds from solar, wind, wave, geothermal, algae, green building..truly clean energy available NOW.
See www.ieer.org, download CARBON-FREE AND NUCLEAR-FREE, A Roadmap for US Energy Policy. I heard the author speak. Pg 41 shows our US Naval Base powered by solar photovoltaic panels installed over their existing parking lot - not a tree to chop down. Employees can park underneath out of the weather...and when we finally get hybrids, they can plug in as well.
Sorry to be cynical, but I think Will is getting at least some of his funding from Westinghouse, Areva or some of the megapower companies who are paying off everyone who will accept their handouts these days.
From Poestenkill, NY, 08/27/2008
Looks like no one yet has mentioned that a "new" design of nuclear reactor, implementing high energy neutrons facilitated by liquid sodium coolant as compared to the traditional water coolant, is capable of using the radioactive "waste" that is left in "spent" nuclear fuel. This type of reactor would greatly reduce the amount of mining needed, as "spent" fuel from a traditional reactor has only used 5% or less of the potential fission energy. Sodium cooled reactors would "burn" the plutonium created in the old reactors and reduce the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. The reason we're not hearing much about this is that these new plants would be expensive to build and their future is uncertain, due to the public's anxiety over nuclear energy, to the companies that would otherwise be interested in building them.
If the companies running nuclear power plants were not subsidized in their handling of their nulear "waste" by the government, but had to pay for the tens of thousands of years of storage and security, building these new plants to use up the waste would look a lot more attractive.
From Reno, NV, 08/27/2008
Nucular - noun - a term commonly used by unintelligent blowhards who, for some reason, are totally against completely clean energy sources like wind and solar.
From Columbia, MD, 08/27/2008
I guess Mr. Marshall's commentary must have been interesting. But Jason is right. Alas, I only heard one word--over and over and over--NUKE-U-LER. Can't help myself, folks. He said it so many times, it almost sounded correct! I'm sure he'd wanna know. Would someone please pass it on to him?
From Minneapolis, MN, 08/27/2008
The credibility of any policy organization decreases exponentially every time its head says "nucular" -- especially as many times as Will Marshall said it in yesterday's piece. My opposition to this form of energy has now grown by leaps and bounds, purely out of spite.
From s.Wellfleet, MA, 08/27/2008
What Will Marshall faled to mention in his commentary is that the nuclear fuel cycle,mining refing disposal etal will, in fact exacerbate carbon emissions leading to climate disruption. But the media, by and large is too busy promoting nuclear power to tell us that. By the way, this is hardly the first time 'public' radio has shilled for nuclear energy. MornEd. had a shamelessly biased piece on 'environmentalists" reconsidering nuclear energy. But they didn't talk to any serious environmentalists. Could that be because businesses with a vested interest in nuclear give alot of financial support to National "public" radio?
From NE, 08/27/2008
If Wall Street won't back these projects, why should we (the taxpayers) be forced to? Nuclear is the most expensive, least viable soltuion to the problem at hand. Without government subsidies, it has no chance. Perhaps we should listen to the market on this one.
From Abilene, TX, 08/27/2008
Mr. Marshall missed an excellent opportunity to correct a glaring misconception about nuclear energy: that it necessarily leaves behind dangerous nuclear waste.
We've known for decades how to separate the still-radioactive (i.e., energy-containing) material from spent fuel rods, reprocess it into new fuel rods, and discard the non-radioactive "ash". Jimmy Carter, however, unilaterally decided that the United States just wouldn't do that anymore, leaving us with the mess we have now.
Energy companies don't like radioactive waste any more than anyone else--it's literally wasted product. The real tragedy is that even though we've known how to eliminate it for decades, the federal government has refused to be dragged into the 1980's.
From LaGrange, GA, 08/27/2008
The DOE's solution to nuclear waste is to rename it. Everything has been reclassified to low level except spent fuel rods. For 20 years low level nuclear waste was shipped to and contaminated Middle Point Landfill in Murfreesboro, Tn, about 25 miles from Nashville. Now the big push is to "recycle" spent fuel rods. Reprocess is the correct word. Look at Hanford Washington and Savannah River Site to understand the magnitude of the problem of waste left over from recycling millitary spent fuel at these locations. Since 1990, DOE has been spending over $1 Billion each year trying to vitrify it at SRS. So far, only 2 of the 51 tanks, each larger than the state capitol dome of Georgia, have been emptied enough to grout them. Even those two tanks still had heavily radioactive crud in the bottoms and on the sides. Jay Hakes new book, "A Declaration of Energy Independence" proposes very deep well injection of the spent fuel rods instead of reprocessing. No Yucca Mountain and no reprocessing. But that will still leave the low level waste. I don't want it in a landfill near me. Do you? Since there is no acceptable way to dispose of nuclear waste, the only sane solution is to stop making any more of it.
Nuclear Power can not survive without mass government subsidies. Stop the subsidies now. Look at the newest attempt to slip hundreds of billions of dollars for nuclear into oil drilling legislation. Follow Al Gore's recommendation and go 100% renewables in 10 years. Yes we can. I want to be personally energy independent. I want an affordable solar array on my roof. Nanosolar Power sheets ware projected to cost only 10% the price of conventional photovoltaics. I want a plug in hybrid or all electric car in my garage, so that I can, as S. David Freeman said in his new book "Winning our Energy Independence," put sunshine in my tank.
From Nashville, TN, 08/27/2008
I find it interesting that so many people who are pro-nuclear power point to France and how much of their energy comes from nuclear power plants. That is fine. Almost no one points to Germany which has scheduled to take ALL of its reactors off-line by 2021. They will be going green, but not radioactive.
From Asheville, NC, 08/27/2008
Will -- some simple math:
Pickens wants a fast energy transition (anyone awake does too) -- he is putting billions into wind -- Amory Lovins says you get 2 -- 4 times more GHG reduction from a dollar into new wind than into new nukes...
Energy efficiency -- or smart use of power? Not only cost effective -- profitable! A dollar in EE = 7 -- 10 times more GHG reduction than a dollar into new nukes... don't forget the waste, security issues, and oh yeah, like another commenter said -- who is it that gets these in THEIR back yards? If you go look, it is primarily rural, low -income, and minority Southern communities...
SO nuclear = REGRESSIVE
Smart use of renewable energy = PROGRESSIVE
Please pass it on.
Mary Olson
From Chattanooga, TN, 08/27/2008
To: Will Marshall and Kai Risdal
From: YOUR NAME HERE
I've been an energy/environmental activist since the first Earth Day in 1970 and served for 30 years as a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Central Florida's Florida Solar Energy Center.
I do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power. Huge investments in new nuclear power simply diverts funds needed more for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." --Albert Einstein
Sincerely,
Dr. Ross McCluney
Chattanooga, TN
From Washington, MD, 08/27/2008
(Your state list above does not include D.C. so I put the state a mile from my house.)
To Mr. Will Marshall:
You overlooked the main reason we should not build any more nuclear plants -- nuclear waste. And don't say "the French know the answer: reprocessing." That's not accurate.
Study the subject and you will see. The French program only gets rid of about l/3 of the plutonium. Meanwhile it makes that plutonium accessible to terrorists and countries that want a nuclear weapon. As you must know, stealing a flask of plutonium is easier than stealing huge fuel rods from which you'd get a lethal dose in half an hour. Plus you'd need a giant truck to steal them, as well as your own re-processing plant to take out the plutonium.
Okay, let's put the BILLIONs, TRILLIONS probably, that it takes to develop and build enough sodium reactors necessary to reprocess -- and reprocess, and reprocess -- the irradiated rods THAT ALREADY EXIST and get the plutonium down to zero. (Assuming we get rid of the world's nuclear weapons at the same time-- enough of a project for you in itself.)
Meantime, let's don't irradiate a single fuel rod more any where on the planet.
I hope you will rethink advocating new nuclear plants and ask NPR if you may broadcast a followup retraction of your unfortunate pronuclear remarks.
From Omaha, NE, 08/27/2008
Nuclear energy is a dead horse. Yes, we can (and should) glean what we can from existing facilities, but further development is commercially non-viable. Wall street knows better than to back such projects, and the Government should stay out of it. If a solution cannot make it on the free market, why should we tax payers be expected to fund it? Get real. Forget Nukes.
From Madison, WI, 08/27/2008
- a copy of a letter I sent to Mr. Marshall today -
August 27, 2008
Dear Mr. Marshall,
I wish to take issue with your recent editorial commentary on NPR regarding nuclear power.
As someone who spent 3 1/2 years living downriver from Chernobyl in Kyiv, a city of roughly 4 million people only 60 miles away from the plant, I strongly wish to challenge your views on this terrible energy 'solution'.
No study has ever been done on the environmental costs of the cleanup that Chernobyl required in terms of carbon emissions, but I would argue it was and is immense. Millions relocated, at least 4 thousand deaths from cancer, and an ongoing reconstruction and mitigation effort. Do you really think that this is what we need in the future? Is this something you want in your back yard? Where are you going to build these plants? On Indian reservations? On the 'poor' side of town? One more thing that I think you said that was erroneous related to carbon emissions and global warming, and I believe you were quite disingenuous to suggest it, was that nuclear power does not create carbon emissions. How does it come out of the ground? How is it processed? How is it transported to and from the plants after it is refined and used? One more reason that nuclear power is bad - we are wasting valuable time and energy debating its usefulness and 'cleanliness.' I suggest you reverse your position and get on board with the push for REAL clean technology, and the most important thing that anyone can do - cut consumption!
Sincerely,
Dan Nordstrom, MSSW
From Austin, TX, 08/27/2008
Everyone should be for nuclear energy, solar energy, wind energy and every means by which we can balance our consumption of energy to minimize our dependence on fossil fuel and to control greenhouse gases. Nuclear energy usage that balances the waste against the GHG benefits almost certainly needs to be explored...and precise pronunciation shows a desire to communicate effectively and be understood. What a horrible distraction!
From Alva, FL, 08/26/2008
It is sad that there is little news coverage on the fact that solar and wind are being allowed to disappear while huge subsidies are being given to no-such-thing-as-clean coal and hazardous nukes!
For a better way, see www.ieer.org, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free, A Roadmap for US Energy Policy. This is a practical guide with all the details. Its author was recruited as a young engineer by the Carter Administration. It details such currently available technologies like solar phontovoltaic panels covering the existing parking lot of a US Naval Base. While providing 750 kW to the Base since 2002, employees can park underneath out of the weather. I'd love that at my local shopping mall. And, when folks get plug-in hybrids, they can power up while they work/shop. !Not a tree to be chopped down!
There are many other good reasons to stick to truly renewables - nukes waste millions of water per day, no one knows what to do with the waste and France was forced to cut 80% of its power last year because of overly warm water. Where's the sense of that
Progressive to me means impeach, no coal, no nukes, no lobbyists, no more of the same old, same old. Thank you.
From Ann Arbor, MI, 08/26/2008
Soon we will have a president who can speak english, I propose Mr. Marshal was trying to get his point in, while everyone argued about the pronunciation of a word, instead of the issues surrounding his old failed proposal.
There is no safe way to dispose of spent fission materials except for solar disposal. Unfortunately the energy per ton to get it there is prohibitive. Unless you expect to live for more then a couple times the half life of the material you are planning to store and keep safe from contaminating the environment, you can not guarantee that safety. You might say well a nation lives longer then a person does, and you might be right. But if you live in Georgia right now you might think otherwise.
My point is this joker is not a Democrat. He might work for a think tank with democrat in the name of it, but he's trying to bolster someones personal interest, period. So don't be fooled there is not a nuclear plank in the Democratic platform for a good reason. Mr. Marshall should keep his day job until his night job pays.
From West Columbia, SC, 08/26/2008
No other energy source has led to world wide nuclear weapons proliferation and the stockpiling of Plutonium and other weapons grade materials; or the contamination of land, air and water either from catastrophic accidents, (Chernobyl) major releases (Three Mile Island) or the daily releases of radioactive emissions and leaks from operating facilities - and yes, they do have emissions, and they leak. No other energy source is threatening to be so expensive (now up to .15/kwh as opposed to wind at .9/kwh or solar at .12/kwh), or leave behind hundreds of thousands of tons of deadly radioactive waste for which there is no good disposal solution. Even John McCain, a vocal pro-nuclear candidate, has said he does not want nuclear waste to be dumped in Arizona. And the persistent questions about cancer rates around nuclear facilities go unanswered, despite nationwide attempts by brave medical groups such as Physicians for Social Responsibility to publicize concerns. Two MUSC researchers recently published a paper investigating increased childhood cancers near nuclear sites, and there seems to be a clear link. No public discussion of new nuclear power plants will go unnoticed or unattended by the citizens and rate payers, especially now that energy rates are rising dramatically, and the rate payers are being forced to pay up front for plants that may never come on line, or from which they may never receive any benefit. And if you think utility rates are high now, wait until this new generation of nuclear plants, estimated at anywhere from $8-10 billion each, comes on line. U.S. taxpayers are being told to shell out billions in direct subsidies and also co-sign on potentially unlimited Federal loan guarantees to get the industry up and running because private investors won't take the risk . This lets utilities, their CEO's and their stockholders off the hook, and leaves taxpayers and rate payers holding all the liability. Private investors are nervous about investing in nuclear power, because it will only take one major accident to turn a $10 billion investment into a trillion dollar industry-wide disaster. The French can afford to take this gamble because the whole industry is socialized and paid for by the French taxpayers They too, are having difficulty locating a permanent repository for their waste, and don't have to be competitive or make economic sense in their energy production because of the socialized nature of their economy. True free market capitalism and competition will move America in the right direction for our energy future, not the propping up of a technology that was artificially developed in a sad attempt to rationalize the creation of the most deadly weapon humankind has ever known. Pro nuclear legislators like Sen. Graham are the recipients of large contributions from the nuclear industry. Their bias is easy to understand; less understandable is their unwillingness to look critically at an industry that reeks of coverups, bad economics, lax oversight and massive Federal subsidies.The pro nuclear crowd doesn't want dialogue because they know there are too many unanswered and unanswerable questions. In a one sided conversation its easy to convince every one that your views are right. With so many roadmaps and models out there about how to attain our energy independence without nuclear, it makes no sense to get more addicted to this radioactive technology. It's time to usher in a new age of truly green, renewable and unlimited energy sources. Let's have a national discussion about this issue, put all the cards on the table, and see whether putting all, or any, of our energy eggs in this risky basket makes any sense.
From Springfield, IL, 08/26/2008
Mispronunciation of the word aside Mr Marshall's commentary reminds me of an old joke and a variation thereof. Nuclear fusion is the energy of he future and always will be. Nuclear fission is the energy of the past and always will be.
From Luther, OK, 08/26/2008
Homer Simpson, Pres. George W. Bush, and Karl Rove may not know how to pronounce it, but if Will Marshall wants to appear on radio and be accorded any credibility, he should learn how to pronounce the word "nuclear."
From Pembroke Pines, FL, 08/26/2008
FYI - The "mispronunciation" of the subject word is very common in the nuclear power industry. I believe such pronunciation originated in the US Navy where nuclear power was first applied and from which many of the "experts" were trained.
From CO, 08/26/2008
"Nucular" energy — come on! That's how our president Bush pronounces it. Will Marshall should know better. More, he fails to address the issue of nuclear — that's NUCLEAR — waste. Sure France relies heavily on such energy, but simply dumps its highly radioactive waste in where? The ocean. Out of sight, out of mind. It's the old settlement days philosophy of "The solution to pollution is dilution!"
From Cincinnati, OH, 08/26/2008
Jimmy Carter mispronounced it too, but the more important point is that we don't need it. Google "Clean Energy Future" (select the ORNL link - there are others) and read the chart on page 5 of the Executive Summary. Then think about the implications of a y2k report which develops a strategy which eliminates all new carbon growth for 20 years at 12% less cost than doing nothing, and doesn't use any nuclear power (report mentions nothing about newcular power) when gasoline cost a buck, natural gas cost a third of today's price, and coal was half as expensive as it is now. This report is for people who like heavy lifting. The lite version is that we have enough efficiency to keep us on track to a permanent global warming solution for about two decades, by which time solar PV and solar thermal will be cheaper than new coal, which is already half the price of new nuclear power. The efficiency strategy will pump tens of billions of dollars into the economy every year, if we can get the fool factor out of the equation.
From Norfolk, VA, 08/26/2008
Dems need to consider nuclear energy?
Yes they do.
But they won't.
From North Falmouth, MA, 08/26/2008
I'm among those who was completely distracted by the mispronunciation of "nuclear." Where is this person's credibility as an "expert" or "spokesperson?"
From northfield, VT, 08/26/2008
Perfect!
You chose a "progressive" to speak on a crucial top[ic and the guy cannot pronounce the work NUCLEAR correctly.
Why have a Bush-like idiot talk about nuke you lurrr energy if you purport to be a serious program?
Then you follow him with some nonsense about wrapping gifts in MONEY!!! What planet do you folks live on?
MANY people can't afford or buy adequate,healthful provisions/food, not to mention pay for gas or fuel for heating.
How insulting!
Dr.Davidson
From Valdese, NC, 08/26/2008
After 8 years of President G.W. Bush, haven't we heard enough about "nukular" energy? Let's discuss good and not so good attributes of nuclear energy.
From Warrenton, VA, 08/26/2008
Should a follow-up commentary be scripted, answers to the following questions would help to assess opinion:
1. Where would increased capacity be sited, waste stored, & how transported;
2. What's timeframe for approval, (NIMBY response) and construction;
3. What are total capital and operating costs and funding source;
4. How do answers compare to answers for all non-fossil alternatives?
5. How can a listener take this seriously when all she can hear is blah nuCUlar blah nuCUlar?
From nyc, NY, 08/26/2008
an expert on something should be able to pronounce the name of the thing he's an expert on.
nuclear |ˈn(y)oōklēər; -kli(ə)r|
not NUKULAR
From Auburn, CA, 08/26/2008
Will Marshall calls us "superstitious" to object to nuclear energy...They have had 30+ years to figure out what to do with the waste,to no avail.I'd say
anyone who goes for this "clean" energy is superstitious that it'll work!
From Oceanside, CA, 08/26/2008
I was stunned to hear Will Marshall on your program discussing the lack of a nuclear energy policy in the Democratic Party Platform. Not so much because of the content but because of Mr. Marshall’s pronunciation of nuclear.
Just over four years ago Gregg and Evan Spiridellis made national news with their political satire “This Land” in which John Kerry’s character says to George W. Bush’s character, “You can’t say nuclear, that really scares me.”
It got me so wound up I had to look it up online to see if it was suddenly acceptable to mispronounce this word. Dictionary.com says “…pronunciation can be seen as coming from a process of metathesis, in which the [l] and the [y] change places. The resulting pronunciation is reinforced by analogy with such words as molecular, particular, and muscular, and although it occurs with some frequency among highly educated speakers, including scientists, professors, and government officials, it is disapproved of by many.”
I however remain baffled as to why someone with Mr. Marshall’s credentials would use this pronunciation.
In regards to the topic covered, I used to hold very similar beliefs to Mr. Marshall. I now feel that money spent on research, development and construction of new nuclear facilities would be better spent capitalizing on the rapid implementation of the myriad of new solar and other renewable technologies. New innovations and efficiencies in solar energy have been appearing at a breakneck pace over the last several years. We have technology and supply to use coal and gas as a stop-gap energy supply; we do not need to incur the investment to shoehorn nuclear into this role. If, on the other hand, Mr. Marshall believes that nuclear has a long term role in our nations energy policy rather than the stop-gap measure portrayed in the piece then I do think it deserves more consideration from the Democratic Party.
“nuclear – definitions from Dictionary.com” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuclear (accessed August 8th, 2008)
From Bethlehem, PA, 08/26/2008
Firstly, I swear he was saying "nook-yoo-lar" as opposed to the correct "nyook-le-ar". I lost sight of his logic as this made him sound like G.W. Bush, and about as intelligent. Secondly, the big, pink elephant in the room with nuclear energy are the waste products, and the storage of them. There is a LOT of nuclear waste that is very poorly and dangerously stored around the world right now. And very little intelligent planning and discussion of what to do about that. IF nuclear energy is going to be a Good Idea, then the myriad and very serious questions of handling waste are paramount to solve before using more of it.
From South Miami, FL, 08/26/2008
I thought the president was the only person who could get away with that particular pronunciation. Mr. Marshall may have made some valid points but I was driven to distraction by his use of the word "nucular".
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.