As I've noted, in places like Canada and Europe, nuclear energy has been successfully reframed as an important "middle way" compromise solution in the debate over what to do about global warming. Now a report out today from the Oxford Research Group casts doubt on the potential of nuclear. From Reuters:
The surge in political popularity of nuclear power as a quick-fix, zero-carbon solution to global warming is misguided and potentially highly dangerous, a group of academics and scientists said on Monday. In its report "Secure energy, civil nuclear power, security and global warming", the Oxford Research Group said there was not enough uranium available and nuclear nations would therefore tend to opt for reprocessing spent fuel to obtain plutonium. "A multiplication of reprocessing and the resulting international trade in weapons-useable materials would create more opportunities for states, criminal organisations or terrorists to acquire weapons-useable materials," it said.
Matthew -
I'm curious about your attitude toward the usefulness/effectiveness of "reports" like this by advocacy bodies. As is common, this report restates information, ideas and arguments that are not new. From the advocates' perspective, is the idea here that the packaging and issuance of a "report" creates news media attention? What other role or roles do they play in the public discourse?
Much of the Oxford report is recycled charges that the industry has debunked before:
http://tinyurl.com/2fnu4q
If big-government, nanny-state market interference had a poster child, the cooling towers of a nuclear plant would be it.