Paul Wilson & Bret Bennington vs Arnie Gundersen & Heidi Hutner on Nuclear Sustainability

On Nov 20, 2014, Hofstra University hosted its annual Pride and Purpose Debate. This year’s proposition was the following – “Should nuclear energy be expanded to help create a more sustainable future?”

The debate included the following panelists:

For – J Bret Bennington, professor of geology, Department of Geology, Environment and Sustainability at Hofstra University.
Against – Arnie Gundersen, a member of the Board of Directors for Fairewinds Energy Education.
Against – Heidi Hutner, director of sustainability studies and associate professor of sustainability and english at Stony Brook University.
For – Paul Wilson, spokesperson for the American Nuclear Society and professor of nuclear engineering, Department of Engineering Physics and faculty director of the advanced computing initiative at University of Wisconsin-Madison

There are several Gundersen whoppers including a claim that solar power in New York City costs 4 cents per kilowatt hour and a statement that off-shore wind will meaningfully contribute to powering the entire state of New York. He also stated that Arjun Makhijani has doubled down on his claim that it is possible to have a carbon-free, nuclear-free power system by moving his transition completion target date back from 2050 to 2035.

At the very end, Gundersen explains why he soured on the nuclear industry in 1990, 19 years after he earned his MS in Nuclear Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

There’s nothing like carrying a personal grudge for nearly a quarter of a century against an industry made up of more than 100,000 people based on a conflict with an employer.

I’ve admired Paul Wilson (@gonuke) for many years. He is an extremely knowledgable teacher and an effective public speaker. Gundersen had no answers when Paul asked how he could consider off-shore wind to be a “distributed power source” or how many zeros were behind the number of wind turbines and solar panels that needed to be installed each week to match his sides claim that making a significant dent in CO2 emissions with nuclear would require completing one plant every week somewhere around the world from now until 2050.

There was no vote taken at the end of this debate, but there is little doubt who provided the most effective and thought provoking points for his side of the proposition.

Political battles hampering function of important agency

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is supposed to be an independent regulator with the mission of regulating the use of radioactive materials to adequately protect public safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. Unfortunately, the Commission has become a political battle ground that makes life difficult for the people appointed to lead […]

Read more »

Antinuclear activists are too modest

Jim Conca has published a couple of recent posts on Forbes.com about the premature closure of nuclear power plants in the United States. One titled Are California’s Carbon Goals Kaput? focuses on some of the environmental aspects of the San Onofre debacle; the other, titled Closing Vermont Nuclear Bad Business for Everyone focuses on the […]

Read more »

Continuing conversation with NRC Chairman Macfarlane

On September 11, 2014, the American Nuclear Society hosted a roundtable discussion for nuclear bloggers with Allison Macfarlane, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The meeting was broadcast as a webinar, but there were also seats available in the conference room from which Dr. Macfarlane and Margaret Harding (the ANS moderator) were running the […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #223 – Diablo Saudi UAE Ukraine S Korea

On September 7, 2014, I gathered a group of nuclear energy observers to discuss a variety of topics of interest to people who believe energy is important. We talked about Diablo Canyon’s earthquake resilience, Saudi Arabia’s interest in a rapid growth in nuclear energy production, the certification of the APR+ in South Korea, the progress […]

Read more »

Is it really necessary to have a deep geologic repository for used nuclear fuel?

Though I have often received quizzical, almost uncomprehending looks from my type ‘A’ colleagues on submarines and in my other jobs, I’ve often been guided by a simple principal of decision-making – “If it’s too hard, quit.” Please don’t think that means I’m the type of person who can never get anything done or who […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #222 – How Proposed EPA CO2 Rule Rewards States for Replacing Nuclear With Gas

On August 20, 2014, Remy DeVoe, a graduate student in nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee, published an earthshaking piece on ANS Nuclear Cafe titled Unintended Anti-Nuclear Consequences Lurking in the EPA Clean Power Plan. Unfortunately, there has been a bit of a delayed reaction; so far, only the most carefully tuned instruments have […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #221 – Acting Locally

On August 25, 2014, a group of atomic energy advocates gathered to share experiences and advice about how nuclear energy advocates can more effectively act locally. We discussed ways to find people who are interested in atomic energy, ways to develop social interaction, ways to show our humanity, and ways to make it fun to […]

Read more »

Esso Italiana paid political parties for specific “corporate objectives” including oil instead of nuclear

In 1972, an Exxon internal audit disclosed that Esso Italiana, Exxon’s Italian subsidiary, had been making payments to Italian political parties that were tied by amount to specific corporate objectives. One of the objectives that was listed on documents seized by Italian authorities was halting nuclear energy development in Italy in favor of burning more […]

Read more »

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy – Power for USA

Update: (Posted 08/21/2014 at 7:35) Donn Dears and I have continuing exchanging comments on his blog post about the destruction of nuclear energy. Atomic Insights readers might be intrigued by the way that the experienced, retired GE executive is responding to the “smoking gun” type stories I have shared with him. End Update. I was […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #220 – Atoms for California

Wind farm land impact is not limited to turbine foundation

Andrew Benson from Atoms For California contacted me last week to find out if I was interested in having a conversation about the history of nuclear energy in California, with a special focus on the history of the antinuclear movement in that trend-setting state. It sounded like a great idea for an Atomic Show so […]

Read more »

Armond Cohen: Looks at Lovins’s claims with questioning analysis

A few hours ago, I posted a blog titled Amory Lovins-speak: Three misleading statements in a 15 second sound bite. That post included a video embed of Lovins presentation during a March 28, 2014 symposium sponsored by the Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth titled Three Mile Island 35th Anniversary Symposium: The Past, Present, and […]

Read more »