The Environmental Integrity Project and Nuclear Energy

Yesterday, the Environmental Integrity Project issued a report entitled, Dirty Kilowatts (PDF), a listing of what they termed were the top 50 most polluting power plants in the U.S. And while nobody likes pollution, some folks weren't happy with their tone.

Here's Don Surber:

The tax-exempt Environmental Integrity Project in Washington, D.C., issued its annual list of the 50 dirtiest power plants in America. This is illustrated by a photo showing steam — water vapor — escaping from a cooling tower. Sigh.

I chuckled a little bit when I read that one. After all, anti-nukes have been using pictures of parabolic cooling towers for years to symbolize the "danger" of nuclear power plants, even though many non-nuclear plants also have cooling towers.

In any case, on to the report. Here's Bill Hobbs at Eco Totality:

While the EIP press release urges the retirement of the oldest, least-efficient, most-polluting coal-fired power plants, I searched in vain on the EIP website to find a positive mention of nuclear power, the only existing power-generation technology that can produce power in sufficient quantities to replace coal. Instead, the EIP calls for “investments in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power,” which even the most optimistic forecasts show will produce only a few percentage points of our energy needs.

[...]

It is, flatly, irresponsible for EIP to call for shutting down a major source of electricity production but only proposing a solution to replace a minor part of it. “Investments in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power,” as EIP calls for, cost money. That’s what the word “investments” mean Somebody - business, taxpayers - has to pay for it. Economic growth is how they’ll afford to pay for it. That economic growth can’t happen without sufficient power.

I’ll be impressed with the Environmental Integrity Project when they have the integrity to either endorse expanded nuclear power, or admit that they don’t have a viable replacement for all the coal-generated power they want to shut down.

It's blog posts like this one that actually inspired me to start NEI Nuclear Notes. Hobbs is clearly saying that he'd accept an expanded role for nuclear energy in electricity generation specifically because it generates large amounts of baseload power without emitting greenhouse gases.

In other words, everybody gets what they want. Environmentalists get emission-free power, and those concerned with economic growth get abundant, affordable power.

Once you get past the rhetoric, there's a deal to be made here.