Pandora's Atomic Box Score: On the Nuclear Industry's Total Meltdown

[caraher]

11. It's important to note exactly what position societies and scientists are agreeing with

The main thing to acknowledge is that it's not something like 98% (or some other smaller majority number) say we need to go full-bore nuclear for electricity. These statements are about continuing to develop nuclear plants, or keeping nuclear plants in the mix, without any implication that other non-fossil fuel energy sources ought to be ignored. I'd certainly consider it probable that a majority of physicists would consider continued use and development of nuclear energy to be something they'd support.

At the same time, I'd say a majority of physicists would also support a whole constellation of wind, solar and other non-nuclear fossil fuel technologies. For instance, the sentence preceding your excerpt from the 1993 APS statement is, "We therefore endorse increases in federal funding and general support for programs in conservation and in the development of renewable energy sources," and of course your excerpt from the second statement kicks off with an endorsement of renewables." It's a true "all of the above" stance, rather than a privileging of nuclear above possible alternatives.

As I understand your position, it is that fossil fuel alternatives other than nuclear are essentially pointless distractions. I'm quite sure you won't find 98% of scientists, or 98% of physicists and engineers, assenting to that extreme position. I do believe the Pew result showing 70% of scientists supporting nuclear power on some level; I'd imagine the same scientists would also support renewables at an even higher level had they been asked.