In an increasing age of misinformation, it’s crucial that people have an accurate understanding of what the modern nuclear industry looks like. Written by Juliann Edwards, Chief Development Officer of The Nuclear Company
MCJ, why are you lending your channel to an incomplete, clearly biased and laughably transparent shill from a nuclear company that doesn’t even mention a fundamental challenge nuclear continues to face: cost? From someone who claims “$16B clean energy build out” from a prior role trying to make Transcanada look good, no less?
“Sponsorship” $$$ to carry it?
Nuclear has real strengths, risks, and barriers. This undermines an effective discussion of all of those, and destroys your credibility.
Other channels have the integrity to clearly label sponsored content. You can do so much better, MCJ team. We need you to do better to effectively address the scale of the challenge and opportunity we face.
Let's see what Indigenous people have to say about this. They've got a strong historical interest, looking backwards and forwards. There is a range of perspectives, of course, but to expand this conversation, check out November's "Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Bulletin – Final Report on 2024 Dialogue Sessions and Recommendations to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)."
The full report includes 8 recommendations, the first being:
"The AFN respectfully urges that comprehensive and meaningful dialogue, consultation, and engagement be undertaken with all affected First Nations throughout the site selection process, and before any critical decisions are made regarding the Deep Geological Repository or transportation routes. It is essential that the perspectives of all First Nations who rely on the same watershed as the proposed site, as well as those along the transportation route, be respected and fully integrated, in a manner that honors their inherent right to self-determination. This approach will ensure a more inclusive and equitable process for all."
The second is "The AFN strongly urges that robust First Nations-led emergency response plans and communication systems be developed and implemented prior to site selection and the transportation of nuclear waste through First Nations lands. This includes comprehensive source water protection measures for First Nations."
great comment. it's imperative to consider the environmental and social impacts of the plants' construction and operation. power transition is vital in the XXI century, but it has to be responsible, respectful, and ethical.
Myth no2: storing nuclear waste on the site of the power plant is not „waste management“. This is just hoping that someone else will pick up the problem once the operator has other economic incentives. Nuclear waste is a generational problem, no company will be long enough around to be able to manage this correctly. If the government has to take over the waste management as it has done in Germany than the costs are externalized to the society with the economic benefits for the operators.
Why don’t you talk about the costs and delays of building new plants?
The dismissal of nuclear waste as an enormous obstacle is cold comfort for those of us living near the shuttered San Onofre nuclear plant in Southern California. Yes, the operator, Southern California Edison, was responsible for the waste but — no surprise here — they put cost before safety and now we have tons of nuclear waste sitting in casks that are supposed to be “temporary” just 100 feet from the ocean! Sea level rise, earthquakes, and bad actors are all concerns. And it must be emphasized: there is still no plan for permanent storage - ANYWHERE in the US.
MCJ, why are you lending your channel to an incomplete, clearly biased and laughably transparent shill from a nuclear company that doesn’t even mention a fundamental challenge nuclear continues to face: cost? From someone who claims “$16B clean energy build out” from a prior role trying to make Transcanada look good, no less?
“Sponsorship” $$$ to carry it?
Nuclear has real strengths, risks, and barriers. This undermines an effective discussion of all of those, and destroys your credibility.
Other channels have the integrity to clearly label sponsored content. You can do so much better, MCJ team. We need you to do better to effectively address the scale of the challenge and opportunity we face.
I hope and believe you can.
Let's see what Indigenous people have to say about this. They've got a strong historical interest, looking backwards and forwards. There is a range of perspectives, of course, but to expand this conversation, check out November's "Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Bulletin – Final Report on 2024 Dialogue Sessions and Recommendations to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)."
Overview at https://afn.ca/all-news/bulletins/assembly-of-first-nations-afn-bulletin-final-report-on-2024-dialogue-sessions-and-recommendations-to-the-nuclear-waste-management-organization-nwmo/
The full report includes 8 recommendations, the first being:
"The AFN respectfully urges that comprehensive and meaningful dialogue, consultation, and engagement be undertaken with all affected First Nations throughout the site selection process, and before any critical decisions are made regarding the Deep Geological Repository or transportation routes. It is essential that the perspectives of all First Nations who rely on the same watershed as the proposed site, as well as those along the transportation route, be respected and fully integrated, in a manner that honors their inherent right to self-determination. This approach will ensure a more inclusive and equitable process for all."
The second is "The AFN strongly urges that robust First Nations-led emergency response plans and communication systems be developed and implemented prior to site selection and the transportation of nuclear waste through First Nations lands. This includes comprehensive source water protection measures for First Nations."
great comment. it's imperative to consider the environmental and social impacts of the plants' construction and operation. power transition is vital in the XXI century, but it has to be responsible, respectful, and ethical.
well said. And Free, Prior and Informed Consent is the key to that.
Myth no1: what about Fukushima in 2011? At least one direct death due to radiation and multiple directly correlated cancers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_casualties?wprov=sfti1
Myth no2: storing nuclear waste on the site of the power plant is not „waste management“. This is just hoping that someone else will pick up the problem once the operator has other economic incentives. Nuclear waste is a generational problem, no company will be long enough around to be able to manage this correctly. If the government has to take over the waste management as it has done in Germany than the costs are externalized to the society with the economic benefits for the operators.
Why don’t you talk about the costs and delays of building new plants?
Very biased piece.
The dismissal of nuclear waste as an enormous obstacle is cold comfort for those of us living near the shuttered San Onofre nuclear plant in Southern California. Yes, the operator, Southern California Edison, was responsible for the waste but — no surprise here — they put cost before safety and now we have tons of nuclear waste sitting in casks that are supposed to be “temporary” just 100 feet from the ocean! Sea level rise, earthquakes, and bad actors are all concerns. And it must be emphasized: there is still no plan for permanent storage - ANYWHERE in the US.