This morning Diane Rehm had a panel discussing the future of nuclear energy, in light of the two plant shutdowns in the east this weekend for abnormalities. The guests were Arjun Mahkijani, director of IEER in DC, a clean energy advocacy group, Matthew Wald, long time nuclear energy reporter for the New York Times, and a Scott Peterson, who is an industry lobbyist.

I called in after Wald and Peterson kept saying these outrageous statements about how clean and inexpensive nuclear power was. I was surprised, but I actually got through, and after a substantial wait, got on the air. I brought up the fuel cycle, and how from the mining to the conversion to the enrichment to the fabrication, these plants utilized fossil fuel, were highly polluted and required billions of dollars in cleanup if they can be cleaned up, and required transportation of very heavy materials long distances.

Peterson jumped in and said that a study by the University of Wisconsin found that the "life cycle" of nuclear power emissions was about that of hydroelectric power. I got cut off and couldn 't respond, but that isn't what that study says at all. http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/lifecycleemissions... But, since you can link to it on the NEI (industry advocate organization) website, it obviously has become on their talking points. Unfortunately for them, the study doesn't even do a full lifecycle analysis of nuclear energy. It only looks at natural gas and photovoltaics in detail.

"Statistics lie and liars use statistics." Yeah, I've always remembered that quote. Liar liar pants on fire, Mr. Peterson!

But the most shocking and surprising part of the show was how much of an out and out industry advocate Matthew Wald is. I actually have met him, one time, when he came to Paducah for a hearing on an EIS for the depleted uranium conversion facility. Kristi actually was quoted in his story. I always thought that he tried hard not to come too close to the environmentalists, but on this show, he was almost like an industry shrill, and he said things that were simply superficial and not based on fact - like nuclear power is clean and cheap. I will take his articles in an entirely different light from here on out. And as much as I like the New York Times, shame shame.