Nukes
So odd, to hear from another old person. Perhaps the young parrots will learn this song and inspire some discussion. More likely he will be vilified and cast out of the Green circles. Such is the result of speaking your mind - even if you have green blood.
n the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That’s the conviction that inspired Greenpeace’s first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands.
Personally I have no use for Greenpeace - talk about zealots who have gone overboard. But that’s not to say that some of the underlying principles weren’t correct.
More than 30 years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be an energy source that can help save our planet from another potential disaster: the serious negative impacts of climate change.
WHAT!!! Understanding??? Compromise??? These are the marks of an intelligent being.
Start positive.
Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.
Admit the dangers.
Although I don’t want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous.
Point out reality.
What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in one sense a success story: The concrete containment structure did what it was designed to do — prevent large amounts of radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury among nuclear workers or nearby residents.
Especially the emotional factor.
Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn’t been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.
State your position.
I have come to realize that nuclear energy — along with a stronger focus on renewables, like wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power — is essential to providing a sustainable supply of electricity.
Give examples.
The pioneering British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock now believes nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels.
Accentuate the positive.
When I spoke recently to a packed house on the issue of a sustainable energy future, I argued that the only way to reduce fossil-fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable-energy sources plus nuclear. A Greenpeace spokesman was first at the mike for the question period, and I expected a tongue-lashing. Instead, he began by saying he agreed with much of what I said — not the nuclear bit, of course, but there was a clear feeling that all options must be explored.
Provide logical reasons.
Here’s why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can’t replace large primary plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building large-scale plants.
The article goes on to discuss specific situations. While others may disagree with the conclusion of this introspection I have not seen a better example of the format for a discussion. The result, however. will be the same - he will be vilified by the greener-than-thou elite. It doesn’t matter if you are talking about religion, politics, or environmentalism, the ones in power will use intimidation to keep people in line. My applause for Patrick Moore who risked much to state his opinion.
- Posted in : Environment, In the News, Philosophy, Politics, Positive Change, Renewable Energy, Science
- Author :Rt
Comments»
Sorry to disappoint you RT. As soon as I saw the first paragraph I knew what the article would say.
Please read this to find out why Patrick Moore is pro-nuclear : http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore_on_Nuclear_Power
Greenpeace disowned him years ago.
James Lovelock is a fatalist who believes we are doomed anyway, so is it really worth going to him for answers? In the UK we have been reading the writings of George Monbiot for many years. We have also experienced the anti-wind power lobby being heavily funded (via a faux organisation called Country Guardian) by the nuclear industry. It’s sad to think that this kind of thing is still hot news in the USA, but I can’t really blame you : after all, people only repeat what they hear in the media day after day.
Keith
I guess I can be counted as one of the greens who may be pilloried for considering nuclear energy as a necessary bridge from fossil fuels to a sustainable energy economy. Considering our short term options, nuclear energy is far preferable to coal. Eventually we will be able to make a full transition to renewable sources, but if we rely upon coal as our bridge to that point we will add many, many tons more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
There remain a number of issues that need to be addressed before we embark on a new wave of nuclear plant construction. How do we deal with long term storage of nuclear waste? How do we secure this waste so it does not pose a security risk? How do we deal with security issues related to nuclear plants? How do we deal with the large cost of nuclear plants? I’d like to see the conversation shift to these questions, as I haven’t heard satisfactory answers from industry.
OtherDoug: You left out one important question, is nuclear energy carbon neutral at all? I would say the construction, and continued mining of uranium puts a rather large amount of co2 into the air. I think we have the technology to supply all of of our needs with solar, wind, geothermal, bio-mass, and other green technologies without using nuclear.
Their may come a point when we HAVE to go nuclear, but that time will only come if we sit on our hands and do nothing.
keith, you only disappoint me in your inability to consider all aspects of a situation. I care not that “Greenpeace disowned him years ago.”.
I am closer to a skeptical optimist than a fatalist. I certainly believe we live and die by our choices.
I am neither Democrat nor Republican, neither green nor brown, neither pro nor anti nuke.
I just listen, think, and decide. Often the listening takes much time, the deciding even more, but the decision has to be made.
I prefer to have the best information available. That means not stifling people’s viewpoints who may not agree with mine.
I believe these issues are more complex than you make them out to be. Whatever you think of the US is irrelevant to the discussion.
Naib, is PV carbon neutral? I bet you can’t find out.
Sorry RT, you have completely lost me. I have the same views as you have in terms of objectivity, and (as you will see from my Earth Blog articles) actively research all my facts prior to making any statements. I have no, I repeat no, political affiliations. I do believe nuclear power is dangerous in the wrong hands, and should only be used as a last resort.
I’m sorry if you don’t like my statements, but if you would like to point out which of them is not based on fact then I will be happy to retract. All of the statements I made in my comment are factual - apart from the last one, which just applies to about 99% of people.
Keith
naib,
I think it was you who compared our attention span to that of a fruit fly. I really did think it was good :)
The point being, nukes take a long time to bring on line. If you don’t plan for them, considering the dire predictions for the planet, then they arrive too late.
We are either in crisis mode or we are not. The decisions in our planning depends on that determination.
keith, I am so glad you are here to keep the 99% of us on the right track.
The Naib:
According to Siemens (admittedly not an unbiased source) the breakdown for CO2 emissions for various energy sources is:
Lignite: 0.96 kg CO2 per kWh
Hard coal: 0.78
Oil: 0.76
NatGas: 0.35
Solar PV: 0.20
Wind: 0.02
Hydro: 0.004
Nuclear: 0.025
The numbers include emissions due to original construction of plant & fuel calculated over the estimated lifetime of the plant. The hydro numbers would be much worse if you included methane from reservoirs. The solar number is high because of the energy used in manufacturing the semiconductor material.
Now if you could manufacture all of the PV & wind equipment using renewable sources the numbers would drop to zero, which is the goal. In the meantime we end up with the paradoxical situation of nuclear having CO2 emissions lower than PV. If anyone has numbers that contradict these ones I would really, really like to see them.
I agree with you that it would be better to develop solar, wind, wave & tide hydro, biomass, geothermal, etc. prior to pursuing the nuclear option. Still, if it’s a choice between nuclear and coal in the short term, I’ll take nuclear.
OtherDoug,
thank you for entertaining concepts you mind rejects. There is some quote about that but it is not germane.
Neither of us has said the decision has been made. We just want to weigh the pros and cons.
PS: Sourcing - Morris, Craig “Energy Switch”, fig. 6.4, pg. 84, 2006, ISBN 13: 978-0-86571-559-2
Actually I typed that in response to your first comment.
Now I have to read your second comment :)
I’m not a huge fan of nuclear in general. They’re generally white elephants in an economic sense. If we had dumped the subsidies into renewables that we have into nuclear we would not even be having this conversation now. Spilt milk and all that…
The big question is who actually will make rational decisions about the technologies that get supported, whether standardized designs will be adopted, per France, or whether we’ll run into the same bog that we did in the 70s-80s. I hold out little hope that decent decision making will happen until there’s new leadership in the US gov’t.
Actually, Odoug, we don’t deal too much in reality here - we prefer emotions.
Rt
Am I to believe that you disagree with my comment that “All of the statements I made in my comment are factual”. Please, rather than make a derogatory comment, at least say which of my statements are not factual. I have never tried to pull the wool over anyones eyes, and I believe in facts, and perhaps a bit of rhetoric to get my points across (as does any writer).
For your information, I would say that the 99% of people repeating what they hear and see in the media is pretty accurate for most industrialised countries with a powerful corporate media base. I was hoping that you would see yourself as part of that 1%.
Here is something you might like to read:
http://www.howies.co.uk/content.php?xId=78&xPg=1
Are you one of them? I believe so.
Keith
I will cover your original comment to see if there is anything to disagree with.
Sorry to disappoint you RT. - If you are apologizing, no need. You are presuming I am disappointed.
As soon as I saw the first paragraph I knew what the article would say. - Ok, I’ll take your word for it. I presume you kept reading just in case there might be a surprise.
Please read this to find out why Patrick Moore is pro-nuclear : http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore_on_Nuclear_ - I did, but I don’t know that I care why he is pro nuke. The purpose of my post was to compliment him on presenting a well defined position - a good starting point for a discussion. I said, “While others may disagree with the conclusion of this introspection I have not seen a better example of the format for a discussion.” In fact my closing paragraph says nothing ofr or against nukes.
Greenpeace disowned him years ago. - Again, I’ll take your word on that, but it is not germane to the post.
James Lovelock is a fatalist who believes we are doomed anyway, so is it really worth going to him for answers? - I have to take your word on his personality, but I don’t see how that dicredits him as an authority. I thought this was a rhetorical question.
In the UK we have been reading the writings of George Monbiot for many years. - Ok, I’ll accept that - and?
We have also experienced the anti-wind power lobby being heavily funded (via a faux organisation called Country Guardian) by the nuclear industry. - So nuclear technology is an unviable solution because you don’t like the humans involved with it?
It’s sad to think that this kind of thing is still hot news in the USA, but I can’t really blame you : after all, people only repeat what they hear in the media day after day. - You started the slurs. I don’t think my derogatory remark was any worse than yours.
That was your first post sentence by sentence. I see nothing to refute, you stated nothing but opinions. Oddly, none of the opinions had anything to do with the use of nuclear power to stave off the impending doom of global warming. That is the discussion the post was supposed to generate, not opinions about Patrick Moore. Yet, as I predicted, “Perhaps the young parrots will learn this song and inspire some discussion. More likely he will be vilified and cast out of the Green circles.” the discussion became about the author and not the subject.
Rt, I’m just glad that for once, just once, someone who was at one time so radically against Nukes (as i once was) can actually admit that their “worldview” is subject to change as time goes on.
But, I still find it perplexing that one has to “risk” anything to show the enviro types and even those of us that are on the “right” a different point of view. I really enjoyed how you broke down what you were saying into bite sized pieces so it could be consumed by even the
most radical on both sides. I thank you. I am refreshed.
thanks cash I didnt see that guess I should have looked better than New York ass and titties, I didnt see that, ok that settles that suggestion! does every one feel the need to post in my huge free cock pictures threads EVERY single time?
What is our new agenda?
We need some way of gaining access to the ICBM launch mechanism in either Europe, China, India or America. Once we launch these nukes at various cities many of the global issues will be resolved.