| Greenpeace founder gone Nuclear |
| Written by Hank Green | ||
| Sunday, 16 April 2006 | ||
|
The founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore , has an article in the Washington Post this week championing nuclear power. I know this sounds really weird. But it sounds less weird if we consider that the coal industry is flattening the mountains of Appalachia, killing workers in mines and emitting 67% of America's carbon dioxide.  If we're worried about global warming (and here at EcoGeek, we are) then we need viable alternatives. The only real alternative we have right now is nuclear. EcoGeek, as of yet, doesn't have a clear position beyond “More Research is Necessary,” but Moore's opinions have swayed us somewhat. He mentions the commonly listed claims against nuclear power and rebuts each in turn. He does not mention uranium mining as a disadvantage of nuclear power, though I consider it to be possibly the second most environmentally hazardous part of the whole process. But it's hard to imagine uranium mining doing more damage than mountain-top-removal coal mining. Weakening his argument, though, is that Moore is co-chairing the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition with Christine Todd Whitman , Bush's head of the EPA. Environmentalists hate Christine Todd Whitman, mostly because she censored government documents concerning the threat of global warming. This coalition (paid for by the nuclear power industry) is either an amazing and inspiring alliance of people who love the earth and people who have the technology to save it, or it may be an underhanded and evil ploy. But, for now, we're listening. Nuclear power is a few steps away from being the dream of an EcoGeek. And, really, it's hard to imagine anything could be more destructive than coal. Read Moore's whole article here
Comments
(8)
Nuclear creates jobs too
written by Guest , April 16, 2006
Nuclear is a good example of technologies that create jobs while reducing emissions. www.GreenGOP.org
wrong link
written by Guest , April 16, 2006
sorry - posted wrong link on previous comment - here's correct one: www.GreenGOP.org
...
written by Guest , April 18, 2006
A little more research into Patrick Moore is necessary before your tout him and his nukes. It turns out this guy is pushing all kinds of environmentally deplorable causes for big bucks now (http://www.fanweb.org/patrick-moore/).
Nuclear energy is still a long way from being any kind of panacea for global warming. We can't supplant one environmentally unsound practice for another and until we know what to do with nuke waste, protect nuke plants and their cooling ponds from terrorist attacks (even a small plane wreck into a cooling pond could cause a catastrophic meltdown), and clean up nuclear mining practices (among the most environmentally damaging on earth), nuclear power has no future.
Nukes answer the wrong question!
written by a guest , June 02, 2006
A conventional power plant wastes 2/3 of its energy as heat (cooling towers, river water, etc). No matter the energy source, it's just plain stupid to throw that much away. A better answer is cogeneration; smaller power plants located where you can use that heat, like hospitals, colleges, and factories. You can double the efficiency.
This is also known as Distributed Generation (DG), using lots of smaller generators to stabilize the electric grid and relieve congestion and overloaded lines. Good for costs, good for security. And if they're cogen they're good for the environment. Nuclear does not lend itself to cogen or DG because nobody wants to live next to a nuke, and they don't scale down well. So nukes, whether you think they're right or wrong, are an answer the wrong question. We don’t need any more big decentralized power plants.
Moore is a Judas
written by a guest , June 06, 2006
I hate to say that Moore is a "Judas" and I only say that having just watched the Natural Geographic Gospel of Judas special where they state that maybe Judas was actually just doing what Jesus wanted him to. Maybe Moore wasn't really a true green at heart either. Maybe he just was hanging with the wrong crowd. Maybe hanging out with the Plastic and Timber industry is more his speed.
To say that Chernobyl wasn't so bad is just plain STUPID! What is wrong with this guy? His rebuttals have merit if you are a high school freshman, are you? Can something that Dick Cheney supports actually a good idea? Doubtful. Your support of Moore makes me want to stop going to this site.
Moore wasn\'t the only founder
written by a guest , June 07, 2006
Your article makes it seem like PM founded Greenpeace all by himself. In fact it was established be several people all of whom (except PM) are still totally against nuclear power or were up until the day they died.
Patrick Moore is nothing but a spineless sell out.
Credibility
written by Celia , February 02, 2008
Has this (person)'s credibility always been so shaky? How does this effect the credibility of Greenpeace? The wheel of karma tends to level things out.
The Future
written by Ian , March 31, 2008
The best energy source we have is solar power. If we had the technology, we could power the whole country with it. Currently, however, it is too expensive to do so. Having studied nuclear power in school, I have become an advocate of using nuclear power as an intermediate solution for reducing greenhouse gases. If we want to reduce CO2 emmissions now, this is our best option. It is not perfect, but it is vastly superior to coal, and until renewable power technology is developed enough to gain widespread use, our only other option is coal, oil, or gas. I expect renewables to be cost competitive within 10 to 20 years, but until then we need to do something now. It is my opinion that unless we embrace nuclear power as our future baseload power, more coal, oil, and gas plants will be built to fill our energy needs.
Also, if we convert our transit energy source from oil to electricity, this will raise our electricity demand even more than projected. This will force power companies to build even more new plants, and will probably do so before renewables are economical. I would much prefer nuclear plants to coal plants. My ideal scenario is to have 50% of our electricity come from nuclear, and 50% from renewables by 2050. From there we could begin a phase out of nuclear plants as they reach their design life and replace them with renewable. By 2100, most of our power would be renewable. This probably will not happen, but I think it should at least be a goal. Thirdly, whether or not you are a nuclear power advocate, look for a jump in nuclear power plants if emission caps are introduced. Nulcear power is currently the only non-renewable energy source that accounts for all of its emissions. The price of nuclear power will stay relatively constant, while coal, oil, and gas costs will go up. Nuclear power is already very competitive with coal, and introducing another cost to coal would make nuclear look a lot better. | ||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Science, technology gadgets and...baby seals. We're in a bit of an eco-mess, but we've got the brains to lick any problem. And that's why EcoGeek.org publishes up to ten stories daily about innovations that are saving the planet.
And if that sounds interesting to you, then congratulations, you're an EcoGeek.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
