Environmentalists Coming Around to Nuclear Power? 1092
Heywood J. Blaume writes "In a Washington Post editorial Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, now says he was wrong about opposing nuclear power 30 years ago. In the article he addresses common myths about nuclear power, and puts forth the position that nuclear power is the only feasible, affordable power source that can solve today's growing environmental and energy policy issues. From the article: 'Thirty 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 the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.'"
It took 30 years... (Score:2, Interesting)
Amazing (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps even more amazing is that he really does understand the pros and cons. His article spells out in plain language that Nuclear power is not dangerous, and that the chance for nuclear weapons is a small risk to take to reduce the amount of pollution coming from coal plants. To read this, you'd think he was a regular on NuclearSpace.com!
Some excellent sound-bites:
(The emphasis is mine. This is the first time I've ever heard a hard-core environmentalist promote nuclear recycling. It's just incredible!)
Everything he says in his article is basically true. I never thought I'd find myself in 100% agreement with Greenpeace, but at this very moment I can't disagree with anything he's said. Kudos to you, Mr. Moore!
I don't think he was wrong... (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it our savior now? Yep it is. I know that there are people who seem to feel that we should use less power, kumbaya, blah blah,.. but realistically that is NEVER going to happen. We are junkies for the stuff.
Question is how are we going to continue making the energy we need to keep our habit up.
Nuclear is it.
Why now? Because we have reached a point where even if we don't know what to do with the waste, we're going to have to switch to it anyway and hope that we find a solution in the future. We are fast approaching the point of no return regarding global warming (opinions of G.O.P. lackies not withstanding) so if we're going to keep up this consumption then that's our only choice.
Yeh I Know what some of you are thinking, hydrogen! Don't forget that using current technology it takes a tremendous amount of power to make hydrogen. And how are we going to do that? Solar and wind? Getting there, but not there yet.
So is deferring the issue of dealing with waste going to be THAT bad? Well it's a moot point, we have no choice.
What a breath of fresh air (um, literally). (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad part? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's putting it mildly. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Its pronounced nukular. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Posts? (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually nuclear in conjunction with hydrogen power does just that. Hydrogen is only as dirty as the means used to produce it. So use nuclear to extract hydrogen for hydrogen fueled cars and we get a fairly significant reduction in pollution.
That said for now hydrogen is still too early to deal with (I am a realist), but a switch to nuclear, espicaly with the very safe Pebble Bed reactor design, certainly would be a great start.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, shorter winters and longer growing seasons. I'm out of my mind with panic already.
Re:ROTFLMFAO: Ludicrous article! (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. But you're clearly the exact sort of person he's talking about - who can't see the fundamental difference between the Chernobyl and TMI events.
He's a lobbyist (Score:5, Interesting)
He consistently presents himself as a "founder of Green Peace"; while he may have been an early member, "founder" is, as far as I can tell, a stretch. It is rather disingenous of him to keep mentioning his now quite distant association with the enviromental movement, without ever mentioning who's paying his salary today.
Mind you, he's welcome to express whatever views he has, and I don't even necessarily disagree about nuclear power. But the news outlets that continue to identify him as "Patric Moore, founder of Greenpeace" instead of "Patrick Moore, Exxon-Mobil shill" need a lesson in journalism.
Greenpeace got too political, so he left to become a lobbyist? Right. He found out what side of the debate paid better.
hello... logic? (Score:2, Interesting)
Some people are quick to forget that it's possible to weigh the benefits of nuclear objectively, and conclude that it is NOT THE BEST OPTION. Sure - there will be opinions that differ, but that doesn't make anyone who is against nuclear power a tree-hugging hippy!
Personally, I think it's curious that humans think we need a SINGLE source of energy. why can't we make as much use of efficiency/wind/solar/hydro as is reasonable/practical/possible and then 'top-up' with nuclear on an as-needs basis? To my mind, that would be a much better solution than just replacing every fossil-fuel power plant with a nuclear substitute.
I think we've been asking the wrong question (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, we can have the most efficient power plants in the world and generate only 10% CO2, but if we keep using incandescent lightbulbs, CRT televisions and XTRA-HOT CPU's, i doubt it'll help.
Instead I'd welcome more investment in solar cells, ultra-efficient lighting and low-heat CPU's.
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Interesting)
"Driessen has also written about the role that think tanks can play in helping corporations achieve their objectives. Such outlets "can provide research, present credible independent voices on a host of issues, indirectly influence opinion and political leaders, and promote responsible social and economic agendas," he advised companies in a 2001 essay published in Capital PR News. "They have extensive networks among scholars, academics, scientists, journalists, community leaders and politicians.... You will be amazed at how much they do with so little."
Nuclear is not a green technology (Score:2, Interesting)
When it comes to climate change, nuclear is probably a better option. But in no way is nuclear a green technology, it just alleviates the most pressing issue facing fossil fuel use. What we need to do is develop truly green and renewable energy sources, which doesn't include nuclear.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:2, Interesting)
Quote *Global warming and climate change are real and undenyable. *
Is there undeniable evidence of global warming. Is there undeniable evidence that human race if the primary reason for this phenomena (if it exists!) Is there is undeniable proof that steps being taken to reduce greenhouse gases will actually reduce greenhouse gases and will reverse global warming ?
If we lack the tools and understanding to predict weather no more than 10 days in advance for small regions, how can we even begin to understand the global level variables that affect climate over several years ?
I believe we all need to periodically re-evaluate our opinions and beliefs and also reconsider the assumptions on which those opinions and beliefs are based and not just get fixated with certain ideas.
Nothing is undeniable, nothing is certain. What you think true today can be positively wrong tomorrow. Earth is not flat, earth is not the center of the universe.
Change of view (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting/funny to read Patrick Moore describing his former colleague in environmental groups:
Ref: Patrick Moore's Nuclear Statement to the US Congressional Committee [greenspirit.com]
Re:The amount of uranium (Score:2, Interesting)
Believe it or not, but George Bush has already proposed and funded the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which utilizes advanced reactors to ensure a supply of nuclear fuel well into the future. Development of the advanced reactors has been underway since the 60s but now it is really picking up again. In my Nuclear Engineering department at The University of Michigan, for one, there are a group of professors and graduate students devoting lots of time to designing fuel cycles and looking at safety concerns of sodium-cooled fast-reactors, one particular option for the advanced reactors.
The advanced concepts will not be ready to be deployed for at least 15 years at best. So keep up the good words for nuclear power and we'll have an environmentally safe energy source. For more information on what the nuclear community is looking into, check out the generation 4 roadmap at: http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/ [inel.gov]
BS (Score:3, Interesting)
The article states that the Chernobyl disaster killed just a few firemen who were fighting the fire. In fact many tens of thousands of people already died or will die of some form of cancer as a consequence of the disaster. For the religious among you: it is estimated that there have been 100000 and 200000 abortions because of Chernobyl.
I read the article because I thought it might offer some sensible views on the topic, but in reality it is just a bad piece of lobbying. I wonder why the editors let this slip into the paper.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes we do! It hasn't seen much commercial development (none inside the US) but the Integral Fast Reactor [wikipedia.org] produces waste that only takes about 300 years to return to the original level of radioactivity as the fuel that went into the reactor.
Storing radioactive waste for only 300 years is is many orders of mangitude more feasible than the storage of current waste for tens of thousands of years.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted, we are generating a lot of pollution, and it would be great if we could stop without majorly fucking something else up in the process.
But that last part there has been VERY DIFFICULT for us humans to do.
The chinese curse is alive and well. Whenever I hear the latest global warming scaremongering, I can't help but think of it. "May you live in interesting times." Indeed!
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:1, Interesting)
issue. Because if we are warming as part of the natural cycle of glaciation then:
a) there is nothing we can do about it
b) it is unlikely to end the spiecies.
On the the other hand if we are the cause:
a) we can definatly do something about it.
b) it is possible (although extreemly unlikely) we are causing natural changes to happen far too rapidly and we are doing enough enviormental damage(also unlikely) do to speed of change that we jepordize the food supply of higher mamals including humans.
mod article troll (Score:2, Interesting)
That said, I personally agree that nuclear power is the best option in most places in the world. It is certainly *not* the perfect option, but the technology has slowly but steadily improved over time, whereas the alternative, fossil fuels, have become more expensive and not a whole lot cleaner.
Solar power has also improved greatly in efficiency over the years, but solar power is only viable in certain places. The same could be said of wind, geo thermal, and hydro power. They are great options where available... but nuclear power represents the only general purpose replacement for hydrocarbons.
My state, Washington, is run almost entirely on hydro power, which provides us with cheap and reliable power. However, even with the large number of damable rivers, there's still excess need for power, which is split pretty evenly between coal and nuclear power. The thing is, that while nuclear is more environmentally friendly, and doesn't rise in cost with increasing fossil fuel prices, it still comes with its own problems. Additionally, cleaning up the hanford nuclear site has been a nightmare, especially for the people downwind... and the federal government has been remarkably slow to clean up the mess they made. This has done a lot to sour public perception of nuclear technology.
If you are interested in nuclear power, hanford is important to consider. The site was of course used for developing weapons (enriching uranium specifically I believe...), but there's a lot to be learned from the cleanup effort... specifically, that it goes very slowly, and that the federal government pinches every dime they can in the effort. I think that the estimated end of the cleanup is sometime in 2030, not counting further delays... Considering that other messes are likely to happen with widespread enough nuclear power, no matter how careful we are, the slowness of federal cleanup efforts could really become a problem.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Interesting)
"Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now."
The article previously described those concerns: that, *excluding* anthropogenic alterations, which they *specifically stated that they could not model well at the time* (quite the contrast to the present, where the papers state that we *can* model quite accurately**), there would be another ice age in *tens of thousands of years*.
How did you read the article and miss all of that?
** - If you want to get into a debate over present day climate modelling, go ahead and light the match. After watching a long presentation by the director of NCAR (Tim Killeen) and speaking with him at length afterwards, I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you. We can start with the fact that present day computing per dollar buys you about one million times as much computing power, progress into the fact that the amount of funding available for that computing has skyrocketted (their advancing computing needs easily beat Moore's law), and continue into the details of the climate models (datapoints every county or two, collecting data down to how dust lifted off the Sahara affects algal blooms) and the verification of the models.
Re: YARR KILLING IS MANLY!! (Score:2, Interesting)
In the rest of your points you seem to want to destroy things without getting anything useful out of them, so I'm going to assume you aren't trying to go anywhere with those.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Interesting)
Face it. Most people in the US are bored. They on average spend 4 hours a day in front of the tv, 8 hours working, 8 hours sleeping, and 4 hours unexplained.
From what I hear, New Orleans is a blessing since the hurricane. Crime is almost non-existant, and people are focused on rebuilding the city, working, and being nice to each other.
Maybe a shifting environment and real estate changes will be good for us.
Hubris == we understand plutonium (Score:2, Interesting)
No nuclear power station has ever been fully decommissioned successfully. All of human civilization has a history of about 5000 years, and yet we imagine that we can successfully manage this incredibly deadly poison for thousands of years into the future. And, on the basis of barely 60 years, some so-called experts express "confidence" that there won't be enormous disasters, both accidental and intentional, in the future.
Instead of huge taxpayer subsidies to make more Nukes, and continuing to never really clean them up afterwards, why not spend some research and pricing support $$$ to get solar panels as a standard roofing material on people's houses? (Or, at least stop building and re-roofing houses with black asphalt shingles in hot geographical regions.... an incredibly wasteful practice.)
Re:what to do with 48T/yr of nuclear waste per pla (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not all that impressed by the analogy. If that much high-level nuclear waste were densely packed together on a football field, alot of it (the more recent stuff) it would be dang hot (temperature-wise & radiation). The analogy excludes all the heavy shielding that has to go around it to make it possible to handle, and it ignores the requirement to keep it cool. In reality, it takes alot more space to place it anywhere or to transport it to that site. You would need a large mine to store all this stuff, and it would be an ever-growing problem. You'd need at least as much secure space for the next 40 years of operation, and the next after that, and so on, assuming no expansion (and I wonder what fraction was generated by the last 20 years versus the first 20 - it is interesting that 40000 tonnes / 2000 tonnes per year is only 20 years).
Can you recommend a site in the U.S. for the reprocessing plant, assuming the legislative obstacles were removed? And, while you're at it, a transportation route to and from it for those 40000 tonnes -- preferably one along the way that everyone would be happy with? In fairness, final storage has the same challenge, but at least you can tell people it won't be coming back.
Keep in mind that while it recovers unused fuel and reduces waste volume, reprocessing generates a fair amount of useless waste itself, which still has to be transported and stored somewhere, and it is usually *alot* hotter than the original, unused fuel bundles were that went into the reactors.
Yes, reprocessing is a solution, but it has its own challenges that make one wonder if generating more new waste is really a good idea.
Please, let's not get all excited abou this! (Score:5, Interesting)
But please don't get all excited about it. There seem to be accidents in Japanese plants on a regular basis. Pebble reactors are fine, until you count in terrorism. Uranium is also a limited resource. We produce waste. And even if we refurbish the waste (and take care of the last two points) it still produces waste and it will still run out at some point.
There are new studies coming out every month that either radiation from power plants does or does not make a difference in cancer rates. Until we have that figured out we are still in doubt about that one. So I count that as not being very excited about the prospect of nuclear energy.
But you guys are right about one thing. People need to realize that nuclear energy IS the least worse choice out there now. I come from Germany and it is not possible to build power plants here for political reasons. Nobody will! This is rediculous.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Interesting)
So it's not a zero sum game. SUVs are a negative in crashes.
Nuclear is not the Future (Score:2, Interesting)
Solar, wind, hydroelectric, tide power, and other technologies _can_ take the place of nuclear and coal power.
I see the future as one without nuclear waste and with decentralized power coming from safe and clean sources. Just because our houses today have high energy demands it does not mean that is how it has to be.
What is wrong with more efficient heating and cooling combined with renewable sources for the future? To hear a bunch of techies debating nuclear technology as the energy source of the future is a little dissapointing.
The author of the Washington Post article is also a spokesman for- drumroll please....the timber industry, the plastics industry, the Three Gorges dam, genetically modified foods [this guys karma is shot so why not shill for the nuclear industry while he is at it?!].
"In an email, former Greenpeace director Paul Watson charges, "You're a corporate whore, Pat, an eco-Judas, a lowlife bottom-sucking parasite who has grown rich from sacrificing environmentalist principles for plain old money." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.htm l [wired.com]
Ouch!
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, please explain why we should not attempt to halt or reduce air pollution (as you seem to be suggesting) because we're worried about causing other problems that may or may not exist. With that logic I wouldn't leave the house for fear of creating potential problems for others or myself since me leaving the house could fuck things up on both fronts.
Re:Doesn't have to be 48 tons/year. (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, THORP is currently closed due to a large leak [guardian.co.uk] of radioactive material. It's now planned to be decommissioned (at the taxpayer's expense).
In any case, the financial and environmental benefits were massively overstated [corecumbria.co.uk], and -- like the rest of the UK nuclear power industry -- has turned out to be a huge white elephant.
I'm in favour of nuclear power in principle, but in practice it has cost the UK taxpayer untold billions for little benefit.
We should have just burnt the money and used that to generate the steam!
Re:BS (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, the article does not support your arguement and actually states that the people effected by the radiation are at more risk from their lifestyles and poverty than from radiation.