Going Nuclear (Author's a founder of Greenpeace!!)

The Washington Post ^ | April 15, 2006 | Patrick Moore

[libstripper]

In 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. 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.

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 CO2, 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.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

His case for nuclear power is based on bogus science. Better to not invite him aboard.

[spyone]

I know this guy. He's been a rational spokesman for the forest products industry for 15 years. He's not a recent convert.

[chae]

Sorry,but I thnk your anger should be directed at the spineless weinies that buckled like a belt when Greenpeace made demands.

[Jabba the Nutt]

"...nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."

He's still a nut. There is no catastrophic climate change caused by mankind. Heck, the latest is that global warming stopped in 1998.

[CitizenUSA]

chae wrote: "Sorry,but I thnk your anger should be directed at the spineless weinies that buckled like a belt when Greenpeace made demands."

I have plenty of anger to go around on this issue. These environmental nutjobs impede just about any pragmatic approach to producing our own energy, but they constantly whine about our dependence on foreign oil. They aren't helping solve the problem--they ARE the problem!

[Mount Athos]

You all should give this guy a little break, he pulled out from the group he founded ages ago when they went beyond "save the whales". His conversion isn't new at all

[Katya]

Is he the same guy who refuted the rainforest is disappearing crowd?

[JoeFromSidney]

My only problem with nuclear power is the fission products that are produced. Cesnium and PU-239 are in particular really bad products that last a long time. Talk about NIMBY. I would just be happy living with the CO2 produced by fossil fuel plants than with radioactive elements that we don't know what to do with once we've extracted the energy from it.\

Looks like it's time to spell out some basic nuclear engineering again.

97% of what comes out of a reactor as spent fuel is the same refined uranium that went in. The remaining 3% is plutonium, some short-lived transuranics, and the fission products. The uranium and the plutonium are perfectly good reactor fuels, and should be recycled back into a reactor.

The fission products are the nasty stuff. They're highly radioactive. However, that als means relatively short-lived. In reality, in less than 700 years the fission products decay to a lower level of radioactivity than the original uranium ore. The sensible thing to do is separate out the fission products and bury them. They don't have to be protected for geologic times. The Pyramids of Egypt have stood, without maintenance, for about three times as long as it would be necessary to sequester the fission products. Surely we can build something that will do the job at least as well as the Pyramids

Most of the so-called problems of nuclear power are self-inflicted. A big share of the self-infliction comes from misinformation, and indeed deliberate disinformation, about disposal of nuclear waste.

[SauronOfMordor]

The fission products are the nasty stuff. They're highly radioactive. However, that als means relatively short-lived. In reality, in less than 700 years the fission products decay to a lower level of radioactivity than the original uranium ore.

I was going to point this out too, before seeing you had already done so. Radioactivity and half-life are generally inversely proportional.

[TrollBridge]

In reality, in less than 700 years the fission products decay to a lower level of radioactivity than the original uranium ore.

And that, my friend, is where all the resistance comes from. In the US, I believe Arizona is where they want to build a waste site (maybe they have already have?). What do you think the residents for AZ think of that? 700 years is nothing in geologic times but it is an enternity in human time.

The Pyramids of Egypt have stood, without maintenance, for about three times as long as it would be necessary to sequester the fission products. Surely we can build something that will do the job at least as well as the Pyramids

Sounds good to me. We can spend money on such technology. We can also spend money on a hydrogen based energy system as well. I suppose it's a matter of how much money we have to spend. I guess I'm more of a forward thinker; fission energy is so '70s ;-)

[arthurus]

He only partially understood the foals. Global warming is a device to shut down technology and return the world to a sort of feudal state with the Elite owning everything including the bulk of the remaining population who will have just enough to survive as serfs who produce the wealth the elite command.