A green case for nuclear power

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.

I say that guardedly, of course, just days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had enriched uranium. “The nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing else,” he said. But there is widespread speculation that, even though the process is ostensibly dedicated to producing electricity, it is in fact a cover for building nuclear weapons.

And 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. That was the all-or-nothing mentality at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed to spell doom for humanity and the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring roles in “The China Syndrome,” a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city’s survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of anguish throughout the country.

What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do — prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. 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.

Today, there are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20 percent of America’s electricity. Eighty percent of the people living within 10 miles of these plants approve of them (that’s not including the nuclear workers). Although I don’t live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely in their camp.

And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that 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. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the group’s board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter.

There are signs of a new willingness to listen, though, even among the staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. When I attended the Kyoto climate meeting in Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the question 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 (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. The Greenpeace spokesperson 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.

Here’s why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can’t replace big baseload 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 big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It’s that simple.

That’s not to say that there aren’t real problems — as well as various myths — associated with nuclear energy. Each deserves careful consideration:

• Nuclear energy is expensive. It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.

• Nuclear plants are not safe. Although Three Mile Island was a success story, the accident at Chernobyl, 20 years ago this month, was not. But Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design, and its operators literally blew it up. The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year. No one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program. (And although hundreds of uranium mine workers did die from radiation exposure underground in the early years of that industry, that problem was long ago corrected.)

• Nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle. Now that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind.

• Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. The six-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel protects the contents from the outside as well as the inside. And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode. There are many types of facilitiEs that are far more vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and numerous political targets.

• Nuclear fuel can be diverted to make nuclear weapons. This is the most serious issue associated with nuclear energy and the most difficult to address, as the example of Iran shows. But just because nuclear technology can be put to evil purposes is not an argument to ban its use.

Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools — the machete — has been used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more than were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings combined. What are car bombs made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars. If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire.

The only practical approach to the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation is to put it higher on the international agenda and to use diplomacy and, where necessary, force to prevent countries or terrorists from using nuclear materials for destructive ends. And new technologies such as the reprocessing system recently introduced in Japan (in which the plutonium is never separated from the uranium) can make it much more difficult for terrorists or rogue states to use civilian materials to manufacture weapons.

The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination.

Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.

Mr. Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy. He wrote this column for the Washington Post. Author e-mail: pmoore@greenspirit.com

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.

Utter blasphemy. Nuclear is evil.

It is funny how the most obvious way to fight the greatest threat to mankind (that would be global warming to all the greenies) is completely ignored. It does not take a genius to say, 'hey, what about nuclear energy'. But nuclear is a word you do not utter unless you are making fun of Bush.

So a cofounder of Greenpeace now supports Nuclear Power? That won't change the minds of the rest of the Green movement.

After all, "Jane Roe" Norma McCorvey but that hasn't stopped the Pro Choicers.

This article basically says what I've argued with liberals and conservatives alike for years. Liberals don't believe nuclear energy can be anything but evil, conservatives pretend that global warming doesn't exist. Nuclear energy as a means of reducing emissions and fossil fuel use should be a cause that everybody can rally behind, especially with the energy problems we are facing now and the enviornmental problems we are bound to face in the future. Congress should not pointing its fingers at the oil companies, raising CAFE standards, etc. This is what they should be talking about.

Its a gawddamn this Idiot didn't use his brain to think earlier. If he had Maybe we wouldn't be a screwed as we are now. Thanks to Greenpeace and the rest of the environazi's building reactors is so full of red tape and restrictions it is cost prohibitive to even try.

DannyTN's 6 point energy plan.

Build nuclear and more hydroelectric.
Replace as much demand for LP with cheap nuclear or hydroelectic power as possible. Thus freeing LP for use as an alternative vehicle fuel.
Instead of the Frist $100 rebate, send coupons for 3 4-packs (12 bulbs)of florescent bulbs to every household in America. (est cost $30 per household if coupons are redeemed).
If the newly developed Vanderbilt University lightbulb technology is currently viable and cost effective, build mass production plants ASAP.
Identify the worst gas mileage performing vehicles still on the U.S. roads and provide some financing incentives to replace and retire those vehicles.
Use thermal imaging to systematically scan both residential and commercial buildings and identify poorly insulated houses in major metropolitan areas and provide financing to improve insulation.

Yes, it is heartening that at least some greenies are capable of maturing, that not all of them are stuck on the flat learning curve of infancy. Nuclear energy? Isn't that what the Iranians are claiming? Actually though, it's been sky high labor union costs(Davis-Bacon law, etc)that has driven nuc plant costs sky high. Now though there are better designs and nucler will certainly be part of the energy mix, just not the total answer. As to nuc-rad waste, LENR has solved that problem but vested interests in the DOE and elsewhere fight to kill that baby in the cradle.

While I agree that something must be done about our current energy "crisis," I don't believe that government intervention (as you point out in points 3, 5, and 6) is the best answer. While they are good ideas, getting the government involved will only muddy the waters...my idea: get the goverment the hell out of the energy market (and all other markets for that matter) and let those who can do the work, do so freely and without any intervention on the part of Washington.

And while I certainly acknowedge that gov't intervention is a dangerous endeavor, I'm not an absolutist in that regard. My suggestions include only minimal gov't involvement.

Good for Mr. Moore. Now if he can only convince the other no nuke baby boomers to join him, we may actually get something going on the nuclear reactor front. Then if we can also convince them to drill for more oil here in the US, to provide for the raw materials for making gasoline for our cars, we could tell the Middle East and Venezuela we don't need their oil anymore

Nuclear energy as a means of reducing emissions and fossil fuel use should be a cause that everybody can rally behind, especially with the energy problems we are facing now and the enviornmental problems we are bound to face in the future.

I've been saying this as well. We need a "Nuclear Now!" movement. Its a win-win for both sides, in my opinion.

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.

Right now various electrical companies are already working on licenses to build new Nuke Plants, Mississippi and South Carolina Power Companies I believe already applied.

I believe in Nuke Plants and Electric Cars for Everyone. This frustrate the Greenies like you wouldn't believe.

I was a college student in Missoula, Montana in the late 70s/early 80s; Ground Zero for the Granola Life. Having been force fed "The Population Bomb" in eighth grade, I graduated to such ideas as "Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects," "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," global winter and the apocalypse we would face from the nuclear menace (power, not bombs) I'm thinking of all the different fuel additives we've used since the early '70s because the old ones were so dangerous. Come to find out, so are the new ones!

Activists spoke fondly of 19th Century America, "Green, Small, and Renewable/Sustainable." They weren't pushing some kind of honest environmental agenda, they were monkey wrenching society. I have no use for any of them. He is as responsible as anyone for the situation he now deplores.

Who knows about the culprits behind high costs? I think we'll find out pretty soon with the next plant. If memory serves lawsuits drove the cost and unpredictability of nuke plants past the point of feasibility. We'll see if that's still the case.

Greenpeace co-founder and former president Dr. Patrick Moore quit Greenpeace in 1986 because Greenpeace had taken on anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation as its agenda rather than a sincere, real-world effort to save the environment. Since then he's gone on a crusade for sustainable development, and has consistently fought the fear mongers of the organization he helped found.

Here's an article with his positions on most things that Greenpeace is against.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.