A green case for nuclear power

The State ^ | May 1, 2006 | Patrick Moore

[fgoodwin]

I'd never heard fo Patrick Moore before reading this, but I understand Greenpeace no longer has Moore on its Christmas card list . . .

[Red Badger]

He grew up. They didn't...........

[Andonius_99]

BTTT

[Always Right]

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.

[ocr1]

ping

[Red Badger]

Nucular wepuns are danjerus........

[Yo-Yo]

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.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

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.

[SouthernBoyupNorth]

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]

DannyTN's 6 point energy plan.

1. Build nuclear and more hydroelectric.
2. Replace as much demand for LP with cheap nuclear or hydroelectic power as possible. Thus freeing LP for use as an alternative vehicle fuel.
3. 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).
4. If the newly developed Vanderbilt University lightbulb technology is currently viable and cost effective, build mass production plants ASAP.
5. Identify the worst gas mileage performing vehicles still on the U.S. roads and provide some financing incentives to replace and retire those vehicles.
6. 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.

[timer]

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.

[Andonius_99]

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.

[DannyTN]

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.

[SuziQ]

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

[Paradox]

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.

[Tolik]

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.  

[darkwing104]

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.

[gogeo]

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.

[gogeo]

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

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.