Going Nuclear
by Volker Weber
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.
Comments
Thanks for that link, Volker.
Moore’s misbelief: TINA – there is no alternative.
There is. One could easily disprove every point Moore makes. (I won’t – as I am not paid for my writing as Moore is not only by the Washington Post but probably by several companies in the energy business too.) Just one thing: There is enough renewable energy to replace fossil fuels. There is the technology existent to have renewables as baseload energy. Speak of diversification of energy sources (the mix). Speak of Decentralized Energy Management System (“Virtuelle Kraftwerke”). There is probably a better and cheaper chance to supplant fossil fuels quickly or meet the fast-growing demand for energy in regions like China by investing in quick-to-build renewables facilities than constructing complex nuclear power plants. And by the way: If Moore claims that it’s “the operators” of Chernobyl who “blew it up” – how does he imagine to find more reliable operators in rather corrupt states in Asia (not to mention some in Europe …) where the electricity demand grows most? Ah, it's actually him whom Moore’s law is named after?
There is better stuff to read: Figures. Facts. People’s stories. Oh, wait, according to Moore and a “multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum” only “56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident”. Then the victims must be wrong. Wrong like not enough “directly” killed or harmed. For sure.
Jan,
The reason the world is not on renewable energies has nothing to do with ability or availability. It has to do with money. Too many powerful organizations gain their money and power from our current energy sources.
Sadly, we may have to have an overly complex mechanism such as nuclear power so that it still can cost us as much money, and make them as much money, before they will allow environmental concerns to take precendance over their cash.
Anybody currently building a house here? You have a very good alternative to gas and oil for heating. Check out heat pumps. Comparatively cheap energy available literally everywhere.
With regard to Moores article: I wonder who paid him to forget his environmental conscience. Most of the arguments do not hold any serious debate.
Wow, that's a very real look at the global energy problem. To bad you can't say stuff like that... say... here in Germany. A change in the views or a new assesment of the facts would be enough to reevaluate the options at hand. But nuclear energy is like a stubborn computer user. It's beyond facts. It's downright religious.
Quote: "Patrick Moore [...] 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."
Duh!
On an individual homeowner basis, I suspect one can build a house that will have require minimal use of the electrical grid with a payback of the cost within a few years. In the US, however, I believe home power consumption is less than half of the total power consumption. Manufacturing needs huge amounts of power instantaneously. But it is certainly true that the number one item on anyone's energy future to-do list should be conservation.
FYI: In the linked article above, Dr. Moore mentions other environmentalists who’ve called for a second look at nuclear power, including Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog. Mr. Brand has also recently endorsed my techno-thriller novel about the inside world of nuclear power, “Rad Decision”. This book is available online at no cost to readers – who seem to like it, judging from the comments they’re leaving on the home page. “Rad Decision” is written as an “airport paperback” and is a great way to learn about the good and bad of this energy source. (There’s plenty of both.) It’s based on my two decades in the US nuclear industry. RadDecision.blogspot.com
