Monday, April 17, 2006

Did The World Stop Spinning?

Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, writes in the Sunday Washington Post that he has changed his mind about nuclear energy. He now favors it.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Is this guy a Greenpeace co-founder or a neocon? It appears he's part of an "industry-funded" group called the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. Some of its backers are big in the nuclear and energy markets: ABB, Duke Power, Edison Electric, Entergy, Exelon, GE and the Southern Company.

This does not discredit him in my eyes, but makes him stronger. On almost every other issue, these companies would disagree with him. But in this case, reasonable people can come to an agreement. If we are to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and polluting coal, we must find a sustainable alternative. The only answer is nuclear.

DISCLAIMER: IAPL (in a previous life), several of the above listed companies were clients. However, I no longer work with any of them -- nor with any other oil and gas, power or energy outfits. I'm free and clean.


Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com