THE GREEN WHO WENT NUCLEAR

Patrick Moore once became world-famous as a Greenpeace guy who shielded a baby seal from a hunter’s club. Now he is calling attention to himself again as the Greenpeace guy who went over to nuclear energy. Here’s how he describes the ambivalence he had as a Greenpeace nuclear energy opponent: “I had always been afraid of nuclear waste…I thought if I got anywhere near it, it would kill me. But deep down, intellectually, I knew it could work.”

There is much ballyhoo about a “nuclear renaissance” as rising energy demand, global climate change, a new generation of nuclear technology and an administration amenable to the propositions put forward by big business combine to make the potential of nuclear power newly appealing.

Moore says there is no way the world can ignore the option of nuclear energy if it is going to meet base load power demand without spewing greenhouse gases. He condemns environmentalist groups (ex: Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth) who refuse to acknowledge that.

The Environmental Defense Fund and the Wildlife Habitat Council have, in fact, agreed that nuclear power must be considered. Greenpeace has already considered it. Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst, Greenpeace: “The nuclear industry was very smart about hiring the likes of Mr. Moore. This industry has been looking for a selling point, and it’s picked global warming, an issue it’s incapable of addressing…We oppose nuclear because of price and waste issues.”

That’s really the point. Nuclear power plants take 10 years and $5 billion dollars to build. How much wind and solar infrastructure would that build? A recent $1 billion wind energy deal will provide 750 megawatts of electricity within 2 to 3 years. And the insurance on that much installed wind is a tiny fraction of the cost of insuring a nuclear facility. When all that wind and solar is built, there will be no worry about a devastating nuclear accident, no worry about waste, no enormous water consumption, no threat of weapons proliferation, no danger of terrorist attack.

Nuclear power plants generate huge amounts of energy without any greenhouse gases. Very tempting. But nuclear energy isn’t really renewable, is it? Uranium is finite. And nuclear power plants come with a whole host of possible problems. Water consumption may, in the near future, be a deal breaker. Setting that aside, the likelihood of the other possible problems emerging is small. But is it worth the risk? And if the risk wasn’t very real, would the insurance premiums on the plants be prohibitively huge?

Mr. Moore says he was afraid of nuclear waste but he really knew nuclear power would work. Yes, nuclear power works. And there’s lots of nuclear waste around being handled safely. Does that mean Mr. Moore should forget his fear? Well, fear is not very useful.

The problem is that there IS lots of nuclear waste around because nobody has really figured out what to do with it. Sticking it in hole in the ground under a mountain in Nevada is not really doing something with it, it is avoiding the problem. New nuclear handles the waste in a way that reduces the volume and then vitrifies it. That adds to the expense but makes storing it safer. Not safe, safer. Why take the chance?

Wind is on the verge of solving its intermittency problem by developing a smart, interconnected grid that can shuttle the power from one location to another. Solar is near bringing costs to market parity, at least for solar power plants. Until then, reliance on existing nuclear and new reactors at existing locations makes sense. Building an extended infrastructure for new nuclear does not.

Closing the fuel cycle is the goal of nuclear energy proponents. But they have not done it yet. (Slide from a CalTech presentation by Professor Wm. Burchill, Texas A&M - click to enlarge)

Why a Greenpeace co-founder went nuclear
Erika Lovley, March 4, 2008 (Politico)

WHO
Patrick Moore, co-founder, Greenpeace/ co-chairs, Nuclear Energy Institute’s Clean and Safe Energy Coalition; British Bishop Hugh Montefiore

WHAT
Moore’s move from anti-nuke activist to pro-nuke activist offers some perspective on U.S. attitudes toward nuclear energy.

Nor is there yet anyplace to put the waste. (Slide from Prof. Burchill - click to enlarge)

WHEN
Moore was part of the original Greenpeace movement to protect whales from Soviet harvesting dating in 1975. He left Greenpeace in 1986. He is now 60.

The nuclear "renaissance" is just over the horizon. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
Moore was president of Greenpeace Canada for nearly 10 years and was a director of Greenpeace International.

Despite Moore's defection, Greenpeace remains unequivocal. (click to enlarge)

WHY
- Montefiore was forced to resign as a trustee of Friends of the Earth for writing a pro-nuclear article.
- Moore has been called a traitor, a prostitute, and “the eco Judas.” He says his opponents use “scare campaigns.”
- Moore is actively engaged on behalf of the nuclear industry. He argues that the near disaster at Three Mile Island in 1979 proves the multiple layers of protection nuclear plants use work. It is a convincing point with politicians and decision makers.
- Moore is currently advocating the building of 100 new nuclear reactors.
- A dozen+ U.S. groups have applications for 31 new reactors pending.

WWF asks a better question. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Moore: “Anybody taking a realistic view of our country’s energy requirements knows nuclear has to be a big part of the global warming equation…These environmental groups are not doing that.”
- Moore: “[Anti-nuclear scare campaigns] is as foolish as lumping nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons,” he said. “And the worst thing is they are kidding all of us. They clearly know wind and solar alone can’t replace base load power, but they’re trying.”
- Moore: “It’s unbelievable how the landscape has changed. Two or three years ago, the term ‘nuclear renaissance’ hadn’t been coined, and now it’s happening…I’m kind of chomping on the bit, saying, ‘Hey, guys, it’s time to get going on this thing.’”