This was a very interesting week. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, which was founded on the basis of opposition to nuclear power, among other things, came out and said that he now believes that nuclear power may be the energy source that can save our planet from climate change and environmental disaster.
This is an incredibly commendable bit of intellectual honesty on his part. I cannot even imagine the anger that he is going to receive for making this statement, but that just makes it all the more heroic that he was willing to do it.
Often, we get backed into our positions so strongly that it becomes difficult to change our minds. I have to admire a guy who looks at something he protested so fervently with clear eyes and was willing to change his mind.
I also cannot believe that it is a mere coincidence that after Moore's editorial appeared in the Washington Post, Greenpeace just happened to release a report that stated that deaths from Chernobyl are likely to be much larger (perhaps an order of magnitude larger) than "official" estimates. With that in mind, further kudos to Moore for noting in his article that the causes behind Chernobyl are not problems with nuclear power itself, but with poor design and poor management.
I am a huge proponent of alternative energies. I spent a lot of time looking at solar power after my friend installed panels on his roof in LA. This led to looking at wind power as well. They are wonderful technologies, but Moore concludes what I concluded: they are not solutions to dependable, high-quality energy needs. I think they are very valuable in a decentralized model, where they help to reduce demand when they can, but for a large-scale solution, nuclear still seems to be the best bet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I love nuclear power...yummy! I love the nucleus, and I love free electrons - much more than the locked up ones.
In all seriousness (who me?) I'm right there with you. We need to get off oil, and having grown up a few miles (upriver albeit) of Indian Point, I'm comfortable with nuclear power.
'from Indian Point'
I grew up right across the river from Connecticut Yankee, hence my multiple sets of genitals and enormous frontal lobe.
The only real problem with nuclear is that our President can't pronounce it.
I say, light 'em up!
Agreed, and kudos to Moore for being upfront about his change of heart. Hell, France is kicking our ass with nuke utilization. The sooner we can extricate ouselves fron oil dependancy the better.
I kinda worry about California and the effects of earthquakes and such, but then again I don't live there.
Oh yeah,
MMMMMMM enormous frontal lobes...
Chris -
The only question is - did you get both sets, if you know what I mean?
Kudo's to your comment that laternative energy can be part of the mix, but they aren't exactly suited for the large centralized power we've come to depend on. I hope we can also not forget that the best, cheapest energy is the stuff you don't use - conservation should be first on any energy plan.
Mr. Moore has actually been making his Washingtpon Post argument for some years, both without as much international exposure.
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 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 and how it's used. (There’s plenty of both, as Mr. Moore acknowledged with his Chernobyl comments) The book is based on my two decades in the US nuclear industry. RadDecision.blogspot.com
Post a Comment