Greenpeace Founder: More Nukes is Good Nukes
April 25th, 2008 at 01:45am Mark Noonan
Never thought I’d see this:
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.
The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that “true believers” like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.
“It’s like buying fire insurance,” Moore said. “We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident.”
The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn’t enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.
I still hold that global warming is probably not happening to the extent the alarmists claim, but I’ve been long in favor of a crash nuclear program to end reliance on imported oil and coal-fired power plants…and, heck, if the enviro-whackos really want to un-dam some of those rivers, then the electrical power can be replaced by nuclear power plants. We’ve even got the place to put them where NIMBY’s are unlikely to complain - the Nevada Test Site; its already radioactive, after all, and most monitoring of the plant can be done remotely (naturally, we Nevadan’s will demand a quid pro quo here…some sort of surcharge on the rest of the nation which would, oh, cover about double our State budget - about $2.5 billion per year - so that we can have a gold-plated health and education system, and no taxes…).
Environmental problems must be tackled with common sense and hard science - which means that 99% of environmentalists will have to be excluded from any part in the debate. Nuclear power is cheap, safe and renewable, and we’ve been the world’s biggest dunderheads for following the “no nukes” demands of the late 70’s all the way into the early 21st century. Time to put aside such childish things, and start acting like adults in matters environmental and energy.
Entry Filed under: Environment
11 Comments
1. What? | April 25th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Oh my God!
Noonan and I agree on something. Nuclear power is a viable alternative energy source to coal and oil.
There’s hope for you yet, Mark.
2. Mark Noonan | April 25th, 2008 at 3:00 am
What,
Well, to put things into perspective - I’m also in favor of a crash course of increasing domestic oil supplies while we work on the switch over to nukes….which would take 10-20 years to be complete, at any rate.
Oil is just not the way to go as we’ll never produce enough domestically for our needs as long as most of our autos run on gasoline - electric is the only way to go, and for electric cars we’re going to need a massively increased electrical supply; nukes fit the bill (though hydrogeon powered cars might end up doing the trick).
Biofuels aren’t even a worthwhile temporary expedient…all they’re doing right now is driving up food prices, which hurt the poor the most.
“Clean Coal” is useful, but I still only view it as part of a stop-gap until sufficient nuclear plants are on line.
Had we not fallen for the “no nukes” hysteria which grew out of Three Mile Island, then we’d probably already be more than half way to energy independence…we’ve got a lot of ground to make up.
3. Global Warming » Gr&hellip | April 25th, 2008 at 3:49 am
[...] OneWorld U.S. Home wrote an interesting post today on Greenpeace Founder: More Nukes is Good NukesHere’s a quick excerptGreenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to [...]
4. congressive | April 25th, 2008 at 5:43 am
C.O.N.S.E.R.V.A.T.I.O… oh, forget it.
5. Danish Artist | April 25th, 2008 at 6:14 am
In order to utilize hydrogen powered cars, we are still going to have to increase our electricity supply. Whether we seperate water for our hydrogen or extract is from (GASP!) hydrocarbons we are going to have to increase both electrical and oil supplies.
Con-regressive is still touting that tired liberal mantra of conservation. It is not going to work with today’s population and basic energy needs.
The once founder of Greenpeace is livid about the virtual stealing of his organization by the radical liberal left.
Against the THEORY of man-made global warming and they don’t listen to the guru of Greenpeace……extraordinary!
6. hermie | April 25th, 2008 at 8:00 am
In the 70’s the environmentalists and far Left ‘peace’ activists succeeded in stalling nuclear power.
In the 80’s and ’90s they succeeded in stalling refinery building and coal-fired power plant construction.
In the recent years, they have been succeeding in getting poor, starving nations to reject bio-engineered grains which resulted in greater food production. This rejection and the ’success’ of imposing dubious alternatives such as biodiesel and ethanol, has lead to more US crops diverted to these alternatives.
Each ’success’ playing its part in making the US worse off in energy production, but also helps starve the millions of africans, asians and other peoples that the environmentalists claim to be ’saving the earth’ for.
7. OhioOrrin | April 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I got no prob w nuke power as long as…
…the significant back-end decommissioning & storage costs are moved up front so the people know and…
…they are NOT built near faults.
8. Rana Quijotesca | April 25th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
WHAT!?!?! Nuclear energy is not renewable… it uses uranium… which, the last time I checked, doesn’t grow on trees. Why don’t we hear more about wind, hydroelectric, cellulose-based ethanol (none of that corn crap), hydrokinetic, geothermal… you know… those power sources that are actually renewable…
Politicians on both sides of the isle need to get their heads out of their asses and stop letting NiMBY syndrome ruin our chances of energy independence…
9. OhioOrrin | April 25th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
rana - ethanol requires more energy to produce than it supplies, regardless of source.
also, ethanol has no retail infrastructure, requires separate transport n storage, and also requires unique firefighting equip.
10. hermie | April 25th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
If you compared and priced ethanol with regular gasoline, there would be no cost advantage for switching to ethanol. Ethanol is in no way ‘competitive’ with current oil-based fuels.
11. population green peace bl&hellip | May 29th, 2008 at 5:57 am
[...] and basic energy needs. The once founder of Greenpeace is livid about the virtual stealing …http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/04/25/greenpeace-founder-more-nukes-is-good-nukes/Montgomery County, MD Green Party Blog ” Fill er Up With Premium …… the world much more in order [...]