You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power
2008-04-25
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.

With development of coal-fired electric generation stopped cold over greenhouse gases, the only alternative to nuclear power for producing continuous energy at the levels needed is natural gas. But climate change isn't the only reason to move away from fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels also are a major health threat. "Coal causes the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today," Moore said.

Plus, uranium can be found within the United States and also comes in large quantities from Canada and Australia. Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East, he said.

Moore spoke at the chamber breakfast after an appearance in Idaho Falls Tuesday night that attracted 300 people. He also spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum in Boise, all sponsored by the Partnership for Science and Technology.

He represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, a nuclear energy-backed group promoting reactors for electric energy generation. He began his career as a leader of Greenpeace fighting nuclear testing and working to save whales. In recent years, he has taken on causes unpopular with his former group, like old-growth logging, keeping polyvinyl chlorides and now nuclear energy.

He says his change of heart comes from his background in science and a different approach to sustainability. He sees a need for maintaining technologies that are not harmful while fixing or replacing those that are harmful. "We don't believe we have been making too much electricity," he said. "We believe we've been making energy with the wrong technologies."

His critics, like Andrea Shipley, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, say he has simply sold out. "The only reason Patrick Moore is backing something as unsafe and risky as nuclear power is he is being paid by the nuclear industry to do so," Shipley said.
Posted by:gorb

#21  Ahh, the WOT/9-11 > where FASCISM is the NEW COMMUNISM-SOCIALISM, GOVTISM the NEW LIBERALISM/
LIBERATARIANISM, IMPERIALISM the NEW FEDERALISM, EMPIRE-ISM the NEW REPUBLIC, etc............> @
so why not CONSERVATISM the NEW ENVIRONMENTALISM???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-25 19:24  

#20  AFT About Fooking Time
SITYS See I Told You So
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-04-25 17:49  

#19  "It's like buying fire insurance,"

More like buying life insurance, since I agree with LH that there's virtually a 100% chance of global warming occurring. The question is when. Of course there is also virtually a 100% chance of global cooling with occurring.
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-04-25 17:48  

#18   "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."

Along those same lines, I have "Life and Health" Insurance, it's called Smith and Wesson"
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-04-25 17:29  

#17  akcbar

He says no 'proof'

He also says
"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."

I dont know how up on the climate change literature he is. Id admit there is no "proof" that in the absense of policies to change it, massive Global warming will take place, with a 100% certainty. I think its 95% clear that it will take place, and at least 70% that the net effects will be negative, and non-trivial. Actually quantifying the net costs, and the offsets, is not easy.

The case for insurance, unless the insurance is spectacularly costly, is strong. How costly it will be to significantly decreased GHGs is also a matter for debate.

We can decrease that cost in many ways. Including nukes in the package is ONE way. Using market based tools, like tradeable allowances, is another. Researching better technologies is a third.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-04-25 16:56  

#16  Gorb

yes and no (isn't that the way it usually is)

currently CO2 is already pumped into the ground as part of tertiary oil production; this is happening now on a large scale

there are also some ongoing sites where CO2 is pumped into the ground to replace methane taken out of the ground but this is small scale stuff

most of the efforts to pump CO2 into either salt formations or limestone strata or other media are mostly in the computer simulation stage -- I'm pretty sure some experiments have taken place

one of the big barriers here is that before you can pump CO2 into the ground, it has to be isolated in whatever industrial process you have

also, CO2 is a commercial product (the fizz in cola) and if your industrial process produces a nice pure stream of cheap CO2, then you are probably already selling it
Posted by: mhw   2008-04-25 16:55  

#15  If the CO2 is used to freshen oil fields by pumping it a few hundred feet below well depths, it will take several hundreds/thousands of years to migrate up. Also, if there is any truth to the bacterial oil formation theory, the CO2 will act as fertilizer for said bacteria and actually increase the levels of available oil.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2008-04-25 16:50  

#14  What I have in my head is that the CO2 would be pumped into caverns or crevices, thereby increasing the pressure in those areas and eventually rupturing something. Are you suggesting that all this CO2 would be absorbed into the areas it is pumped into, and not substantially increase pressure? Seems wrong to my common sense, but maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by: gorb   2008-04-25 15:40  

#13  gorb

'eventually' could be a long time

for example, CO2 stored today in limestone strata will be released over hundreds of millenia
Posted by: mhw   2008-04-25 14:25  

#12  I don't see how sequestration is sustainable. Eventually that trapped CO2 will have to go somewhere.
Posted by: gorb   2008-04-25 13:45  

#11  mhw - you can add me to your list of "enviro" types.

I believe in conservation and rational, sustainable exploitation of our environment. That makes me no less of an environmentalist than these saintly types.

I think that capitalism has the answer to most of these problems, if that's what they are; everybody here knows that in democratic countries people, governments and corporations work much more progressively than under tyrannical oppressive systems.

Part of that progress is creating a better environment for all of us to live in. It could well be that part of the reason for the recent warming is due to the reduction in cooling from Sulphate aerosols, now that all power stations are fitted with gas scrubbers - a clear sign of progress which certainly didnt come from the Leftist Liberators.

I really dont see what we have to lose from being more fuel efficient and weaning ourselves off M.E. oil. Emissions restrictions, combined with sequestration tax breaks are the way forward, IMO
Posted by: Admiral Allan Ackbar   2008-04-25 12:45  

#10  This is very old news.

Moore broke with his old pack and repented decades ago (1980's).
Posted by: buwaya   2008-04-25 12:39  

#9  Liberalhawk, I dont doubt that Patrick Moore is sincere in his beliefs, but the opening line of the article will tell you that he doesnt believe AGW to have the disaster potential that most enviroweenies whine about.

From this and other things he has said, I think that his views have changed through a reappraisal of modern nuclear reactors in a post cold war context, with all that entails. He also decries the socialist politicisation of AGW, recognizing the human cost of its hypocracies, which are just now coming to light (biofuels raising food costs, etc)

I think he shares my concerns where the article mentions:

"Nuclear Power reduces the reliance on supplies in dangerous places including the Middle East"

Which is why I think that the myth of AGW is an essential component of us winning the WOT. As per my two previous posts regarding proliferation of cheap CO2, we can only gain from the EOR opportunities. Less fertilizer use in CO2 pumped greenhouses is another added bonus to decouple us from Arab oil.
Posted by: Admiral Allan Ackbar   2008-04-25 12:30  

#8  some are complete retards who would be infinitely better off if they kept their mouths shut.
Posted by: Spusosing Fillmore4183   2008-04-25 12:04  

#7  There are all kind of enviros.

Some are NIMBYs pretending to be enviros.

Some are Luddites.

Some are policy-wonks with an environmental interest.

Some are grieve-mongers or attention deprived poseurs.

Some are scientists seeking more grants for their institution.

Some are scientists who just feel strongly about it.
Posted by: mhw   2008-04-25 11:42  

#6  that enviros who spent their lives opposing nuclear power, are now endorsing it, should inform you just how seriously they take the threat from global warming. Its sincere, NOT an excuse for some luddite assault on capitalism.

I too believe nuclear power has a role to play, among other forms of energy, and conservation, in reducing CO2 emissions and fighting global warming.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2008-04-25 11:05  

#5  Not with you there, OldSpook. I'm afraid my S.C. doesnt reach to allowing me to know about AFT. SITYS

I tried acronymfinder and came up with "Advanced Food Technology", but nothing for SITYS.

Are you referring to the Elders' project to use cheap CO2 for glasshouse crop acceleration, to decouple the food supply from Soddy/Chavvy oil?
Posted by: Admiral Allan Ackbar   2008-04-25 10:13  

#4   "Coal causes the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today," Moore said.

ironically, they are also release the largest amount of Uranium (both 235 and 237) into the environment.
Posted by: Admiral Allan Ackbar   2008-04-25 09:58  

#3  AFT. SITYS.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-04-25 09:56  

#2  "The only reason Patrick Moore is backing something as unsafe and risky as nuclear power is he is being paid by the nuclear industry to do so," Shipley said.

Whereas Andrea, along with the rest of the majority of Climate Alarmists, is probably being paid by the big oil & gas companies, just like the head of IPCC. Their sole motivation (oh - apart from self denial and lack of will to live) is to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant, so that it is captured using sequestration techniques, thereby ensuring the cheap supplies of CO2 required to make EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) techniques viable in the free market, now that steam extraction is becoming less & less effective.
Posted by: Admiral Allan Ackbar   2008-04-25 09:54  

#1  [span class=EnvironmentalistWacko]
Heretic! Blasphemer! Iconoclast! We shall burn him at the stake, then plant some trees to offset the carbon dioxide from the fire.
[/span]
Posted by: Mike   2008-04-25 08:56  

00:00