Article

2008-04-25 Home Front: Politix

Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gorb 2008-04-25 01:54|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 08:56|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 09:54|| Front Page Top

#3 AFT. SITYS.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-04-25 09:56|| 2008-04-25 09:56|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 09:58|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 10:13|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 11:05|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 11:42|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 12:04|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 12:30|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 12:39|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 12:45|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 13:45|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 14:25|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 15:40|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 16:50|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 16:55|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 16:56|| Front Page Top

#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">Redneck Jim 2008-04-25 17:29|| 2008-04-25 17:29|| Front Page Top

#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">Glenmore 2008-04-25 17:48|| 2008-04-25 17:48|| Front Page Top

#20 AFT About Fooking Time
SITYS See I Told You So

Posted by OldSpook 2008-04-25 17:49|| 2008-04-25 17:49|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-04-25 19:24|| Front Page Top

23:33 Mike
23:33 Frank G
23:26 OldSpook
23:22 smn
23:10 smn
23:01 Harcourt Jush7795
22:57 Frank G
22:56 twobyfour
22:54 smn
22:42 RD
22:38 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:15 Darrell
22:10 DK70
22:09 Alaska Paul in Chefornak, AK
21:58 OldSpook
21:57 Alaska Paul in Chefornak, AK
21:55 Pappy
21:55 Alistaire Sleasing2074
21:54 OldSpook
21:54 Glenmore
21:52 Alaska Paul in Chefornak, AK
21:49 JosephMendiola
21:45 bombay
21:44 no mo uro