Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Going Nuclear (Author's a founder of Greenpeace!!)
The Washington Post ^ | April 15, 2006 | Patrick Moore

Posted on 04/15/2006 8:57:35 AM PDT by libstripper

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; greenpeace; greenspirit; nuclearpower; patrickmoore
The author of this column, one of the founders of Greenpeace, makes a compelling case for going forward with nuclear power.
1 posted on 04/15/2006 8:57:38 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Good post, libstripper. BTTT


2 posted on 04/15/2006 9:01:24 AM PDT by Chena (I'm not young enough to know everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

He's made this case before. He's been disowned by the environazis because what he's saying is heretical.


3 posted on 04/15/2006 9:02:28 AM PDT by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
"In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace......"

I almost stopped reading there but it seems he has finally come to his senses
4 posted on 04/15/2006 9:02:37 AM PDT by stm (Our country and world are at a crossroads. Taking the wrong path is not an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Even the French know nuclear makes sense.


5 posted on 04/15/2006 9:03:46 AM PDT by Drango (A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
Wrong about it then and wrong about global warming now.
It is not the fake global warming but to better use our assets.
6 posted on 04/15/2006 9:04:04 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

So...he finally wakes up and tells us the cause he fought for was wrong, but now he knows the truth and wants to lead us there.

he makes a compelling case for not listening to anything he says!


7 posted on 04/15/2006 9:04:48 AM PDT by adversarial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stm

Many of us did stupid things in the early '70s. This is monumentally stupid, but it does sound like he's come around.


8 posted on 04/15/2006 9:04:50 AM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
The author of this column, one of the founders of Greenpeace, makes a compelling case for going forward with nuclear power.

He can't unring the bell he rang. The damage to the Nuclear industry was done in the 70s. By now, we should have hundreds oif nuclear plants.

Instead we have a handful. This is thanks to idiots like this who know nothing about science.

He can't soothe his conscience now by saying "I wuz wrong."

9 posted on 04/15/2006 9:05:06 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Don't call them "Illegal Aliens." Call them what they are: CRIMINAL INVADERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango
If there's one thing the French can do, is build nuclear power plants.

Our energy system is a joke.

10 posted on 04/15/2006 9:05:42 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (A nickel bag gets sold in the park. I WANT IN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Bacon in the treetops???


11 posted on 04/15/2006 9:06:59 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Too soon to remember??? How about TOO SOON TO FORGET!" from Mr. Silverback)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

And sell the technology to people that would use it against the rest of the world. Those grubby whores would sell their own mother to the enemy if they could get a decent price.


12 posted on 04/15/2006 9:09:02 AM PDT by stm (Our country and world are at a crossroads. Taking the wrong path is not an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Well, ain't that grand! Thirty years later, a Greenpeace founder realizes he was wrong about nuclear power. Well, thanks a bunch mister, because it's enviro-nazis like yourself who we can thank in large part for our continuing dependence on foreign oil!


13 posted on 04/15/2006 9:10:24 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
I'm reposted my concerns from a previous thread..and no, I'm not a environazi:

My only problem with nuclear power is the fission products that are produced. Cesnium and PU-239 are in particular really bad products that last a long time. Talk about NIMBY. I would just be happy living with the CO2 produced by fossil fuel plants than with radioactive elements that we don't know what to do with once we've extracted the energy from it.

Having said that, I believe wholeheartedly in a hydrogen economy based on fusion. Of course, being able to tip the balance between the ratio of output energy with respect to input energy is going to take years of technological development but that's another story.
14 posted on 04/15/2006 9:12:21 AM PDT by TrollBridge (nuclear physics - it's cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

He may have come around but his credibility is pretty much zero after his antics in the 70's and 80's


15 posted on 04/15/2006 9:17:18 AM PDT by stm (Our country and world are at a crossroads. Taking the wrong path is not an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Great post bump!


16 posted on 04/15/2006 9:23:56 AM PDT by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrollBridge

I believe wholeheartedly in a hydrogen economy based on fusion.

You do? I hope the Easter Bunny leaves you lots of eggs. Better get that list ready for Santa. Only 8 months 'til xmas.


17 posted on 04/15/2006 9:37:41 AM PDT by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stm

Maybe he wants to reserect the nuclear industry so Greenpeace can blackmail them again.


18 posted on 04/15/2006 9:38:05 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: saganite

The waste heat from nuclear plants can also be used to process oil shale and oil sands.
Nuclear is the only answer to our energy needs..we need to have both politicians and business men with the guts to stand up and be counted..but don't count on that and don't sell your oil stocks quite yet.


19 posted on 04/15/2006 9:41:19 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TrollBridge
Cesnium and PU-239 are in particular really bad products that last a long time.

Not nearly as dangerous as a lot of toxins that last forever. Even Chernobyl killed fewer people than about three airline accidents.

20 posted on 04/15/2006 9:41:50 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

His case for nuclear power is based on bogus science. Better to not invite him aboard.


21 posted on 04/15/2006 9:44:46 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

I know this guy. He's been a rational spokesman for the forest products industry for 15 years. He's not a recent convert.


22 posted on 04/15/2006 9:46:51 AM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Sorry,but I thnk your anger should be directed at the spineless weinies that buckled like a belt when Greenpeace made demands.


23 posted on 04/15/2006 9:51:03 AM PDT by chae (R.I.P. Eddie Guerrero He lied, he cheated, he stole my heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
"...nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."

He's still a nut. There is no catastrophic climate change caused by mankind. Heck, the latest is that global warming stopped in 1998.

24 posted on 04/15/2006 10:00:47 AM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (Jabba the Hutt's bigger, meaner, uglier brother.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chae

chae wrote: "Sorry,but I thnk your anger should be directed at the spineless weinies that buckled like a belt when Greenpeace made demands."

I have plenty of anger to go around on this issue. These environmental nutjobs impede just about any pragmatic approach to producing our own energy, but they constantly whine about our dependence on foreign oil. They aren't helping solve the problem--they ARE the problem!


25 posted on 04/15/2006 10:11:19 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

You all should give this guy a little break, he pulled out from the group he founded ages ago when they went beyond "save the whales". His conversion isn't new at all


26 posted on 04/15/2006 10:12:01 AM PDT by Mount Athos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Is he the same guy who refuted the rainforest is disappearing crowd?


27 posted on 04/15/2006 11:52:34 AM PDT by Katya (Homo Nosce Te Ipsum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TrollBridge
My only problem with nuclear power is the fission products that are produced. Cesnium and PU-239 are in particular really bad products that last a long time. Talk about NIMBY. I would just be happy living with the CO2 produced by fossil fuel plants than with radioactive elements that we don't know what to do with once we've extracted the energy from it.\

Looks like it's time to spell out some basic nuclear engineering again.

97% of what comes out of a reactor as spent fuel is the same refined uranium that went in. The remaining 3% is plutonium, some short-lived transuranics, and the fission products. The uranium and the plutonium are perfectly good reactor fuels, and should be recycled back into a reactor.

The fission products are the nasty stuff. They're highly radioactive. However, that als means relatively short-lived. In reality, in less than 700 years the fission products decay to a lower level of radioactivity than the original uranium ore. The sensible thing to do is separate out the fission products and bury them. They don't have to be protected for geologic times. The Pyramids of Egypt have stood, without maintenance, for about three times as long as it would be necessary to sequester the fission products. Surely we can build something that will do the job at least as well as the Pyramids

Most of the so-called problems of nuclear power are self-inflicted. A big share of the self-infliction comes from misinformation, and indeed deliberate disinformation, about disposal of nuclear waste.

28 posted on 04/15/2006 12:33:06 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney (My book is out. Read excerpts at www.thejusticecooperative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney; TrollBridge
The fission products are the nasty stuff. They're highly radioactive. However, that als means relatively short-lived. In reality, in less than 700 years the fission products decay to a lower level of radioactivity than the original uranium ore.

I was going to point this out too, before seeing you had already done so. Radioactivity and half-life are generally inversely proportional.

29 posted on 04/15/2006 1:12:11 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney
In reality, in less than 700 years the fission products decay to a lower level of radioactivity than the original uranium ore.

And that, my friend, is where all the resistance comes from. In the US, I believe Arizona is where they want to build a waste site (maybe they have already have?). What do you think the residents for AZ think of that? 700 years is nothing in geologic times but it is an enternity in human time.

The Pyramids of Egypt have stood, without maintenance, for about three times as long as it would be necessary to sequester the fission products. Surely we can build something that will do the job at least as well as the Pyramids

Sounds good to me. We can spend money on such technology. We can also spend money on a hydrogen based energy system as well. I suppose it's a matter of how much money we have to spend. I guess I'm more of a forward thinker; fission energy is so '70s ;-)
30 posted on 04/15/2006 3:04:48 PM PDT by TrollBridge (Pants...I like 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: saganite

He only partially understood the foals. Global warming is a device to shut down technology and return the world to a sort of feudal state with the Elite owning everything including the bulk of the remaining population who will have just enough to survive as serfs who produce the wealth the elite command.


31 posted on 04/15/2006 3:07:32 PM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them OVER THERE than here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson