Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Arrogance and Power

Mr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is all grown up now… well, almost. From his article in this past Sunday’s Washington Post:

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. I say that guardedly, of course, just days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had enriched uranium. "The nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing else," he said. But there is widespread speculation that, even though the process is ostensibly dedicated to producing electricity, it is in fact a cover for building nuclear weapons.

And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-nothing mentality at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed to spell doom for humanity and the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring roles in "The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers of very real anguish throughout the country.

What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then.


Mr. Moore is being more than a little bit disingenuous here. In the first place, for the past 25 or 30 years, the “rogue state” in Mr. Moore’s, rhetorical gunsight has been the United States of America. Second, plenty of us have argued all along that Three Mile Island was a success story of enormous importance. No one was hurt. No one died. The technology of safety, now more than 25 years old, worked! The problem has been that the rabid Left, represented by Mr. Moore and his cohorts have been congenitally unable to separate reality from what they saw up on the big silver screen. The presence of Jane Fonda, a genuine hero to the leftwing nuts and berries movement, only compounded the problem. It wasn’t that “nobody noticed” as Mr. Moore claims, but rather that Moore and his fellow travelers were simply too obstinately obtuse to recognize the reality in front of them.

In 1979, the population of the United States was estimated by the US census bureau to be 225 million. Today it is over one third higher (300 million), with all manner of new demands for power that a growing population and a growing economy entail.

And while it is certainly gratifying that Mr. Moore has finally had his epiphany with reality, my enthusiasm for his maturation is more than a little tempered by the fact that not a single nuclear power plant has been built in the past quarter century thanks largely to Moore’s arrogance and the enormous web of legal challenges and restrictions put in place by his sanctimonious band of merry little children. Thanks a lot!

The least Moore could do is apologize to the rest of us for his short-sighted arrogance. It wouldn’t change anything, of course. But it might let us know that he really is all grown up. Finally.

Comments

Avatar for The.Whistler

Nuclear power is also the cheapest way to produce electricity. 

I don’t think that it’s the only power source we’ll have.  But it should be producing half of our electricity. 

The.Whistler on April 18, 2006 at 05:29 am
Avatar for Epicurus

Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States...

Fact Check: He must be forgetting about the reactor accident at Santa Susana Field Labs in California in 1959. 

The biggest problem with nuclear power is its inability to survive without government supports.

Epicurus on April 18, 2006 at 05:34 am
Avatar for James Aach

I think Mr. Moore had his epiphany a number of years ago, vs. now.   The latest opinion piece just got a lot of press. You might find my website interesting.   It contains a techno-thriller about nuclear power endorsed by Stewart Brand, one of the environmentalists in the linked article calling for a second look at nuclear.   There’s no cost.  See the homepage comments for reader reviews.  I’ve spent many years in the nuclear industry.   http://RadDecision.blogspot.com />

James Aach on April 18, 2006 at 05:34 am
Avatar for Epicurus

The.Whistler,

Nuclear power is also the cheapest way to produce electricity. 

When you factor in disposal costs, insurance, capital costs, etc. I seriously doubt that.  Especially when compared to coal-fired plants.  And of course its cost competitiveness is likely highly dependent upon the cost of the fossil fuels generally used for electricity generation - natural gas and coal (in the U.S. oil is used in miniscule amounts for electricity generation). 

Epicurus on April 18, 2006 at 05:40 am
Avatar for Bat One

"The biggest problem with nuclear power is its inability to survive without government supports."

Epicurus,

This strikes me as a rather curious statement.  Please elaborate.  Thanks. 

Bat One on April 18, 2006 at 05:40 am
Avatar for Epicurus

Bat One,

In the U.S. we support via the government the nuclear power industry in a couple of ways - e.g., in disposal, in the area of insurance, in some cases by price supports (that’s a state deal), in the area of research, etc.  In the most successful nations (from the standpoint of nuclear power generation) - namely countries like France, Japan and South Korea, with China fast on their feet - the government either wholly controls the industry or is heavily involved in its management (as a sort of joint partner).  I don’t necessarily disfavor nuclear power, but its got to create a different business model for it to really shine in my eyes. 

Epicurus on April 18, 2006 at 05:45 am
Avatar for Bat One

Epicurus,

That’s pretty much where I thought you were going.  Thank you.  I heartily agree that we need a new business model, and certainly a new regulatory environment, for the nuclear power industry.  And yes,  we should be generating at least half of our electricity from nuclear… if not more.

My point was simply that we have lost 30 years time thanks largely to the recently converted Mr. Moore and his fellow travelers.  Playing catch up, even with Mr. Moore now firmly on the side of sanity, is not going to be easy. 

Bat One on April 18, 2006 at 05:54 am
Avatar for The.Whistler

Ep..

I think that’s a pretty good number in that we were comparing with power plants currently operating.  

As far as the question of disposal, the facility is built.  We just lack the political will to use it.  

When it comes down to it, I’d rather have a nuclear power plant as a neighbor than a coal fired plant. 

 

The.Whistler on April 18, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Avatar for WOOF

No private entity will insure  a Nuclear Power Plant. Wonder why?

Patrick Moore is an industry shill.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.html

 

 

WOOF on April 18, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Avatar for Epicurus

docdave,

Only a big government conservative would approve of the French system.  Then again, this blog seems to be heavily populated with big government conservatives.

Epicurus on April 18, 2006 at 09:59 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.