Greenpeace founder shifts opinion of nuclear plants

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Though he once called nuclear power plants "the most dangerous devices that man has ever created," Dr. Patrick Moore, a pioneer in the environmental movement, now says nuclear energy is the best bet to help solve the world's energy and pollution problems.

"The major shift we need to make in energy is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel," he told those attending a Monroe County Chamber of Commerce Koffee Klub meeting Tuesday at Monroe County Community College.

His visit was sponsored by DTE Energy, which is contemplating building a new nuclear power plant near its existing Fermi 2 complex in Newport.

Dr. Moore, a founder of the Greenpeace International, now is co-chairman of Clean & Safe Energy Coalition, a group advocating a "nuclear renaissance" in electrical power production.

He said nuclear power is far cleaner and its energy cheaper to produce than from plants fueled by coal or natural gas.

Though he said he didn't believe in cataclysmic predictions about climate change, "it's very clear that we are involved in changing the chemistry of the global atmosphere with our use of fossil fuel."

He also said pollution from the burning of fossil fuels in power plants and automobiles "has the single biggest impact on public health today."

And increasing reliance on natural gas for energy isn't the best move, either, according to Dr. Moore.

"How much sense does it make to keep a 1,200-degree flame in your basement in order to keep your house at 70 degrees?" he asked.

Furthermore, he said, "the United States is using 25 percent of the world's natural gas production and only has 5 percent of the world's gas supply. It's not only dependent on offshore oil, it will be dependent on offshore gas into the foreseeable future."

Though wind and solar power are touted as alternatives, "they are intermittent and unreliable and you can't predict when they will be available," he asserted.

One alternative for household heating is a ground-source heat pump, which could eliminate fossil fuels from all our buildings, he said.

He pooh-poohed the idea that terrorists would choose a nuclear plant and its reinforced containment buildings over a more accessible and structurally weaker target, such as the liquefied natural gas plants that are springing up.

Concerns about terrorists commandeering nuclear fuel to make nuclear weapons are overblown, he suggested.

"You do not need a nuclear reactor to make a nuclear bomb.

"I do not believe we should ban the beneficial uses of any technology, just because that technology can be used for evil purposes," he added.

He also claimed that no member of the public in the United States ever has been injured by a nuclear plant and no worker has been killed by a radiation-related mishap at a U.S. nuclear plant. In fact, he said, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics concluded that "it's safer to work in a nuclear plant than in real estate or the financial services field."

Nuclear plant workers as a whole have 20 percent less cancers and 30 percent less illness than the larger population, he said.

"We're told nuclear waste is going to kill us all. I'm not sure what people are worried about since no one has been killed by it."

He contended nuclear waste is a misnomer because there's still much energy in spent nuclear fuel and it can be recycled or reprocessed into new fuel.

He said he didn't know of any reason DTE Energy couldn't move forward with a new nuclear plant today.

"I think the public is receptive and the politicians are receptive," he said. "I don't think there are any obstacles other than the will to move forward on the part of the utilities.

"Virtually every industrialized country and every developing country are planning to build new nuclear power plants," he said.

Asked later why anyone should believe him now since his past assertions about nuclear power were seemingly so wrong, he replied that they needn't believe him.

"They just need to do their own critical thinking," he said.

He said environmental groups haven't jumped on the nuclear bandwagon because it's not politically correct for them to do so.

"They'd lose half their membership," he said. But he said some environmental organizations are starting to take second looks at nuclear power.

Nonetheless, a cadre of environmental groups blasted his appearances in Monroe, Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids Tuesday, calling him a propagandist on the nuclear industry's payroll.

"We have proven clean solutions to our electricity needs that reduce cost and risks for ratepayers, and they do not include nuclear power," said Anne Woiwode, director of Sierra Club in Michigan. "What we're lacking is not tired rhetoric about nuclear power, but the political will to implement clean energy solutions."

"At a time when our state needs an honest conversation about electricity options, DTE continues to push for nuclear power at all costs," said David Wright, Clean Energy Project Director for the Ecology Center. "While DTE may hope to maximize profits through nuclear power, it is the wrong option for ratepayers and our environment, despite what the nuclear industry's consultants might say."

http://www.monroenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...9120054/-1/NEWS

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

sellout

[almaty 19]

###### hippie

[Jasman0717 9]

Wow, that is a change in thinking seeing that nuclear waste has a half life of FOREVER

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Wow, that is a change in thinking seeing that nuclear waste has a half life of FOREVER

Not all of it. Different waste streams have different half-lives.

[Jasman0717 9]

Wow, that is a change in thinking seeing that nuclear waste has a half life of FOREVER

Not all of it. Different waste streams have different half-lives.

Yea, 10,000 years isn't too bad

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Wow, that is a change in thinking seeing that nuclear waste has a half life of FOREVER

Not all of it. Different waste streams have different half-lives.

Yea, 10,000 years isn't too bad

oh! in that case......

Daniel

:energetic:

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Wow, that is a change in thinking seeing that nuclear waste has a half life of FOREVER

Not all of it. Different waste streams have different half-lives.

Yea, 10,000 years isn't too bad

some is 30 and others is 5 years

[Heracles 417]

What is worse, depleted uranium sticking around for x years or the earth becoming inhabitable from pollution.. hmm let me think..

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

What is worse, depleted uranium sticking around for x years or the earth becoming inhabitable from pollution.. hmm let me think..

people want electricity but don't want any type of power plant it seems.