[cdn-nucl-l] Patrick Moore, The Independent, Nuclear energy? Yes please ...

["Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>]

Patrick Moore, The Independent, Nuclear energy? Yes please ...
Nuclear energy? Yes please ...
The Independent
15 February 2007
PATRICK MOORE
EDITORIAL & OPINION

Last summer, the UK government's Energy Review looked at the big picture 
surrounding energy needs, and wisely called for a resurgence in nuclear 
power generation. Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other 
activist groups have adopted policies that specifically exclude nuclear from 
the UK's future energy supply. While they talk about "transitioning to a 
low-carbon system", they dismiss nuclear, the only energy source capable of 
actually delivering us from an increasing use of fossil fuels and their 
resulting carbon emissions.

As a lifelong environmentalist, a co-founder and 15-year leader of 
Greenpeace who finds himself critical of many activist groups today, I am 
perplexed by this logical inconsistency. It is simply not credible to claim 
that wind and solar energy can replace coal and natural gas.

Wind and solar are by nature intermittent, and therefore not capable of 
delivering the baseload power required for an energy grid. In fact wind and 
solar must be backed up with baseload energy so there is power when the wind 
stops blowing and the sun is not shining. Simply put, the only choice is 
between fossil fuel and nuclear.

I choose nuclear for clear and compelling environmental reasons. Worldwide, 
442 operating nuclear plants avoid the release of nearly 3 billion tons of 
CO2 emissions annually - the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 428 
million cars. In the UK alone, 23 nuclear reactors avoid the release of 
approximately 150 million tons of CO2 each year, while quietly providing 20 
percent of its electricity.

The UK is the EU's largest, and the world's third-largest natural gas 
consumer, and in 1994 became a net-importer of natural gas. The risk of 
building an energy infrastructure that depends on gas from Russia and the 
Middle East is worth considering. The twin policy drivers of climate change 
and energy security compliment each other in directing us towards an 
aggressive programme of replacing fossil fuels with a combination of 
renewable energy and nuclear.

I am not an alarmist on the subject of climate change. But I do believe that 
it would be very wise to adopt a realistic program to reduce CO2 emissions. 
Nuclear energy has an impressive operational record, yet unease continues to 
surround this proven source of clean and safe power. Each concern deserves 
careful consideration.

Concern: nuclear energy is not safe. Fact: nuclear energy is one of the 
safest industrial sectors worldwide. Modern nuclear power plants follow 
strict government regulations, which mandate continuous employee training 
and redundant safety features. By contrast, the Soviet-designed Chernobyl 
reactor was an accident waiting to happen; it had no containment structure, 
and its operators literally blew it up. While tragic, the number of deaths 
from Chernobyl confirmed last year by the United Nations was, at 56, well 
below initial reports. The Three Mile Island accident in the US, on the 
other hand, was a safety success story. The containment structure functioned 
as designed, and prevented radioactive material from escaping at harmful 
levels, resulting in no deaths or injuries. In the last 35 years, no one has 
died of a radiation-related accident in the UK civilian nuclear reactor 
programme.

Concern: nuclear energy is expensive. Fact: nuclear reactors deliver 
electricity on par with the cost of coal and hydro, and cheaper than natural 
gas, wind or solar.

Concern: nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years. Fact: spent 
fuel, which contains 95 per cent of its original energy, is being safely 
stored at nuclear power plants around the world, and will be re-used by 
future generations for electricity. Within 40 years, spent fuel has less 
than 1000th the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor.

Concern: nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. Fact: even an 
airliner could not penetrate the five-foot-thick reinforced concrete 
containment structure, which protects contents from the outside as well as 
from the inside.

Concern: nuclear energy is directly linked to nuclear weapons proliferation. 
Fact: it is not necessary to have a nuclear reactor in order to produce 
enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb. Uranium can be enriched by using new 
centrifuge technology; that is what Iran is suspected of doing at present. 
Nuclear proliferation must be addressed as a separate issue from nuclear 
power generation.

The only significant obstacle facing a greater reliance on nuclear energy is 
the wrongheaded opposition by activist groups like Friends of the Earth and 
Greenpeace. These groups use misinformation to scare the public into 
believing nuclear energy is unsafe. They want fossil fuel power plants and 
nuclear plants phased out, falsely claiming that conservation, efficiency 
and renewables alone will provide sufficient energy to power the UK's cities 
and manufacturing sectors.

Once people see nuclear energy for what it truly is - safe, reliable 
baseload power with no greenhouse gas emissions - they will wholeheartedly 
support their government's forward-thinking policy. Then the engineers and 
scientists can get on with the job of building an energy infrastructure that 
makes it possible to reduce the use of fossil fuels and the threat of 
climate change.

The writer is a former leader of Greenpeace and chair and chief scientist of 
Greenspirit Strategies.
-----------------------------