Skip to main content

With No Solutions to Offer, Greenpeace Brings Out the Scare Tactics

By Eric McErlain
The debate over nuclear energy in the U.K. reached a new low today as Greenpeace U.K. trotted out a video depicting a passenger jet crashing into a seaside nuclear power plant as a screaming family looked on.

Color U.K. resident John Connors unimpressed:
I'm no nuclear advocate, but blantantly manipulative ploys like this *really* annoy me, and deserve to backfire. Next straw man please.
And he's not the only one.

I can't say I'm terribly surprised about this. After all, now that a growing number of environmentalists (including Greenpeace International co-founder Patrick Moore) are coming to realize how the expanded use of nuclear energy can contribute to clean air, controlling carbon emissions and enhancing energy security, groups like Greenpeace U.K. and their confederates around the world are having to turn to increasingly shrill and hysterical tactics -- and as we've seen, those tactics are starting to backfire.

If you want facts, you might want to start with this NEI backgrounder on plant security.

In the meantime, I'll be waiting for a Greenpeace video of a British family freezing in their home after Russia cuts off natural gas supplies to Western Europe. But we all know something like that would never happen, right?

For more, visit Adrants.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

mdmhvonpa said…
"In the meantime, I'll be waiting for a Greenpeace video of a British family freezing in their home after Russia cuts off natural gas supplies to Western Europe."

Problem is that the Greens are particulary interested in the human race exiting the track ... it's just not stated as such so a few more frozen babies are just a means to their cause.
January 13, 2006 at 2:54 PM
corallina said…
Let me preface by saying that Greenpeace should concentrate on more plausible rationales to convince the public to their way of thinking. That aside, Greenpeace is simply using the same propanganda the us and other shameless western govt's spew by way of excuses to restrict civil liberties and violate borders by force.
January 13, 2006 at 4:16 PM
Brian Mays said…
Ivan said, "So, basically the storyline is flawed. Because the family after the crash will be able to go home unharmed, ..."

Well, perhaps not, if the family is hit by any of the wreckage of the aircraft that is ejected after striking all of that reinforced concrete.

I think the message is clear ... Ban Airplanes!
January 17, 2006 at 5:06 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more