Skip to main content

Patrick Moore Statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

From the transcript (MS Word):
The climate change debate has made one thing abundantly clear: Global warming is an environmental reality that requires action. Our nation must step up to the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and I commend the Committee and Chairman Boxer in particular for holding today’s hearing.

As the co-founder and former head of Greenpeace, and an environmentalist, I feel compelled to speak to the clean air benefits of nuclear energy and the need for our nation to embrace nuclear energy as a key component of any greenhouse gas mitigation strategy.

Nuclear energy plays the single-largest role in the U.S. electric industry’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions reductions. According to the newly released annual report to the U.S. Department of Energy from Power Partners—a voluntary partnership between DOE and the electric power industry—nuclear energy accounted for 54 percent of greenhouse gas reductions reported, the equivalent of taking 100 million automobiles off the road.

Furthermore, nuclear energy has the smallest environmental impact of any clean-air electricity source. Nuclear power produces no controlled air pollutants during daily operations. According to the University of Wisconsin, the life-cycle emissions of nuclear energy are lower than coal, natural gas, hydropower, biomass, and solar. The only electricity sources with lower life-cycle emissions are wind and geothermal.

[...]

In its October 2006 report, A Progressive Energy Platform, the Progressive Policy Institute urges the nation to “Expand nuclear power…It produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change. And new plant designs promise to produce power more safely and economically than first-generation facilities.”

I agree with PPI. Nuclear energy is clean, safe, affordable and reliable—and needs to be part of the climate change solution. This is something that all Americans should embrace on a bipartisan basis.

I encourage this Committee and the Congress to take the appropriate steps to ensure the expansion of nuclear power so we can truly achieve the emission savings that our nation and the world so desperately need.
For more on the PPI report that Moore refers to, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…