Skip to main content

Is Greenpeace Lessening Its Anti-Nuclear Stance?

By
Probably not in the U.S., but in the UK they may be lessening their anti-nuclear stance. World Nuclear News has the story:
The latest manifesto from Greenpeace UK is the first ever with no explicit anti-nuclear policies. It was launched with the tagline "Change the politics. Save the climate."
...
Most of the 12 goals were expressed in terms of 'low-carbon' energy, which should supply all the UK's power by 2030, according to the group. Development of low-carbon power should be supported in less developed countries, while the UK should invest in a supply chain for low-carbon technology as well as low-carbon research. Nothing was ruled in or out of the low-carb on group.
...
The manifesto referred to yesterday's report from the Committee on Climate Change and analyses by the International Energy Agency, which both recommend increases in nuclear power as part of dramatic action to lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Greenpeace will surely continue to speak up for renewables in preference to nuclear power and maintain its tough scrutiny of all matters related to nuclear power, but the change in its stance was welcomed as a "positive step" by former UK exective director Stephen Tindale. He told World Nuclear News it was "very good for Greenpeace to be saying what they're in favour of, and I personally agree with all of it." Tindale publicly reversed his opinions on nuclear power earlier this year to support it as a bridging technology to a time when renewables can take the major role in power generation. He has also recently co-founded a new organisation, Climate Answers.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is the kind of thing that makes everyone shake their head in disbelief. That's why envrionmentalists are completly environ-'mental'.
October 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Joffan said…
Anon, that's the kind of comment that makes me think you haven't read the article.

I suspect that this Greenpeace shift is a step along the only realistic way in which any large group can change away from "anti" on nuclear power. First they have to go publicly silent on it, then internally they can have differing opinions, then they can switch to a limited form of public support. It probably requires a change of much of the leadership too. I'd be interested if anyone knows how the reverse process developed in the Sierra Club way back when they went anti-nuclear power.
October 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM
SteveK9 said…
Was a long-time member of the Sierra Club. They lost me with people like Carl Pope that I view as a fanatic.
October 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Matthew66 said…
Jim Riccio must be pissed.
October 13, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Brian Mays said…
Good.

Couldn't happen to a "nicer" guy.
October 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more