A Democrat's Take on Greenpeace

In his latest diary at Daily Kos, N Nadir takes a closer look at Greenpeace and its methods:

Greenpeace is an organization that proudly announces that it is it acceptable to deal with half of the problem of climate change two full generations from now. Never mind that the means by which this dealing with half of the problem is dubious and has remained dubious for many decades in spite of similar past wishful thinking and cheering, or that energy demand should be expected to rise if we are to eliminate poverty, from where exactly does Greenpeace think that all the oil and coal and gas to cover the half they don't talk about is going to come? This is NOT an environmentalist position.

Greenpeace is an organization that files suits against nuclear power plants and then announces that nuclear power is too expensive because people file suits against nuclear power plants. Greenpeace is an organization that announces that so called "nuclear waste" cannot be shipped because there are Greenpeace activists - and might this not qualify in some cases for a Darwin award? - lying on the railroad tracks obstructing shipments of used nuclear fuel. Greenpeace is an organization that tries to claim that no nuclear energy expert is qualified to discuss nuclear energy because they are nuclear experts and that only Greenpeace is qualified to discuss nuclear energy because they have no direct involvement in the management of nuclear power.

I would hope that more of Nadir's confederates in progressive/Democratic circles would consider what he's written, and think about nuclear energy on the merits, rather than to judge it by ideological considerations.

Comments

Randal Leavitt said…

NNadir is much too kind to Greenpeace. They are parasites who have figured out how to make money by exploiting weaknesses in the nuclear industry. They are also a cult that exploits their own members ruthlessly. A loud and proud nuclear industry could silence them. Are we ready to start bragging about radiation hormesis?

June 12, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog