Skip to main content

Bob Geldof: "To really help the planet, we have to go nuclear, fast."

By Eric McErlain

Over in the U.K., former rocker Bob Geldof isn't shying away from sporting his pro-nuclear energy credentials at a blog sponsored by Lexus on hybrid vehicles. From The Guardian:
Luxury car maker Lexus may have got more than it bargained for when it signed up Bob Geldof to take part in a blog debate about the green credentials of its hybrid models.

Geldof, as well as talking about hybrid cars, airs his views on climate change, branding renewable energy initiatives such as wind farms "Mickey Mouse" and insisting "to really help the planet, we have to go nuclear, fast".

[...]

On the wider question of making an impact on climate change he said: "We may mess around with wind and waves and other renewable energy sources, trying to make them sustainable, but they're not. They're Mickey Mouse ... but to really help the planet, we have to go nuclear, fast."

Geldof added: "In the UK, we'll soon have to scramble for more nuclear power. On this issue, I don't care what anyone says: we're going to go with it, big time."
After taking a look at Geldof's entries at the blog, it's clear he's done plenty of reading on his own -- including a bit of time reviewing the work of James Lovelock. For his entry where he endorses nuclear energy, click here. For all of his entries, click here. For the main page of the Lexus blog, click here.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
so, when aging rock stars (Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and Graham Nash) OPPOSE nuclear power, they're slammed as burned-out, no-nothing hippies in this blog...but they're visionaries when they support nukes(like Geldof)?
December 12, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Anonymous said…
This is tremendous news. I've always felt the turnaround would come in earnest when celebrities endorse nuclear power. We could use a bigger celebrity than this (Bono would be tops), but Bob Geldof will do. He's regarded as honest and learned, and he's done some extraordinary charity work. Noone, not even Bonnie Raitt or Jackson Brown, can doubt his sincerity.
December 12, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Anonymous said…
I see you're still not always posting comments if they don't agree with you. I'll try again today. Please post this comment.

Why is it that this blog insults and belittles such anti-nuclear musicians as Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Brown, and Graham Nash when they take public stances, but cites Bob Geldof favorably when he goes pro-nuclear? What makes him an energy expert when they're just "aging rockers," in your terms?
December 14, 2007 at 1:24 PM
David Bradish said…
To the third Anonymous,

"I see you're still not always posting comments if they don't agree with you. I'll try again today. Please post this comment."

Considering its Christmas time, there are quite a few of us who actually take time off from the blog. If you noticed over the past few days, no comments have been appearing. But next time some of us take vacation, we'll consider shortening it so we can approve an anonymous comment.

"Why is it that this blog insults and belittles such anti-nuclear musicians"

I didn't know "aging rockers" was an insult. If that's your definition of belittling then maybe blogging isn't your thing.
December 20, 2007 at 1:42 PM
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

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

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

By
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...
4 comments
Read more