Skip to main content

Moore Calls on Greenpeace to Support Nuclear

Co-founder of Greenpeace and leading environmentalist Patrick Moore encouraged his former organization to support nuclear energy at a speech yesterday at Wits University in South Africa. Here is the account from The Times of South Africa:

Greenpeace should now go pro-nuke

Radioactive waste ‘no longer a problem’

Greenpeace was right to stop the bomb and save the whales, but should never have opposed nuclear energy, the environmental group’s co-founder and former director, Patrick Moore, said in Sandton yesterday.

Moore is on a lecture tour of local universities, sponsored by the Nuclear Industry Association of South Africa.

“Climate change has made me a strong supporter of nuclear power,” Moore said.

Here is another account by Engineering News Online of South Africa: Greenpeace co-founder Moore backs nuclear power.

A blog sponsored by South Africa's Mail & Guardian had a less sanguine viewpoint about building more nuclear power plants.

Despite the wide range of opinions, nuclear energy is making a comeback in countries outside the United States. South Africa has joined a long list of countries now considering building new nuclear power plants.

Several blogs continue to argue that Moore is not credible because he is paid by the nuclear industry. However, Moore's viewpoints on nuclear energy preceded his association with the industry. He believes expansion of nuclear power is the best way to combat climate change--he would say this regardless of who signs his paychecks. I would imagine that Greenpeace employees believed in the organization's mission before receiving their own paychecks.

The problem for organizations that continue to oppose nuclear energy is that it is one of the best options for meeting our growing electricity needs without producing significant additional greenhouse gases. Thus the existence of people like Patrick Moore who are both bona fide environmentalists and support nuclear, is a constant reminder of a different perspective.

Finally, if you are looking for more background, you can check another great profile by Politico on Why a Greenpeace co-founder went nuclear.

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …