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

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