Skip to main content

Is Greenpeace Lessening Its Anti-Nuclear Stance?

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.

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'.
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.
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.
Matthew66 said…
Jim Riccio must be pissed.
Brian Mays said…
Good.

Couldn't happen to a "nicer" guy.

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 …