A Green for Nuclear Energy

Back in I January I wrote about Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace who gave a speech which basically made the case that global warming will have a net positive effect, as opposed to the catastrophic disaster which has become the media template. Moore is back in the news with an article in the Washington Post promoting nuclear energy:

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.

It sounds like he's moderated his position a bit on global warming, or maybe he just thinks we can keep it from getting too bad with nuclear power, but either way, he's right on the money. Nuclear power is remarkably clean and reliable, and I'd rather live near one of those plants (as I do) than live near a coal or oil fired plant with all the ensuing air pollution.

You can read the rest of Moore's entreaty to the greenies here.