Go Nuclear Takes On A Whole New Meaning

Much ado has been made of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore’s comments on “Earth Day” last week. Most of it, though, seems to be coming from the right side of the blogosphere. I suppose it only makes sense as it might be a bit embarrassing to note such a dramatic change in the beliefs of a liberal icon. For those who haven’t heard, below are Mr. Moore’s controversial comments.

"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... 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... The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly two billion tons of CO2 annually—the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300-million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur-dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination. Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually—the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100-million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity were generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction."

Courtesy of the Federalist…

Fission nuclear power has long been a boogeyman of the Left. Three Mile Island looms as possibly one of the most overblown industrial accidents in the history of industry. Chernobyl, although a genuine disaster, happened in the Soviet Union using a reactor type deemed wholly insufficient for use in the U.S. These along with the proven destructiveness of nuclear weapons (although lumping the two together is like comparing an oil-fired electric plant to a napalm bomb, somewhat different uses) were used by environmental and anti-U.S. groups to convince the American public that nuclear power was a demon to be played with only sparingly or not at all. The paucity of nuclear plant construction since the 70’s shows just how effective they and the antique media were in that regard.

In my own state, the public utility tried to build a nuclear plant to relieve perceived future pressures on our coal reserves. It was an amazingly insightful move for a public utility. Protests from a whole house full of Leftist groups not only killed the project halfway into construction, but bankrupted the utility which then had to be sold to a private concern. Now, those who are served by that utility pay far more for energy than they would’ve had to with a nuclear plant. At the time, I was just a little boy and easily bought into the fear mongering and propaganda used to destroy the project. Hindsight has allowed me to see the demagoguery for what it was and saddens me, because nuclear energy could have alleviated a lot of our modern problems.

Even if 100 new plants began construction today, it would take years for their effects to be felt and in a nation where energy production has stagnated for almost three decades, getting even one new plant green-lighted seems a staggering proposal. I feel saddened by this because not just my generation, but my daughter’s generation is going to pay for the arrogance and short-sightedness of the Left, something at the time they accused everyone else of. Higher energy prices already consume a significant part of our family budget, worse in the winter.

Combine that with the high cost of fuel for someone like me who has no choice but to endure a long commute to work, and I count myself among those who can legitimately haul off and punch the protesters who killed that nuke plant 20+ years ago square in the mouth. Thanks for the high energy cost in an era when it could have been avoided. That sort of thinking has caused significant damage to primarily, the little guy, the very person supposedly championed by all these leftist for-profit groups like Sierra Club (and yes, It’s FOR-profit now).

So. Bravo to Mr. Moore on his comments in favor of nuclear energy plants. While I consider him still to be an alarmist on the global warming issue, now affectionately bullet pointed as “climate change” since they can’t narrow down exactly what Earth wants to do year to year, he at least has decided to grow up and join the common sense understanding that nuclear power sits as one of the most heavily regulated entities in energy production and that it works. If it can be seen as an effort businesses can invest and succeed in as an alternative to fossil fuels, we may see companies return to the industry and expand. More energy from nuclear power will mean less dependence on fossil fuels and consequently less vulnerability to the U.S. economy.

It will also lead to more development in refining the technology related to nuclear power plants and might even eventually lead to the development of more efficient nuclear power like fusion energy. This is one area where a small victory can be gained over our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It will take people on the Left like Moore to join with existing proponents to finally break the three decade stalemate on the U.S. energy policy and take a step towards making life a little easier for the average American.