Exclusive: leading greens in major nuclear U-turn

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
Ben
Posts: 541
Joined: 19 Nov 2008, 15:36
Location: Yorkshire

Exclusive: leading greens in major nuclear U-turn

Post by Ben »

Nuclear power? Yes please...

Exclusive: leading greens join forces in a major U-turn.

Britain must embrace nuclear power if it is to meet its commitments on climate change, four of the country’s leading environmentalists – who spent much of their lives opposing atomic energy – warn today. The one-time opponents of nuclear power, who include the former head of Greenpeace, have told The Independent that they have now changed their minds over atomic energy because of the urgent need to curb emissions of carbon dioxide. They all take the view that the building of nuclear power stations is now imperative and that to delay the process with time-consuming public inquiries and legal challenges would seriously undermine Britain’s promise to cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
The four leading environmentalists who are now lobbying in favour of nuclear power are Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year, and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate.

Mr Tindale, who ran Greenpeace for five years until he resigned in 2005, has taken a vehemently anti-nuclear stance through out his career as an environmentalist. “My position was necessarily that nuclear power was wrong, partly for the pollution and nuclear waste reasons but primarily because of the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons,” Mr Tindale said. “My change of mind wasn’t sudden, but gradual over the past four years. But the key moment when I thought that we needed to be extremely serious was when it was reported that the permafrost in Siberia was melting massively, giving up methane, which is a very serious problem for the world,” he said . . .
Full story The Independent, 23 Feb 2009
Aurora

Post by Aurora »

The Herald - 23/02/09

We owe it to ourselves to abandon nuclear energy

I will not rehearse the arguments against nuclear power generation versus alternative sources (Alf Young, The Herald, February 20), for the simple reason that I would rather accept the energy deficit and all that goes with it because of the link between the civil nuclear power and the nuclear arms industry. Every advocate of civil nuclear power generation I have read, heard or met personally is either an advocate of nuclear weapons, nuclear defence policies and the so-called "nuclear deterrent", or, frankly, must be naive, and unaware or badly informed about this insidious linking of the civil and military aspects.

Article continues ...
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Some 'greens' on discovering Peak Oil and Global Warming, run about like headless chickens.

(I think that ought to be a cartoon caption. Anyone good with the pencil?)
2 As and a B
Posts: 2590
Joined: 28 Nov 2008, 19:06

Post by 2 As and a B »

I'm hippest, no really.
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 14:34
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

Wow, they've accepted its a choice between cheap nuclear or cheap coal. "Greens" have entered the real world
I will not rehearse the arguments against nuclear power generation versus alternative sources (Alf Young, The Herald, February 20), for the simple reason that I would rather accept the energy deficit and all that goes with it
And we are lucky enough to live in a Democracy and outvote you.
I'm a realist, not a hippie
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14814
Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

Apart daft ideas like nuclear preventing much in the way of CO2 emissions, they're too late.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10556
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

Urm, neither coal nor nuclear are cheap. Energy isn't cheap and coal might might turn out to be one of the most expensive thing the human race has ever done when the costs of climate change are considered.

The cost of 1m sea level rise outweighs the value of all the electricity ever generated from coal - many times over.

From this point of view nuclear is certainly cheaper than coal however uranium reserves and deployment timescales prevent it addressing the the energy security problem at hand.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

clv101 wrote:The cost of 1m sea level rise outweighs the value of all the electricity ever generated from coal - many times over.
That's an interesting factoid, and doubtless true, but could you pin some numbers onto it?
Aurora

Post by Aurora »

The Independent - 24/02/09

The Big Question: Does nuclear power now provide the answer to Britain’s energy needs?

Why are we asking this now?

Because as The Independent reported yesterday four of the country’s leading green activists have overcome a lifetime’s opposition to warn of the dire consequences of not building more nuclear power stations.

Article continues ...
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 14:34
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

The cost of 1m sea level rise outweighs the value of all the electricity ever generated from coal - many times over.
Cost to who?
I'm a realist, not a hippie
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10556
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

The cost to human civilisation? Civilisation that that has a large amount of value tied up in sub 1m land (coastal cities for example) and derive a large amount of value from sub 1m land (East Anglia farm land for example).

Looking at the big picture - if global coal use for electricity over the 200 years from say 1900 to 2100 results in say 1m sea level rise - it would turn out to be one of the most wrong headed economic decisions ever made.
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 14:34
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

But land less than 1m above sea level is of no economic benefit to me, or a great many other people.

A 1m sea level rise will make some people poorer, it might even drag down the average(cant sea how to be honest), but it will also make some people richer.
I'm a realist, not a hippie
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10556
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

DominicJ wrote:But land less than 1m above sea level is of no economic benefit to me, or a great many other people.

A 1m sea level rise will make some people poorer, it might even drag down the average(cant sea how to be honest), but it will also make some people richer.
Sorry, I thought you lived in the UK! If maybe you live in... Bolivia, Paraguay or Nepal sea level rise wouldn't have much of a direct effect but if you live in the UK 1m sea level rise will be economically disastrous for you and your family. Any idea what it would do to the UK economy?
User avatar
SunnyJim
Posts: 2915
Joined: 24 Jan 2007, 10:07

Post by SunnyJim »

You forget Chris. DemonicJ is an island.
Jim

For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.

"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
User avatar
DominicJ
Posts: 4387
Joined: 18 Nov 2008, 14:34
Location: NW UK

Post by DominicJ »

Clv
"Any idea what it would do to the UK economy?"
But I'm not the UK, I live here. The UK's economy could suffer a 99% contraction, but my economy could increase by 10,000%.
Sucks to be on the losing side.
Now, the UK government might deceide to protect the low land farmers, hard to blame them, but how?
Banning me burning coal?

But as you rightly point out, a 1m sea rise will not harm Nepal, so why will they care about our protestations?
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Post Reply