The environmentalist who went nuclear: why Greenpeace founder and activist Patrick Moore thinks the atom is the answer

Chief Executive, The, Sept, 2007

The problem is that most of the people in the environmental movement are not independent of their organizations. They have to toe the party line. Within groups like the NRDC and the Sierra Club, there are people who are questioning this policy now. But they're not free to speak their minds if they want to keep their jobs. It's hard for groups that have spent so much time and money educating their supporters into thinking that nuclear energy is evil to shift their position because they risk losing half the membership that they have worked so hard to build up.

But as time goes on, the logic has to eventually emerge. It is simply not logical to say that climate change is the most important issue and that reducing fossil fuel consumption is the main aim and then be against the most important technology for accomplishing that.

Yet the history of the environmental movement seems to be based less on using logic, as you pointed out, than advocating a religious commitment to an environmentally pure theology.

Yes, there is an unfortunate element of religious fervor or lack of logic within the movement. It's not in all the groups though. The NRDC tends to be a more fact-based organization, and I know for a fact that there is quite a debate going on within the organization. There are high-level people in the NRDC who do not agree with their anti-nuclear policy.

I mean, how much sense does it make for the Sierra Club to be against nuclear energy when it's the coal-fired power plants that are making the air filthy at the Grand Canyon? If they want clean air and pristine wilderness, surely they would be more in favor of a technology that does not produce air pollution than in favor of a technology that does.

When it comes right down to it, the choice is between fossil fuel and nuclear for base load power production. Look around the world and see the choice that people are making. It's irresponsible of established organizations like The Los Angeles Times, which recently published an article where the paper said tax dollars are better spent on windmills than on cooling towers. Replacing nuclear energy with wind power is simply not possible. There is a fundamental difference between intermittent and unreliable sources like wind and solar and reliable base load sources like hydro, fossil and nuclear. Replacing base load power with wind simply can't be done.

Yet there are people in the environmental movement, in politics and in media who are saying we don't need nuclear power, we can do it with wind and solar. That is an untrue statement. It's not possible in the real world, because you can't make the wind blow all the time and you can't make the sun shine all the time.

You can make hydro, nuclear and coal power all the time, night and day. But the general public doesn't make this critical distinction and is being purposefully misled by people who ought to know. It's irresponsible.

For the complete unabridged interviews with Patrick Moore and Mike Morris, see CE Online.

Nuclear Energy Around the World

Nuclear power plants provided about 16 percent of the world's
electricity production in 2006. In total, 16 countries relied on nuclear
energy to supply at least one-quarter of their total electricity.
Countries generating the largest percentage of their electricity in 2006
from nuclear energy were:

Country      Percent

France       78.1
Lithuania    72.3
Slovakia     57.2
Belgium      54.4
Sweden       48.0
Ukraine      47.5
Bulgaria     43.6
Armenia      42.0
Slovenia     40.3
S. Korea     38.6
Hungary      37.7
Switzerland  37.4

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute

Emissions Avoided by the U.S. Nuclear Industry

       Sulfur Dioxide        Nitrogen Oxides       Carbon Dioxide
Year   (Million Short Tons)  (Million Short Tons)  (Million Metric Tons)

1995    4.19                  2.03                   670.60
1996    4.16                  1.89                   645.30
1997    3.97                  1.76                   602.40
1998    4.08                  1.76                   646.40
1999    4.13                  1.73                   685.30
2000    3.60                  1.54                   677.20
2001    3.41                  1.43                   664.00
2002    3.38                  1.39                   694.80
2003    3.36                  1.24                   679.80
2004    3.43                  1.12                   696.60
2005    3.32                  1.05                   681.92
2006    3.12                  0.99                   681.18
Total  44.15                 17.93                 8,025.50

Source: Emissions avoided by nuclear power are calculated using regional
fossil fuel emissions rates from the Environmental Protection Agency and
plant generation data from the Energy Information Administration.