No nukes!!! Same old story from the Greenocracy

 No nukes!!! Same old story from the GreenocracySo some new news from Greenpeace.  Kumi Naidoo was appointed executive director of the environmental campaign group Greenpeace International this month after two decades leading civil society groups in Africa and internationally. Mr. Naidoo, 44, who is from South Africa, takes over the role at a time when environmentalism increasingly enjoys mainstream status.  Here is his introduction video.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_VYX8hTOCI&feature]

Hummmm… So will there be any real change or will Mr. Naidoo tow the exaggerated and exceedingly irresponsible party line.  Well as he suggested in an interview with the New York Times blog Green inc.  he intends to maintain the party line thing.

Question;

Greenpeace has staunchly opposed nuclear power on a variety of grounds. But a number of former opponents of nuclear have come around to accepting this form of energy and now say that it may have a role to play in the future low-carbon power mix. Do you see any room for nuclear power — including the extension of licenses on existing nuclear power plants — in an era when governments and citizens are searching for low-carbon energy sources?

Answer;

No. Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction to real solutions. When you extend a nuclear plant’s life beyond what it was designed for, you make an unsafe technology even more dangerous, create even more waste, and put off decisions on adopting real solutions.

wrong answer No nukes!!! Same old story from the Greenocracy

Why?

Actually it seems to me Mr. Naidoo, that more and more countries are considering, planning, or constructing nuclear reactors to supply clean, electricity to their populace.  I guess the belief that ‘civil disobedience is the only way to push our governments’ isn’t really working on the nuclear issue.  Like any industry, nuclear has grown to meet the challenges that has hindered it in the past.  The answers to the following questions were taken from ‘The nuclear Imperative‘ by  Jeff W. Eerkens, PhD Adjunct Research Professor, Nuclear Science & Eng’ng Institute University of Missouri

1) Nuclear is too expensive

Well this question must be taken in relativity to other solutions that have been offered to limit Co2 emissions namely a massive ramp up in renewable power sources.

Contrary to false propaganda by anti-nuclear groups, the cost of tera-watts of electricity is three times less expensive with nuclear than for wind or solar. Solar and wind power generation requires expensive energy storage systems (batteries, etc) when there is no sunshine or wind. Also many miles of access roads for maintenance and repair are needed to keep blades or solar panels clean from bird droppings, dead birds, sand erosion, and storm damage, and to periodically replace electrodes on storage batteries.

2) Nuclear is dangerous

Today’s nuclear power plants are absolutely safe. Because of the negative “coefficient of reactivity”, reactor fuel elements can only melt (an explosion is not possible) during a maximum credible accident in which the emergency core cooling system totally fails. This was “experimentally” proven in the Three-Mile-Island (TMI) accident. A negative coefficient of reactivity means that neutron multiplication is automatically stopped when the temperature in the reactor gets too high. The Russian Chernobyl reactor which took the lives of 57 people, had a positive coefficient of reactivity because it used graphite as moderator. That design for nuclear power plants was prohibited in the USA since the birth of nuclear power in 1950 and now prohibited worldwide. Furthermore the Chernobyl reactor had no containment vessel, as was/is the law in all Western countries and now globally. The assertion that perhaps thousands of people could still die from the fallout around Chernobyl is nonsense. Of the 60,000 inhabitants of Pripyat who had been exposed to fallout, about 12,000 will die at an advanced age of cancer because worldwide 20% of all people ultimately die from cancer. To ascribe those 12,000 deaths to Chernobyl’s fallout is equally ridiculous as claiming that such a death toll is due to drinking coffee because 20% of all people drink coffee.

3) What about the waste?

The volume of waste amounts to one aspirin tablet per year per person using nuclear electricity, compared to many tons of air pollutants and mega-tons of globe-warming gaseous CO2 emitted by coal or fossil-fuel combustion. Nuclear waste can be easily stored and safely transported, as the US nuclear navy has done for half a century. Contrary to allegations that uranium and plutonium in spent fuel elements pose a problem because of million-year half-lives, they will be separated from fission products by reprocessing and burnt as fuel in future fast-breeder reactors; they will not be dumped. This reduces 400 tons from a one-year accumulation of spent fuel per reactor to 2 tons of fission products, taking centuries instead of decades to fill Nevada’s Yucca or other waste repository. The notion that long radioactive lifetimes are undesirable is also erroneous. The longer the decay lifetime, the less the radiation emitted per gram of radio-isotope. All humans are “hot” because everyone has radioactive potassium-40 (K-40; 0.012% abundance) in the cells of his/her body, which continuously emits beta particles with a half-life of one million years! Man successfully evolved in this environment.

This perfectly sums up Greenpeace and its position on Nuclear.  No scientific basis.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p10G-6ikPKw]

It seems that on the nuclear issue there is no negotiation with the Greenocracy.  Their positions has been and will always be ‘If you hate it come and march with us.  If you’re on the fence you’re just ignorant and if you’re pro-nuclear you are Satan incarnate’.  The antiquated notion that nuclear is dangerous, predisposes Greenpeace out of any balanced debate on how to tackle climate change.  Its like having a debate with a creationist,  the ability to employ objectivity alludes them, rendering their position inadequate. Real solutions are needed quickly in our fight against Anthropogenic Global Warming, not hopeful suggestions and unachievable goals.  Thanks anyway Greenpeace, best of luck with your future endeavors in skewing the debate, clouding the issue and holding on to unjustified positions, but it seems that people are starting to move beyond your fear tactics and are begining to realize the potential of nuclear as a real substitute to fossil fuel generation.


sm share en No nukes!!! Same old story from the Greenocracy

120x20 su black No nukes!!! Same old story from the Greenocracy
spreddit7 No nukes!!! Same old story from the Greenocracy

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “No nukes!!! Same old story from the Greenocracy”

  1. Aizen says:

    Where was the last video from? BBC?
    I’ve seen several BBC interviews or roundtables and it’s encouraging to know that there is still a MSM outlet on the globe that asks rational and logical questions without pandering to liberal blockheads.
    Nuclear industry to Greenpeace:”Here, look at this, we can safely and successfully do this without out all the old school fears and propaganda that surrounds our industry.
    Greenpeace:”nope, don’t believe it”
    NI:”But, here, look, I’m showing you proof, that we and other countries are doing this, and it’s working brilliantly.”
    GP:” nuh-uh. not gonna happen. Don’t believe it. (plugs ears like a 5 year old) la la la la la la la la (I can’t hear you) la la la la la.
    Quick let’s drum up a publicity stunt and cloud the facts some more. la la la la la la

    • skyler hype says:

      ahahahahah. yeah the antics of a 5 year old pretty much sum up what one can expect from Greenpeace on the nuclear issue. Yeah i think the round table is from BBC’s hardtalk.

  2. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by 00Tinman00: RT @bobbimatys: No nukes!!! Same old story from the Greenocracy – http://bit.ly/6kgFt7...

  3. James W Makepeace says:

    The BBC has made plenty of material about the real answer to the energy conundrum… but not everyone is waking up to the realities.
    There is absolutely no question about Greenpeace being right… they are totally wrong !
    Much as we don’t like fission energy (conventional reactors) we have to have another generation of them if the lights are not going to start going out in a few years.
    Sticking with burning fossil fuels is a fool’s game… but just try explaining that to the developing world… they don’t have an alternative, so would prefer to continue screwing up the environment for the future… simply because, like the rest of us, they are completely addicted to cheap abundant energy.
    Renewables are the Greenpeace solution… but the maths just doesn’t stack up globally. Small areas might be OK with wind energy and hydro-electric (Canada and Norway don’t do badly in that respect), but for most countries renewables hardly even scratch the surface of the huge energy demand.
    The answer (which the BBC did its latest documentary about months ago) is nuclear fusion… the process by which nature routinely unleashes energy on the grand scale.
    Fusion is the process which drives our sun and all stars… in relation to fission it is extremely clean, its fuel is super-abundant on earth, but unfortunately it will take us quite a few years yet to deliver fusion energy to the grid… and that’s where sloppy politicians come in… or rather DON’T come in !
    Because the costs look high and the visible benefit isn’t going to be within the lifetime of a government, politicians keep kicking fusion energy research into the long grass …”a problem for someone else to solve in years to come”… except those years are now running out fast ! The lights won’t stay on much longer, especially if scientists don’t complete their work on harnessing fusion energy.
    Two approaches are looking promising… the magnetic confinement people are having some problems… largely through under-funding, but also with some technical issues, but the newest and perhaps the most promising technology will use huge lasers. America is about to achieve Proof of Principle for triggering a fusion burn with the elusive phenomenon of “energy gain” (more power out than in) and Europe is already positioning itself to carry forward that work to develop a testbed reactor which will give us the knowledge to build the world’s first laser fusion energy reactor… possibly as early as 2020 ! … and that is about as long as we can possibly afford to wait… before the real trouble starts !
    So let’s all hope that Greenpeace stop chanting their “anti-nuclear” mantras and face hard reality… we need another generation of fission reactors, we need to develop renewables as much as we can, and above all we desperately need to bring fusion energy into the equation… before it really is too late !

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Visit www.iFreeCellPhones.com for Free Cell Phones. | Thanks to Palm Pre Blog, Find Best CD Rates and Fat burning furnace