Published: October 3, 2007

Greenpeace pioneer expects major U.S. nuclear expansion

Published: October 3, 2007

October 3, 2007
By Wayne Barber

Greenpeace pioneer turned nuclear advocate Patrick Moore expects the total number of U.S. nuclear power reactors to double to around 200 by mid-century.

“I think the reactor fleet will double within the next 30 or 40 years,” Moore said in an Oct. 3 interview with SNL Energy at the Washington offices of Hill & Knowlton.

Of course, a nuclear expansion will not happen if the environmental organization that Moore helped get off the ground in the 1970s has its way.

“Dangerous. High-risk. Meltdown. Catastrophe. See why these words accurately describe nuclear energy and join us as we push for no new nukes,” Greenpeace USA says on its Web site.

Moore, however, now finds himself as an ambassador for nuclear energy. Moore, a Canadian, was in Washington for several public appearances on behalf of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. That is a nuclear power advocacy organization co-chaired by Moore and former EPA Administrator and New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.

Moore’s firm, Vancouver-based Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., acts in an advisory, consulting role to the coalition. It’s not something Moore envisioned for himself in the 1970s.

Back then Moore helped lead an early Greenpeace campaign against U.S. nuclear missile testing in Alaska. He also traveled out onto the ocean waters on a fishing boat to protest whaling practices. “The whales are recovering from being driven near extinction,” Moore said.

“Not in a million years,” Moore said, when asked if he ever expected to be promoting nuclear power. “We saw nuclear power as a front or a cover for the nuclear weapons industry,” Moore said.

Today, Moore said nuclear power is “necessary if we are going to move away from fossil fuels.” While Moore supports renewable energy, he said the general public does not grasp that wind provides merely intermittent power.

“When the wind is blowing at peak times, you can turn off some gas,” Moore said. The only reliable means of baseload power remain nuclear, fossil, hydro and perhaps some biomass, Moore said.

Moore urges less reliance on fossil fuels

Unlike many environmentalists, Moore does not concede that the Earth is moving into a global warming catastrophe. But he hesitates to call himself a global warming skeptic.

“I think it is the duty of a scientist to remain critical” of assumed facts, Moore said. Unfortunately, if someone describes himself as a “skeptic” on the issue, then the “true believers categorize you as a denier,” Moore said.

“I know there is a difference between a prediction and a fact,” Moore said.

Aside from climate change, there are other reasons to pursue more nuclear power and reduce reliance on coal and other fossil fuels. “It’s clearly the right thing to do in terms of reducing pollution,” Moore said.

Then there is the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. The past couple of generations have managed to consume a disproportionate amount of fossil reserves, Moore said.

Moore eventually concluded that “my old friends at Greenpeace, and others, were off the mark” on nuclear energy.

Nuclear advocates contacted Moore a few years back after he penned some newspaper columns in which he “came out of the closet on nuclear.”

In one column, Moore recalls that years of U.S. phobia on nuclear energy can be traced to 1979 with “The China Syndrome” movie followed weeks later by the real-life reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island.

“What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do – prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents,” Moore wrote.

“And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject … Stewart Brand, founder of the ‘Whole Earth Catalog,’ says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood,” Moore wrote.

Some critics have questioned whether Moore was an actual “co-founder” of Greenpeace, and others claim he has sold out.

Moore split from Greenpeace in the mid-1980s. Moore, who holds a doctorate in ecology, came to see the organization as being dominated by political activists, “none of whom had any formal scientific education.”

As a result, Greenpeace has “gone off on a whole bunch of tangents,” Moore said. While the anti-nuclear movement is well-established, Moore considers it a vocal minority these days.

He also points to the rise of certain groups like “Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *