Greenpeace Founder Goes Nuclear

In a Washington Post article, Patrick Moore explains why he has become a proponent of Nuclear Energy. In a previous post, I outlined the reasons why the NRDC believes Nuclear energy will not be able to compete with renewables. I would love to hear Patrick Moore and Ralph Cavanagh of the NRDC in a public debate.

UPDATE: Transcript of an online chat with Patrick Moore. Here are some interesting bits:

Do you have a suggestion for the proper mix of renewables and nuclear power sources. And are there modeling and simulation tools that might help in calculating and quantifying such a mix of sources?

Patrick Moore: I don't think there is much justification for solar voltaics on the grid. Wind may be able to produce 10% cost-effectively. Geothermal heat pumps are cost-effective in every building and should be widely deployed. Hydro-electric already produces a substantial % of electricity but it is mostly built out. So the majority of power must be produced by coal, gas or nuclear. I would emphasize nuclear and try to reduce reliance of coal and gas.

Rockville, Md.: Dr. Moore, I'd guess that your support for nuclear power receives some funding from industry groups or their representatives, as your positive views on logging are underwritten in part by commercial forestry interests. There's nothing wrong with being employed by those whose point of view you share, of course, but in the interest of full disclosure, can you tell us what nuclear trade or media groups contribute to your income or the income of your company, Greenspirit?

Patrick Moore: We work for the Nuclear Energy Institute in DC and the Canadian Nuclear Association in Ottawa.

... Reston, Va.: Is Greenpeace willing to actively work for the start of nuclear reactor construction in the United States? What type of reactor design does Greenpeace favor?

Patrick Moore: I left Greenpeace 20 years ago, note it describes me as a "former leader" at the bottom of the article. Greenpeace is religiously opposed to nuclear energy. I think they need to rethink their position.

... Berkeley, Calif.: Why haven't there been any nuclear power plants built in the last 30 years? There is no law against them; even the loud and popular protests against one of the last plants built, Diablo Canyon (in California) in the 70s, didn't stop it. Isn't a matter of economics?

Also, will the same proportion of government subsidies be required over the next 50 years as existed over the 50 years between 1948 and 1998 when, according to the National Resources Defense Council, nuclear power subsidies were an estimated 60 percent of the total federal energy research and development funding, while 23 percent went to oil, coal, and natural gas, 11 percent to renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro, geothermal, and solar power, and only seven percent to energy efficiency technologies. And this doesn't include the 'subsidy' that the nuclear power industry receives through the Price-Anderson Act which limits the liability from catastrophic accidents.

Patrick Moore: Economics has played a role, coal has been cheaper in the past. So if you want cheap we get air pollution and greenhouse gases.

I don't know the NRDC report. Do they include military nuclear costs?

Nuclear technology is very R&D intensive, a legitimate role for government/industry co-operation.