Wednesday
Dec102008
Should the U.S. go nuclear?
Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said that using more nuclear power plants to advance U.S. energy would be “inherently proliferation prone.” Patrick Moore, Co-Chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and Co-Founder of Greenpeace, countered saying nuclear power was “one of the safest technologies ever invented” and “You’d have to take over the United States of America to steal this stuff.”
At a debate today, Moore claimed that nuclear energy is clean and does not emit greenhouse gases. He also stated that “nuclear waste” is 95 percent reusable which can lead to recycling potential energy. He remarked that nuclear energy is the only type of alternative power that can “effectively replace fossil fuels.” Makhijani believed that using other forms of energy like wind and solar would allow the U.S. to be free of energy carbon emissions in 40 years.
Moore said that wind and solar energy are “inherently intermittent” and these types of energy can disappear “three or four days at a time” while nuclear energy is “reliable.” Makhijani stated he would rectify this problem by allowing for “some storage” of these types of energy so people could use it whenever they wanted. Makhijani also questioned Moore’s statements about power and cleanliness of nuclear power saying that if they were true, Wall Street “would be lining up” to build nuclear power plants. Makhijani joked that Wall Street thought it was okay to give out subprime mortgages, but they felt nuclear power was “too risky.”
Makhijani felt that using wind energy would be cheaper than nuclear energy, and one must take that into account in this economic crisis. He also said that the U.S. has the capacity to do it within its borders. Moore submitted that it would cost more presently but nuclear power eventually “pays for itself” and Moore added that solar energy presently would cost five times what nuclear energy costs.
At a debate today, Moore claimed that nuclear energy is clean and does not emit greenhouse gases. He also stated that “nuclear waste” is 95 percent reusable which can lead to recycling potential energy. He remarked that nuclear energy is the only type of alternative power that can “effectively replace fossil fuels.” Makhijani believed that using other forms of energy like wind and solar would allow the U.S. to be free of energy carbon emissions in 40 years.
Moore said that wind and solar energy are “inherently intermittent” and these types of energy can disappear “three or four days at a time” while nuclear energy is “reliable.” Makhijani stated he would rectify this problem by allowing for “some storage” of these types of energy so people could use it whenever they wanted. Makhijani also questioned Moore’s statements about power and cleanliness of nuclear power saying that if they were true, Wall Street “would be lining up” to build nuclear power plants. Makhijani joked that Wall Street thought it was okay to give out subprime mortgages, but they felt nuclear power was “too risky.”
Makhijani felt that using wind energy would be cheaper than nuclear energy, and one must take that into account in this economic crisis. He also said that the U.S. has the capacity to do it within its borders. Moore submitted that it would cost more presently but nuclear power eventually “pays for itself” and Moore added that solar energy presently would cost five times what nuclear energy costs.
tagged 
Energy, crisis, greenpeace, nuclear, proliferation in News/Commentary
Energy, crisis, greenpeace, nuclear, proliferation in News/Commentary
Economic stimulus will reduce at least 61 million tons of CO2 every year
Kurt Davies, Greenpeace research director, explained how the energy and transport portions of this legislation are projected to fight global warming. "Taken together, they will cut at least 61 million tons of CO2 every year. That's the equivalent of taking 13 million cars off the road and equal to the electricity from about 7.9 million American homes, about 8 times the size of Chicago."
Furthermore, Greenpeace focused on how spending money on clean energy will create jobs. Research from the University of Massachusetts has found that investments in transit will create four times the amount of jobs when compared to investments in oil. Investments in efficiency are projected to produce at least twice as many jobs as investments in coal.
Beil concluded, "The job creating potential and environmental benefits of clean energy is virtually limitless, we would urge congress, if anything, to put additional investments into these programs."