By Digoy Fernandez
AS A CERTIFIED Tree-Hugger and (laid back) environmental activist, this particular blog will probably strike most of my cohorts, and others besides, as nothing short of heresy. But in this particular time frame when fossil fuels have become particularly prohibitive and the rush to alternatives — e.g., biofuels; solar energy; geothermal, air, wind and water energy; and a host of hybrid and other technologies aimed at powering today’s and future automobiles — is going ahead full-steam, some serious thinkers are advocating a second look at nuclear power.
One of the more serious proponents of a second look at nuclear energy for power plants is none other than Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who now confesses to be a “born again environmental activist,” albeit with a different slant. Moving away from a confrontational and anti-technology approach which he accuses his former colleagues to be guilty of, he believes that nuclear energy’s positives far outweigh the negatives. And in the light of dwindling fossil fuel resources — which are great polluters, by the way — he feels that the world will just have to embark on putting up more nuclear power plants if it is to meet the needs of future development.
Dr Moore is certain that the emphasis on safety of today’s nuclear technology, and possible side benefits such as the production of hydrogen which can be used as an alternative fuel and in the production of water, makes the nuclear option viable.
In this country, we had one chance to have a nuclear power plant, but politics and greed got in the way and turned it (the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant) into a white elephant that had to be paid for even if it was mothballed. So, what is one to do with a fully paid white elephant? Leave it there or convert it into a viable conventional gas or oil burning plant, or go the whole yard and re-examine the nuclear option? For those who claim that the site is above an earthquake fault, well, the whole country is caught in-between two trenches (Marianas and Philippine) which indicate our position in the Pacific Rim of Fire and the various volcanic and tectonic shocks the entire rim is subject to. And yet, some countries like Japan — which has foresworn the use of nuclear weapons, obviously — have nuclear power plants. In Europe, one country that does not seem bothered by the oil crisis is France, for the simple reason that they have so many nuclear power plants that almost all their needs are met by this source of energy.
The question remains: Do we simply shrug away the nuclear option, or do we struggle with a host of other options (many of which are unpalatable)?
As Dr Moore suggests, a complementary scheme of several types of clean energy can be used by any given country, without subjecting oneself to a knee-jerk reaction for or against a specific technology.
August 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
As I said, there are compelling arguments both for and against the use of nuclear power. And I did state that anti-nuclear activists still have to be mollified with respect to both safety and waste issues.
This is funny but I am reminded of the old saying, “Damned if you DO, Damned if you DONT.” In case of such a dilemma, does one say “Damn the torpedoes, Full speed Ahead!” and assume a Damned if you DO position?
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
You are being led by deceit. It is indeed a fact that nuclear power burns cleaner than fossil fuel, however to think of it as a carbon free source of power is preposterous. Think about how much carbon is expended in the wake of producing nuclear power. From mining for uranium or plutonium to shipping it, to building the plant, nuclear energy is far from carbon free. What happens to the nuclear waste? The fact is that even the engineers that have found ways to contain it, admit that their design is meant to last a hundred years or so, then what? Then our children get to try and clean up our mess.
Japan does sit on a fault line and last year there was a earth quake that rocked a nuclear reactor. The reactor had to be shut down and there was a breach, albeit it minor, but it could have been much worse.
The question I am posing is why run the risk when there are safe alternatives at our disposal like wind, solar and geothermal.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Japan & Taiwan are also in the “ring of fire”, thus experiencing many earthquakes as well. But, they have so many nuclear power plants. & these countries are well-developed industrialized nations..We need to harness every available technology to our advantage.
its like knife & fire. They are both disastrous if used wrongly. but these are essential for our everyday lives. Nuclear technologies are there, we need to use it correctly.
& if you will really open your mind, & see the full process, Fossil Fuel powered power plants are more environmentally “dirty”.
Nuclear power plants will greatly benefits the Philippines. I hope our future generations will correct one of the greatest mistakes, with all due respect, Cory did.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:58 am
The anti-nuclear protests for the Bataan NPP reached their peak during the tragedy of Chernobyl. People use this as an argument, along with the Philippines resting on a faultline and the stories of corruption and flawed construction, to shut the plant down.
I believe the BNPP can and should be rehabilitated and put to good use. I beleive we now have the technology to do it. Are people still expecting the money spent on it to be refunded?
Nuclear power is cleaner, cheaper and more efficient than coal or gas.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:16 am
It is very interesting that nukes would be discussed by a self proclaimed environmentalist as a safe alternative. The reality is that nukes are anything but safe. I won’t go on the typical environmental rant here, except to say, do some research. As for safety, the argument is ridiculous. Perhaps Moore’s argument would hold more weight if in fact the United States and others proposing new nuclear facilities were planning to utilize new technologies. In reality all the nuclear facilities in the United States being proposed are to be built with 1950’s technology. The fact remains that Patrick Moore is a sell out.
Take some time to google Moore and his dealings in the past 2 decades. Moore runs a group called Greenspirit. Greenspirit is a great organization if you are a logging company. Moore has argued not only on behalf of nukes, but on behalf of clear cutting. In fact, Greenspirit gets a huge portion of it’s funding from Canadian logging companies. Patrick Moore is for sale and the Nuclear industry and other nemesis of the environmental movement find that to be all too convenient. Moore is yesterday’s news.
For more info on Moore’s ridiculous dealings, check out the Mother Jones article titled, “Spinning the Atom.”
For the record, all but one of the founders of Greenpeace deny that Moore was a founder at all. In fact, Moore was paid scientist on board the Phylis Cormack as it made it’s first voyage to Amchitka island. That’s not to say that he didn’t contribute greatly to the beginnings of the organization, but Moore was sought out by the founders to add credibility to their anti-nuclear campaign.