Greenpeace asks DOE to abandon nuclea...

Greenpeace asks DOE to abandon nuclear energy plans

There are 2 comments on the ABS-CBN News story from Dec 27, 2012, titled Greenpeace asks DOE to abandon nuclear energy plans. In it, ABS-CBN News reports that:

Environment watchdog Greenpeace on Thursday urged Energy Chief Jericho Petilla to abandon plans on using nuclear power in the country.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABS-CBN News.


Brookline, MA

#1 Dec 27, 2012
No can do. Nuclear energy is the lowest footprint and lowest wildlife impact of all resources now available.

So, yes, nuclear will continue to be in the mix for the foreseeable future, with a temporary decrease in those states of the USofA that have access to large natural gas reserves.

Albuquerque, NM

#2 Dec 27, 2012
Per the article:

"There is a significant sticking point to the promotion of thorium as the 'great green hope' of clean energy production: it remains unproven on a commercial scale. While it has been around since the 1950s (and an experimental 10MW LFTR did run for five years during the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US, though using uranium and plutonium as fuel) it is still a next generation nuclear technology theoretical."

That is correct. What it actually means is that we should be diligently doing R & D work on the LFTR to determine whether it is a reasonable approach to solving our energy problems; it does not mean that we should abandon it. It seems to be a very promising technology and abandoning it without further R & D work would be the height of stupidity.

Following the "logic" of Greenpeace, we would abandon solar and wind power because it they have not been demonstrated to provide power reliably since they are intermittent sources of power. But since when has Greenpeace been logical?

It would seem that the alternative to nuclear power would be somehow to reduce the earth's population very quickly and return to living the way our ancestors lived before the industrial revolution, a way of living that changed very little from the time of ancient Rome to the late 1700s.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Nuclear Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Is this dog God? Mar 16 pelham2micci 1
News The future of nuclear power? Think small, look ... Mar 15 Solarman 3
News Op-ed: US energy and the trade dilemma Mar 15 Solarman 1
News Canadian Nuclear Safety Commissioncnsc renews O... Mar 7 BDV 2
News Richard E. (Dick) Walker Mar 5 They cannot kill ... 3
News PG&E reaches green energy goals early, but hurd... Feb 21 Solarman 1
News Arizona Republican outdoes California with 'con... Feb 20 Solarman 1