They'd rather sit in the dark than light a candle.
FOXNews.com - Environmentalists Prompt Nuclear Power Wake-Up Call - Opinion
Environmentalists Prompt Nuclear Power Wake-Up Call
Thursday, August 14, 2008
By Steven Milloy
What did the nuclear power industry get for playing footsie with the "greens" on global warming? A knife in the back, it looks like. The greens now are saying that emission-free nuclear power may actually contribute to climate change.
After decades of having its growth entirely stymied by anti-nuclear environmentalists, the industry decided to help the greens lobby for global warming regulation in hopes of easing opposition to the expansion of nuclear power. Companies like Exelon, FPL Group and NRG Energy, for example, helped the greens form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) — a coalition of big businesses and green groups that has been leading the charge on Capitol Hill for global warming regulation.
But as the saying goes, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
A case in point is the proposed addition of a third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in southern Maryland. The greens formed a group euphemistically called the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition (CSEC) to oppose the new reactor. Members of the CSEC are hardcore anti-nuclear activists including the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Maryland Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the Maryland Green Party and the Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility.
A June 2007 report by Maryland PIRG lays out the standard anti-nuclear objections against the proposed reactor, including that nuclear plants are expensive to build, radiation is inherently dangerous, uranium mining is environmentally destructive, and that nuclear waste "remains dangerous for thousands of years and no nation on earth has developed an acceptable solution for safely disposing of it."
But in this era of global warming hysteria, the standard arguments apparently aren't working.
Maryland's governor, Martin O'Malley, apparently decided that the state needed electricity soon, instead of blackouts while waiting for 'alternative energy' to be available. And realistically, it's reasonable to go for a proven, hig-density power source instead of
The governor's picking nukes over wind must have sent the greens into meltdown. So in response, the desperate greens came up with a bizarre new argument: nuclear power causes global warming.
That's right, nuclear is the latest form of "dirty" energy. How can that be, you ask? Nuclear power doesn't produce greenhouse gases, does it? Well, not directly, the greens argue. But nuclear power "worsens climate change," says prominent environmentalist Amory Lovins in a new paper, because it diverts money away from alternative energy and efficiency efforts that would otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Adding insult to injury, Lovins also says that nuclear power is "grossly uncompetitive, unneeded and obsolete" and "weakens electric reliability and national security."
The head of Maryland PIRG picked up on Lovins' line of thinking, telling Carbon Control News (Aug. 8) that "efficiency programs and renewables such as wind and solar can provide more carbon-abatement per dollar while avoiding the downsides of nuclear power."
The question is whether carbon abatement's what you want. Some people actually want to LIGHT their homes, or use that wacky electricity stuff, and they don't WORRY about their carbon footprints.
By the way, you know that Global Warming stuff? The Denver Airport reported a 128 year LOW temp on the 15th of August - 59 degrees.
Anecdotal cold weather news from around the world ｫ Watts Up With That?
And I checked a place I used to live - Cheyenne, Wyoming...
Yesterday's high was 49 degrees. Normal is 80. The minimum record was set in 1893, at 38.
If this is 'global warming' I think someone flipped their thermometer.
J.
