For decades, it was an article of faith for many green activists that nuclear power was an evil that could never be tolerated.
That position is changing now as the world looks for a stable, and potentially abundant, source of electric power to bridge the transition to renewables. But not all of the green faithful are willing to drop their fidelity to the anti-nuke gospel.
The result? A schism:
While many environmental groups and green political parties in the U.S., Canada and Europe have long opposed nuclear power as dirty and risky, a new generation of climate activists—including a branch of Fridays for Future movement, which draws its inspiration from Greta Thunberg—argue that nuclear power can be a valuable low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. The opposing viewpoints are fueling a contentious divide among environmental groups and within green political parties, an issue that has grown more pronounced in recent months amid the world's energy crisis.
The U.K., France and Canada have pledged to increase their nuclear-power capacity as an alternative to Russian energy and to more polluting energy sources, such as coal. Some jurisdictions that previously planned to mothball existing nuclear plants are now having second thoughts in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The old guard is having none of it:
“I have fought for abandoning nuclear energy for nearly 50 years; now, just before the last [reactors] will go offline, I will not allow for my success to be stolen from me,” Michael Schroeren, a veteran Green activist and former official, tweeted.
And of course, the green priesthood is against the idea, too:
Established environmental groups including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and 350.org remain deeply wary of nuclear power, pointing out the threat of a nuclear accident and the high cost of building plants. Some of those opposed lived through the Cold War, the partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant and the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl. Others fear a disaster like what occurred at the Fukushima plant in Japan, which was triggered by a massive earthquake. Nuclear opponents also point to technological advancements that have lowered the cost of renewables such as solar and wind power.
Promoting nuclear power as a solution to climate change “is consciously used as a diversion tactic,” said Jan Haverkamp, an Amsterdam-based nuclear-energy expert with Greenpeace. “Every time and again, we've seen there are surges of lobbying to get the nuclear industry back into growth. The industry now thinks that we've forgotten about Fukushima.”
Better to force others to shiver and starve in the dark than commit heresy, it seems. A rational approach would embrace nuclear power as the bridge energy it can be to a more robust set of renewables that can power not just the modern global economy but ensure the growth of emerging nations, as well.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Degrowth – The Green Movement's Dystopian Endgame >>
CA needs nuclear NOW
Or open other dated plants
Streamline lisc etc system alone
A small tactical one would do!
What’s scary is the climate activists after protesting….go home and turn their lights on, and haven’t a clue of how it works.
If the climate activists really want to help the planet, and their human counterparts
maybe helping out a homeless person.
I challenge Greta personally to help a homeless person anywhere on the planet, and without the advertising that comes along with her.
Don’t forget about their private jets.
We must remember that Conservatives are EDUCATED but Liberals are INDOCTRINATED. You don’t get facts from the Main Stream Media. 1. Some time ago the UN said the hole in the ozone was shrinking and it is. 2. The North and South Polar are icing over. (was that why they weren’t on a weather map?) 3. There are “moonquakes” on the moon. 4. Some kind of gadget that is used to check the heat are put in places like a gas station or a tar paved road etc. that get hot. That 22 BILLION that the US spends may not be necessary. How about tking care of needy Americans.
EV Issues:
Range
Charging time
Lack EV Techs
Lack Commercial Chargers
Replace battery unit
& No Energy for Grid
Long refuted auto union and GM lies.
And batteries and other components from Red China. 10%…
If these supposed green people were really serious about clean energy they would be pushing for nuclear energy because it is the most efficient and cleanest energy that we have. There is no natural energy crisis, it is man made. We have enough energy to fuel this planet for another 400 years. Most green advocates are frauds. They want the little people to use mass transit while they jet around in their private jets, yachts and limosines. In order to drop the temp 0.01 degree we would have to crash our economy. If they were serious, they would be after India and China. The U.S. has already met our goal of clean emissions. Stop with the BS.
They have already crashed our economy!
The thing about nuclear accidents is that we study and learn from them so as to avoid similar accidents in the future.
If these “environmentalists” would have been in charge of aviation in the early days, we never would have developed rapid and safe air travel. Because to them, an accident is a reason to stop any further development, rather than being an opportunity to learn.
The Fukushima plant did not fail because of the earthquake. It did as designed, and shut down. However, the diesel generators that were supposed to power the pumps to keep coolant circulating had been placed too low and were flooded when the tsunami hit. It was the flooding and unintended shut-down of the generators that led to the accident. What do we learn here? To redesign the plant so as to reduce the risks from flooding.
Use whatever wacky new sources of energy you want, but make sure they will cover the needs of the populace. In other words, before jumping off the diving board, ensure you have sufficient water in the pool. How hard can it be?
When a cause is a cult based on emotions vice science it will always be hard to get someone to release their emotional needs since none of it was reality to begin with. Ah Ha and there in lies its design!
Have we forgotten that more people died at Chappaquiddick than at the three mile island nuclear site?
Aren’t we lucky that the “green’s” don’t run our government? Who really cares if they don’t like it, it means nothing to the rest of country.Nuclear is the best alternate until their wind and sun technology advances enough to do away with nuclear. That’s not going to be any time soon.
You cannot obtain energy by rubbing two blades of grass together. You cannot obtain sufficient energy by any of the new solar or wind technologies now in their infancy. Such beliefs are a product of the false Climate Religion, which has been brewing since the Sierra Club, likely Marxist-inspired or subsequently Marxist-hijacked, to subsume First World nations. Mark my words, there are demons in high positions today who would snuff out Mankind because Mother Earth is so ‘pure, unspoiled,innocent and benign. Man is the filthy usurper who corrupts Her Majesty.’ Nature innocent and benign?? Pardon me? How about alligators, rattlesnakes, the Black Plague, hurricanes, tsunamis, pandemics? The Lord put us here to manage Nature and (I hope) get along with it. But some of these lunatics would terminate humanity, setting themselves up in the position of gods.