Vasco Castela: On nuclear, Greenpeace risks becoming an environmental hazard

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Earlier this year, Greenpeace released the third edition of its Energy Revolution report, and it is all good news. Apparently, renewable energy is cheap and plentiful, and so reliable that we can start phasing out nuclear power production immediately.

      The problem with this proposal is that it is disconnected from reality. Those who see this may regret that Greenpeace is not using honest tactics in its otherwise commendable mission. Those who do not see it are on their way to becoming rather paranoid activists—for if renewable energy is so readily available, only some kind of capitalist global conspiracy can be holding it back. This sort of environmental propaganda, matched with a measure of stubborn idealism, does a disservice to the environmental movement.

      Greenpeace’s report optimistically claims that the sun alone is able to provide “around six times more [technically accessible] power than the world currently requires”. According to David MacKay, author of 2008’s Sustainable Energy—Without the Hot Air and professor at the University of Cambridge, the total area that would have to be dedicated to concentrating solar power in order to provide North America with all its current energy requirements is a little bigger than the area of Arizona. Six times that? That would mean an area nearly equivalent to that of B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan together, with no trees or farms, the ground entirely covered in solar mirrors.

      Greenpeace has recently claimed that wind power can replace nuclear power, and proposed the construction of wind mills instead of new nuclear plants. Wind is unfortunately a very poor choice to replace nuclear, because it is, like the sun, an intermittent power source. When the wind dies down, a wind power plant may produce no power at all, while demand may remain constant.

      As MacKay points out, supporters of wind energy may try to play down the problem by arguing that while wind is intermittent for an individual farm, the sum of all wind farms, taken together, is far less intermittent. But MacKay has shown that this is also not true. In 2007, there were 17 days when the output of Britain’s 1,632 windmills was less than 10 percent of their capacity. Although on windless days, energy may be obtained from storage systems, such as hydroelectric dams, these are not available everywhere. As the occasional blackout is not an option, this limits the use of wind power in many countries to covering small occasional shortages or exporting.

      Greenpeace’s demagogy regarding the ease of the transition to renewables, in addition to alienating the more cool-headed and radicalizing the hard-core believers—which inevitably affects their credibility as environment spokespeople—could have an even more serious effect. Since renewables are not a realistic option for the bulk of power production worldwide, at least in the next few decades, Greenpeace’s continued antinuclear campaign helps coal to win by default. Yet coal, when judged objectively, seems to be worse than nuclear. Coal-burning is responsible for one-third of the world’s carbon dioxide pollution from all human activities, and air pollution from coal-fired plants kills 23,600 people per year in the U.S. alone, according to the Earth Policy Institute.

      The state-of-the-art “clean” coal power plant to be completed in Chicago by 2011 will emit as much CO2 as two million cars, as pointed out in a recent article in the Chicago Tribune. A yearly nuclear disaster of the magnitude of Chernobyl would kill less people worldwide than air pollution from burning coal currently does—and that is without considering the effects of climate change. Canadian Patrick Moore, an early member of Greenpeace and a former director of Greenpeace International, is now pro-nuclear, and commented on the negative image of nuclear in a 2008 Newsweek interview: “we [at Greenpeace] made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil....I think that’s as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.”

      We may be tempted to forgive Greenpeace for the use of propaganda techniques, in its eagerness to convey a hopeful and strong message, and to save the world. But maybe we should not. It is not just a matter of the end not justifying the means, but also that the end itself is being compromised. I love Greenpeace. But not unconditionally.

      Vasco Castela is an ethicist who lives in Vancouver. He holds a PhD in ethics from the University of Manchester.

      Comments

      15 Comments

      Jack Hunter

      Aug 17, 2010 at 4:38am

      Vasco has obviously not read the report he criticises. If he had, he would know that the data crunching was done not by Greenpeace, but by a renowned German institute. I'd suggest an 'ethicist', whatever that means, is not the best qualified person to be informing us about the rights and wrongs of an energy revolution.

      Richard Saint

      Aug 17, 2010 at 7:22am

      Thank you for supporting the facts.

      Greenpeace is worse than a hypocrite political organization: it's an entire prejudice factory. Greenpeace and their "green-and-black" vision of the world needs to be questioned more and more against the facts, and that's what your article very well does in my opinion. Of course Greenpeace is very useful sometimes but never for the right reasons. Any effort from them to protect the planet is only a side-effect of their true intents: an epic, ignorance-based journey against liberty and civilization.

      There is a positive thing about Greenpeace, however: it's not the shortest joke in the world - because it has one more letter than "Communism".

      plutoscot

      Aug 17, 2010 at 3:27pm

      I suggest its not wise to accept Dr Mckay's analysis of nuclear power and renewables as a reliable counter to what Greenpeace states in its report. Dr McKay's references for the nuclear chapter are largely taken from the World Nuclear Association. As the name suggests it has an interest in playing up the positives of nuclear. In contrast the research for the GP report was compiled by the Institute of Technical
      Thermodynamics, Department of Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment, Stuttgart, Germany. So check out the report http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/6/greenpeace-energy.... Greenpeace I doubt wants you to love it - but to understand the potential for an energy revolution.

      Vasco

      Aug 17, 2010 at 3:36pm

      Jack Hunter:

      Thank you for your contribution, but could you please clarify your point? Do you mean that Greenpeace must be right about nuclear because it cites renowned sources? The Nuclear Energy Institute, for instance, cites renowned sources to support views that radically oppose Greenpeace’s. They cannot both be right.

      Or are you trying to argue that Greenpeace cannot be held responsible for any claims it publishes on their site so long as the research is not their own? It seems to me that they must be held responsible for their selection of the sources. They do not do it blindly and impartially.

      Do not let an ethicist tell you what to think, as you should not let Greenpeace tell you what to think, even if they do quote scientific reports. There are strong arguments supporting the pro-nuclear stance (the Scientific American links are a good start) and if you seriously consider them, along with Greenpeace’s, you may change your mind about nuclear (which I assume you are against).

      Vasco

      Aug 17, 2010 at 4:38pm

      Plutoscot:

      You need to say more to support your blanket claim that Professor MacKay should not be trusted. Greenpeace also references data provided by the World Nuclear Association.

      You do realize that MacKay is very much pro-renewables?

      J Nicholson

      Aug 17, 2010 at 5:50pm

      Let's say that Greenpeace does occasionally exaggerate the goodness of renewable energy sources. Don't nuclear lobbyists deviate from reality at all when they say that nuclear is so safe and clean? Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. This is war, and should Greenpeace just give up because it wants to remain virgin pure when the other side plays rough? It's not just about truth or lies. Unfortunately, people will only pay attention when they are afraid of something. Greenpeace is just doing what it takes to get the job done.

      seth

      Aug 17, 2010 at 11:33pm

      That Greenpeace has the Chutzpah to say anything about global warming amazes me.

      Because Greenpeace and its Big Coal/Oil sponsors were so successful at replacing nukes with toxic radioactive pollution spewing coal power in the seventies, they are responsible for the deaths of almost a hundred million of people worldwide from lung disease, the continuing deaths of millions annually, the sickness of hundreds of millions more and and by causing global warming maybe the end of civilization and the deaths of billions.

      Their official policy is to recommend natural gas as the preferred transition fuel to wind power stuffing the pockets of their Big Oil sponsors and delaying global warming/peak oil solutions into in the next century long after civilization has collapsed.

      No so called renewable alternative can replace coal today and without some major breakthrough will not be able to for many years. Nuclear can replace coal right now and is doing so in Asia. With a small percentage of our financial and industrial capacity coal and all fossil fuels could be replaced within ten years, with a WW2 type effort.

      Its disgusting how the really ghoulish renewable types never seem to acknowledge the 3 million folks that die from coal pollution every year they can defer the coal to nuclear conversion. It's like these folks are a reasonable sacrifice on the road to the perfect future powered by their visions of pink windmills and warm sunbeams gleaming on ebony solar panels

      Nuclear has the support of fascists and deniers even Repugs as well as a significant percentage of progressives. Fascists/deniers/repugs work very hard to shut down renewables. Only nuclear is politically possible.

      It is the opposition to nuclear of low information greenpeacer's that leads to the delay in that nuclear conversion.

      Greenpeacers still stuck in that silly anti nuclear renewable religion need to decide whether the end of civilization and the continuing deaths of three million souls every year the coal to nuclear conversion is delayed is more important than their delicate dreams of power from sunbeams and wispy warm breezes, hold their noses and vote nuclear.

      seth

      pwlg

      Aug 20, 2010 at 9:15am

      There are issues besides disposal of nuclear waste that prevents nuclear power from being a viable alternative and that is of supply. Already consumption of uranium is outstripping supply. Countries heavily invested in nuclear power are using their stockpiles to counter the supply shortage. The shortage will not get better but worse as China goes ahead with plans to build over 60 plants by 2030. Even with this heavy investment in nuclear power by China it will still only provide 20% of its energy needs by 2030.

      The massive engineering dam projects in China are supplying only 2% of their needs.

      It takes 10 years to get a nuke plant to production, from design to operation and in North America an average of $5 billion/plant. So called "clean coal" plants are in the range of $3 billion. Of course it depends on how much energy a plant is designed to generate.