Chernobyl certificate No 000358 | Greenpeace International
Part of me wants to support Greenpeace. I'm with them on whaling, and their stances on timber, the oceans and so on makes some sense to me.
Greenpeace's stance on nuclear energy, though, doesn't follow. They assert that we don't need nuclear energy because we can meet all our energy needs with safe and efficient renewable energy technologies. Maybe so, but I think almost certainly not for reasons ranging from intermittence to NIMBY to unintended consequences (such as bird kill due to wind energy extraction, shorline erosion due to wave energy extraction or algae blooms due to ocean thermal energy conversion).
I resent Greenpeace raising the spectre of Chernobyl, as if Chernobyl represented the technology of future nuclear energy.
As for inherent danger, life is inherently dangerous, less so on some paths than others. All things considered, the no-nuke path is much more dangerous than the pro-nuke path.
Energy not available from new nuclear energy will come mostly from new combustion of fossil fuel, not from safe and renewable green sources. What is more inherently dangerous than the accelerated increase of the atmosphere's CO2 burden?
Energy available from new nuclear sources will decrease the likelihood of resource wars by some number. What's more inherently dangerous than war?
What's more inherently dangerous than steady growth against limits? There is zero probability of humanity limiting its numbers except by the four horsemen on the one hand, or good standards of living for everyone on the other. I don't think we'll avoid the four horsemen without the energy of the atom.
The globe needs massive amounts of new nuclear energy along with every other safe and renewable source. When Greenpeace changes their anti-nuke stance I'll reconside support.