'nü-klE-&r

Greenpeace founder goes nuclear

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
...
Here's why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.

For me I am going to save cognition and use my trustability detectors to suss out where to go on this issue. I believe he has good intentions (works for Greenpeace), he is probably highly competent (was founder of highly successful NGO), and is probably not saying falsehoods (publishing in a credible paper... Well, ok, 2 out of 3) - and since I don't have time to check all the facts ... Ok. I'll bite.

and as he says:

Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist environmentalism conservativist with a gun and parents with kids should support a move in that direction.