Greenpeace founder explains the importance of nuclear energy

WASHINGTON, March 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As Wisconsin state lawmakers consider repealing the moratorium on nuclear energy, Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder and current Co-Chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy), addressed a joint committee in the Wisconsin State Legislature on Thursday, March
12. Dr. Moore testified before the Wisconsin Senate Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail Committee and the House Energy and Utilities Committee in Two Rivers, Wisconsin.

"It is not only timely, but necessary to discuss repealing the moratorium on building new nuclear power plants in Wisconsin," Dr. Moore told lawmakers. "Nuclear energy is essential to an environmentally sound energy future."

He added, "Nuclear is the only source that can power the nation without polluting the nation. The round-the-clock baseload production of nuclear energy can power our homes and businesses while creating high paying jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, all without polluting our air and lungs."

The following is a complete transcipr of Dr. Moore's testimony.

http://www.casenergy.org/Portals/0/DR_MOORE_TESTIMONY-WI.pdf

Chairman Plale, Chairman Soletski, Members of the Senate Commerce, Utilities, Energy, and Rail committee, Members of the Assembly Energy & Utilities Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today as you consider the role that nuclear power could play in Wisconsin’s energy future.



I am Dr. Patrick Moore, co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition. I am also one of the founding members of Greenpeace, and served as a director for fifteen years.

Joining me as co-chair of the CASEnergy Coalition is former New Jersey Governor and
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.

The CASEnergy Coalition is dedicated to educating the public about the benefits of nuclear energy. The Coalition brings together a variety of organizations and individuals representing all economic, social, and academic sectors. We have 1,900 members representing both sides of the political spectrum. They include community groups, environmental and conservation groups, minority organizations, professional associations, labor unions, economic development organizations and opinion leaders such as state legislators, mayors and business executives. In Wisconsin, our membership includes college professors, labor groups, and a variety of others
who believe nuclear energy should be part of Wisconsin’s future energy supply.

It is not only timely, but necessary to discuss repealing the moratorium on building new nuclear power plants in Wisconsin. Across the country, energy companies are pursuing options to build new nuclear facilities. Seventeen companies and consortia are currently considering the construction of more than thirty new reactors, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing building and operating permits for several others. Moreover, excavation and site preparation on the first advanced nuclear power plants is currently taking place in Southeastern region of the United States.

My remarks today will focus on three elements: first, I will stress how nuclear energy is essential to an environmentally sound energy future; second, I will discuss the benefits that nuclear energy offers our economy; and third, I will review nuclear energy’s proven safety and performance record.

The Politics of Confrontation: My Greenpeace Years

To me, the rationale for pursuing these new nuclear plants is self-evident. The country is in dire need of new sources of electricity – and these sources need to be low- or carbon-free. I am convinced that nuclear energy is one clear option to meet this need, but I didn’t always feel this way.

In the 1970s, while I was with Greenpeace, I opposed anything nuclear as did the rest of my colleagues. We failed to make any distinction between nuclear weapons and commercial nuclear power, and thought all things nuclear were evil. I now realize that we were wrong – just as wrong as if we had lumped together nuclear medicine and nuclear weapons. Nuclear medicine diagnoses and treats millions of Americans every year, and the isotopes it harnesses are produced in nuclear reactors. It is a beneficial use of nuclear technology, just as nuclear power is a beneficial use of that same technology.

Clearly, nuclear energy is vital to Wisconsin and the rest of the country. It is a virtually emissions-free energy source, and the nuclear industry has a proven track record of exceptional safety and performance. Nuclear power plants, and the electricity they produce, act as a leading engine for economic growth across the United States. As the country’s largest source of clean, virtually carbon-free electricity, nuclear energy significantly reduces greenhouse gases, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate pollution, and improves public health.

In the early 1970s, I joined a small committee that was meeting in the basement of the Unitarian Church in Vancouver. We organized a protest voyage against U.S. hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska and had tens of thousands marching in the streets. When the H-bomb was set off at Amchitka Island in November 1971, it was the last hydrogen bomb the U.S. ever detonated.

It was the birth of Greenpeace, the organization I co-founded, spending 15 years in its top committee, helping to lead environmental campaigns around the world.

As part of our platform at Greenpeace, we made little distinction between commercial nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. It was the height of the Cold War and the height of the Vietnam War and we were operating in part out of fear of the future. We were so effective in our

messaging that we assisted in stalling, and eventually derailing, nuclear power plant construction in the United States. By the 1980s, Greenpeace established itself as a strong voice on environmental issues. We grew to be a $100 million organization with offices around the world.

Yet, despite our success, I began to re-examine many environmental positions.

During my tenure at Greenpeace, we made real headway in a number of areas – nuclear testing, whales, toxic waste dumping, and seal hunt. We had won over a majority of the public in the industrialized democracies. Presidents and prime ministers were talking about the environment on a daily basis.

For me it was time to make a change. I had been against at least three or four things every day of my life for 15 years; I decided I'd like to be in favor of something for a change. I made the transition from the politics of confrontation to the politics of building consensus – in particular on issues of sustainability, through balancing the three related areas of environment, economy and society.

After all, there’s no getting around the fact that every day 6 billion people wake up with real needs for food, energy and materials. The challenge for sustainability is to provide for those needs in ways that reduce negative impact on the environment.

Nuclear energy is one of the tools that has a very important role to play in the sustainability discussion.

Nuclear Power is Clean

To satisfy the dual requirements of generating electricity to meet the US demand and reducing greenhouse gases and other harmful emissions, nuclear energy must be a focal point of our energy policy. Additionally, conservation and efficiency have important roles to play in shaping that demand.

Consider nuclear power’s role in avoiding the emission of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. In 2007, the use of nuclear energy helped the United States prevent the release of almost 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

During the same period, three reactors in Wisconsin prevented the emission of 64,700 tons of sulfur dioxide, which leads to acid rain, and 12.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, or about the same amount of carbon dioxide emitted by nearly half of the passenger cars in Wisconsin.

Notably, even when analysts take into account emissions produced throughout the “life-cycle” of electricity production from nuclear energy, total carbon emissions are still comparable to that of wind power. These studies look at emissions from such activities as uranium mining, transportation of fuel and other activities that produce emissions. A 2002 study by the University of Wisconsin found that nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are 17 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents per gigawatt-hour whereas coal produces 1,041 tons and natural gas
produces 622 tons. Wind power produces 14 metric tons – again, very similar to that of nuclear power. Put simply, nuclear is as clean as wind, but able to produce electricity on the same scale as coal and natural gas.

While nuclear plants help displace greenhouse gas emissions, their other waste by-products are managed responsibly and safely. As our country continues its pursuit of long-term disposal options for used fuel from these reactors, this material is safely stored at plant sites, where it can remain safely managed for an indefinite period of time. However, our nation should pursue options to recycle used nuclear material in order to retrieve the remaining energy in the fuel. This would reduce the toxicity of the used fuel and its volume before ultimate disposal in a repository.

Prominent environmental figures like Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, James Lovelock, author of the Gaia hypothesis, and the late Bishop Hugh Montefiore, Friends of the Earth former board member, have all professed their staunch support for nuclear energy as a practical means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while meeting the world’s increasing energy demands. Most recently, four prominent UK environmental leaders including another former director of Greenpeace, Stephen Tindale, endorsed nuclear power.

Opponents of nuclear power will claim that nuclear advocates wish to stand in the way of wind and solar sources of power. Let me be clear, I do not. Wind and other renewable sources such as geothermal must be part of the energy mix going forward. Indeed they will likely generate more electricity than they do now, but these are intermittent sources of power. The very ability of the wind results in wind turbines delivering about 20 percent of their stated capacity, on a worldwide average. Nuclear power plants in the U.S. now average over 90 percent. The sun
does not shine at night and the technology of transforming sunlight into energy is inefficient.

Nor do we have the ability to store electricity at a capacity needed to run our economy twenty four hours a day. Renewable energy sources provide only a fraction – 2.5 percent – of our nation’s energy needs. Even with the rapid development of renewables, there will be a need for a large-scale carbon-free power source like nuclear power in our clean energy portfolio.

President Obama has advocated for plug-in hybrid cars and a high-speed electric rail to transform America’s transportation system. This means that reliable, large-scale power will be needed to power high-speed commuter trains. For plug-in hybrid drivers, these consumers will arrive home from work and charge their cars from the electric power grid. The bottom line is that these changes, which will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, must include an increase in capacity for nuclear energy and renewable options. After all, the real environmental benefits of plug-in
electric hybrids are only realized when these cars are charged on clean electricity sources.

Nuclear Plants Are Economic Development Engines

Nuclear plants also enrich surrounding communities. They provide high-paying jobs – jobs that cannot be exported and are needed day-in and day-out. Each reactor employs between 400 and 700 people, and they are economic engines for their communities.

But job creation is not limited to only those with engineering degrees. A new nuclear plant can employ up to 2,400 skilled workers during the construction phase, and it is estimated that for every permanent job created at a plant, three jobs are created in the surrounding community. In other words, each reactor generates an estimated $430 million a year in total output for a local community. It is no wonder that in public opinion polls, public support for nuclear plants in
surrounding communities approaches 80 percent.

Nuclear Safety

Nuclear power has an impeccable track record of safe operation and production in the United States. In fact, according to the US Bureau of Labor, it is safer to work in the nuclear industry than it is to work in real estate or in the financial industry.

Safety technology used today is far superior to that of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, when the commercial industry was relatively young. Nuclear plants provide multiple layers of protection in their physical design, with large concrete and steel structures; they provide layer after layer of armed security. Nuclear reactor operators undergo years of training and re-training as part of their jobs. Operators know how to address virtually every possible operating scenario. Further, nuclear power plants feature multiple back-up safety systems, including automatic shut-down in
the event it is needed. And the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts daily
independent plant inspections so that, if the plant is not operating safely, the regulator will shut it down. All of the NRC’s evaluations and findings, including detailed inspection reports, are available the NRC web site (www.nrc.gov).

Based on these evaluations, the nuclear energy industry in 2008 had its safest year to date, according to the NRC’s reactor oversight process. The NRC inspects and measures seventeen different performance indicators to evaluate plant safety. These performance indicators are designed to identify negative trends long before there is any reduction in safety at the plants.

Speaking from personal experience, I am overwhelmed by the presence of security whenever I visit a nuclear power plant. It seems everywhere I turn another security officer is on watch. If you have not had an opportunity to visit a nuclear power plant, I urge each member of these committees to visit a nuclear power plant and see first-hand the security that is in place.

Conclusion

I want to conclude by emphasizing that nuclear energy – combined with the use of alternative energy sources like wind, geothermal and hydro – remains the only practical, safe and environmentally friendly means of meeting America’s energy needs.

If America is to meet its ever increasing demands for energy and reduce its dependence on foreign energy sources, then the United States nuclear energy industry must be revitalized and provided the necessary means to grow. An important step in facilitating growth of a nuclear industry that will create jobs and help America meet its 21st century energy needs is for Wisconsin to overturn its moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants.

The time for common sense and scientifically sound decisions on energy is now.