Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Thanks for this interview, MB.  I wish Bill McKibben great success in his campaign.

I love Bill McKibben, who is a smart and sincere guy, but he is biased in his information when it comes to nuclear power.

The nuclear industry has a better safety and fatalities record per gigawatt-hour than any other large-scale source of electricity.  Perhaps one day he will join Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, whose founding members include James "Gaia" Lovelock and Hugh Montefiore (was on the board of Friends of the Earth, UK).

As for the cost of nuclear power, it is important to take a comprehensive view. See:


ENVIRONMENTALISTS FOR NUCLEARTM is in favor of all clean energies including, before anything else, energy conservation and renewables. But biomass requires energy to produce it, and all cultivable surfaces available on Earth would not suffice to replace oil. Wind and solar power are intermittent, unpredictable and dilute, therefore they simply cannot replace oil and gas to power our cities and industry. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity and coal is the greatest polluter (+15,000 persons continue to die in coal mines each year), nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable solution. Nuclear is safe, clean, reliable, competitive, produces very little CO2 and no sulfur or nitrogen oxides. Because uranium is a million times more compact than fossil fuels &endash;and the minuscule amount of nuclear waste produced is confined&endash; nuclear energy has zero impact on the ecosystems. It can replace our dwindling supplies of oil and gas. In fact, there's no choice: it's the only way our civilization can survive the end of oil and gas. Those who pretend the contrary are dreamers or mistaken, but certainly not environmentalists.

Bruno Comby, President of EFN - Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy, www.ecolo.org

To replace the energy produced by one 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant taking up a third of a square mile, you need 40 square miles of wind turbines or of solar panels.  

Let's have everything--nuclear, wind, and solar.  All forms of emissions-free energy are subsidized at present and will have to continue to be if we are going to get anywhere in the battle against accelerated,catastrophic global warming.

In the US alone in 2005 nuclear power avoided emissions of 700 million tons of carbon.  There has never been a single documented death from nuclear power in the US. The National Cancer Institute did a large study of cancer rates around nuclear plants and facilities and found no increase in cancer that could be attributed to them.

by Plan9 on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 10:35:28 AM EST
I will never believe anybody who tells me:

In fact, there's no choice

Also, about the "zero impact on the ecosystems", I guess they don't think heating river water qualifies.

"nuclear power is safe", but Iran should not use it.

I would also like them not to believe they have a property right on what environmentalist means.

When you equate nuclear electricity generation and avoiding Co2emissions, you imply that electricity consumption would have been the same without NP, and that fossil fuels would have been used. Both assumptions are questionnable.

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Wed Aug 30th, 2006 at 03:23:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series