Environmental expert extols nuclear power
Toolbox
By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau - Published: January 31, 2007
MONTPELIER – Patrick Moore, a co-founder of the environmental juggernaut Greenpeace three decades ago, told lawmakers Tuesday that nuclear power will have to be part of Vermont's electrical power future if the state wants to limit pollution responsible for global warming.
"I firmly believe that the only way to make a serious dent in fossil fuel consumption, i.e. greenhouse gas emissions, is nuclear energy, plus renewables," Moore said. "Renewables cannot possibly do it on their own."
Moore's argument has made him a polarizing figure in the national debate over energy and nuclear power. Legislators in both the House and Senate committees which deal with energy heard the talk by Moore, who was brought to testify by the Vermont Energy Partnership, a group of electricity producers and users.
"Nuclear energy has key environmental benefits," Moore said. With as many as 30 new nuclear plants in the planning stages the United States is joining the rest of the world in a "nuclear renaissance," Moore said.
Some of the lawmakers were not impressed.
Rep. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, said that Moore only told part of the story, particularly when he said nuclear power was one of the cheapest sources of electricity.
"The federal government has been subsidizing this industry from the very beginning," she said. "My guess is if you look at the history of subsidies on that you will find a huge difference."
Moore talked about the national situation, but the Legislature focuses on Vermont, Edwards said.
"In Vermont, we do have alternatives," she said.
Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier, said that if renewable energy sources like solar and wind power got the same subsidies they would be as cost-effective as nuclear electricity.
"If only it could be as simple and as safe and as cheap as he is pretending it is the world would be a wonderful place," Klein said. "The facts tell a different story."
Vermont has the lowest per-capita carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, Moore said.
"There is only one single reason for that and it is your power supply," he said. "It is something to be proud of and something you should be advertising as a model to the rest of the world."
The reason for Vermont's low carbon pollution is due to the fact that the state gets so much of its electricity from Vermont Yankee nuclear plant or Hydro-Quebec.
"That is a third of your energy here," Moore said. "It's very important for Vermont to retain its nuclear energy in the mix."
Before Vermont Yankee's license is extended beyond 2012 engineering and safety reviews should be performed. But most nuclear plants can run much longer than the original estimates when they were built, Moore said.
"It turns out most of the nuclear plants built in the world are perfectly safe to operate as long as 60 years," Moore said.
Moore left Greenpeace, which opposes nuclear power, in 1986. Moore, who is from Vancouver, B.C., said nuclear waste is not a problem but a "national treasure" because it can be re-used to produce more energy.
That has been rejected in the United States because of fears it might lead to increases in the spread of nuclear weapons. Moore called that argument "wrong headed."
Chris Williams, an anti-nuclear activist who lives in Hancock, said he came to the Statehouse to hear Moore's arguments in person.
"To call nuclear waste a national treasure is particularly absurd and misleading," Williams said.
Instead of nuclear, Vermont should look at ways to expand its production of renewable energy and efficiency programs like Efficiency Vermont, Williams said.
"It has been looked to as a model in this country and around the world," he said.
But Moore said that unless everyone is willing to reduce their energy consumption by half, efficiency programs and renewable alone cannot provide enough electricity.
29