less green peace in the greenhouse

One of the co-founders of Greenpeace is reluctantly agreeing that nuclear power remains our best hope for cutting down emission of greenhouse gases. Carl Bildt comments on an interesting article.

"More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely."

We have wasted so many years wishing that something ”better” would be available shortly. Meanwhile the global warming continues and accelerates.


James Aach said...

You might find my website interesting. It contains a techno-thriller about nuclear power endorsed by Stewart Brand, one of the environmentalists in the Greenpeace founder article calling for a second look at nuclear. There’s no cost. See the homepage comments for reader reviews. I’ve spent many years in the US nuclear industry, which would have a lot of simularities to western Europe.

stromsjo said...


My amateur view on this is that historically Sweden had significantly stricter requirements surrounding reactor containment as well as single-points-of-failure. Then an incident occurred on TMI which scared us into a referendum. We’re still struggling with the political fallout from this referendum in 1980.