Subscribe for 12 months with recurring billing - $199

Buy 12 months of subscription time - $199

 

Search Uranium Stocks
Uranium Price
Our RSS Feed

Uranium Updates

Enter your email address:

Follow Us on Twitter
« Fronteer Development Group Inc: Suggested significant tonnage at Hoover | Main | EPL Hits $1.00: Up 88.6% Since Our BUY »
Friday
Jul202007

Greenpeace Can Stop Nuclear Power In One Move

Greenpeace are in our humble opinion, mindlessly opposing and campaigning against nuclear power, the only reason for this that we can see is that Greenpeace just want something to protest about, as after all, that's what they do.

However we have a way that Greenpeace and anti-nuclear campaigns can stop the expansion of nuclear energy right now.

The main reason for building more nuclear power plants is that we need to meet the world's surging energy needs. So if one looks at this logically, if we were to curb energy demand, we would also curb the demand for nuclear power.

Therefore if all die hard Greenpeace campaigners and other “environmentalists” would be so kind as to turn off all their lights and generally stop using electricity altogether, we can stop supporting nuclear power as there will no longer be the need.

In fact, this probably will not be enough. Nuclear energy provides about 20% of the UK's electricity and a similar amount in the United States. We doubt that 1 in 5 people are so anti nuclear that they would turn off all the lights. Therefore it will be not be enough and so anti nuclear campaigners will have to not only stop using energy but actually contribute to the energy supply, as they are the minority and others should not suffer because of their beliefs. Perhaps we could construct human sized hamster wheels for these people to run around on in order to make up for the short fall in power....

Is this a joke? Yes – but so is the policy of Greenpeace.

Nathan Argent, nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace, recently called nuclear power, "this out-of-date, expensive and dangerous technology”.

Nuclear power certainly carries dangers, but statistically it is safer than oil, coal, gas and many other energy sources. Nuclear power is expensive but energy is expensive, so if you want energy you have to pay to price. However to say that nuclear power is out of date is simply a lie. Nuclear technology is state of the art, one of the pinnacles of scientific success. It has only been around for about 50-60 years, windmills have been going for thousands of year, so how in any way is nuclear technology dated?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (10)

If you read Greenpeace propaganda, you will see that they are the original watermellons: green on the outside, red on the inside. Red China forsook communism,as it is unworkable, and embraced fascism -- a totalitairan system that unfotunately can keep a nation going because it still allows profits to business and manufacturing enterprises. However fascism is coupled with strong militarism, as was the case in Hitler's Germany.

Thus, China is much more a menace to our lives and freedoms than it was under Mao. Greenpeace and nearly all other green outfits are fascistic organizations, run by leaders who hate freedom for everyone except themselves. They do their utmost to block all viable supplies of energy to the free nations, while pushing energy supplies in the same free nations that, with small and insignificant exceptions are worse than useless. If we fail to them, the free nations will become weaker (as is already happening) while the fascist nations, such as China, Cuba, Venezuella, and now Russia, are becoming stronger and totalitarians will rule the world.

Let us call the greens what they are: enviro fascists, or better yet, enviro nazis.

It is High Noon for the U.S. and for freedom. We shall either stop these enemies or be destroyed.

July 21, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterMike Oliver

If you read Greenpeace propaganda, you will see that they are the original watermellons: green on the outside, red on the inside. Red China forsook communism,as it is unworkable, and embraced fascism — a totalitairan system that unfotunately can keep a nation going because it still allows profits to business and manufacturing enterprises. However fascism is coupled with strong militarism, as was the case in Hitler’s Germany.

Thus, China is much more a menace to our lives and freedoms than it was under Mao. Greenpeace and nearly all other green outfits are fascistic organizations, run by leaders who hate freedom for everyone except themselves. They do their utmost to block all viable supplies of energy to the free nations, while pushing energy supplies in the same free nations that, with small and insignificant exceptions are worse than useless. If we fail to stop them, the free nations will become weaker (as is already happening) while the fascist nations, such as China, Cuba, Venezuella, and now Russia, are becoming stronger and totalitarians will rule the world.

Let us call the greens for what they are: enviro fascists, or better yet, enviro nazis.

It is High Noon for the U.S. and for freedom. We shall either stop these enemies or be destroyed.
___________________________________________________________

We placed this comment earlear today, but in our haste to have it posted failed to note that we left out two importat words: In the previous version, there is a sentence that reads "If we fail them"... etc. It shoudld read "If we fail to stop them.". etc..

July 21, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterMike Oliver

Great discussion! I thought you might be interested in recent International Nuclear News:


Tepco's detailed report on the effects of the Niigawa earthquake on its Kaskiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant show just how resistant the reactor was to the effects of the earthquake. There was no damage to the reactors themselves or the turbine building structures. What damage there was happened primarily to the ancillory buildings. Ultimately, the two small leaks that occurred had no environmnental impact and were within allowed limits.


Bulgaria's project to build two new reactors at Belene has got the interest of some major European companies. Electrable, CEZ, EOn, RWE, ATEL, EGL, EdF, Endesa and Kumerio Med have all been short-listed to take various minority stakes in the construction and management of the project.

Construction is due to begin next year, with the reactors coming online in about eight year's time.

July 23, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterProfessor Matt

I don't know if your letter is set up to show a cartoon. But if it was how about one showing three greenpeacers, complete with long hair, tattoos and large peace symbol necklaces, a couple and another female. The female who is part of the couple says to the other female: Actually, George and I are between causes right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Note to your editor: This would be much in the vein of your article dated July 20, 2007, titled "Greenpeace can stop nuclear power".

August 4, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterwilliam behrens

Bullshit. Greenpeace works diligently and they are committed to the welfare of the planet, unlike the rest of the world. Nuclear power never was and never will be the answer to our power needs. I am disillusioned by our current admistration, Obama is just laying down and not following through with his promisies for solar and wind and hydro power, the true solutions to our needs.

February 16, 2010 | Unregistered Commentermaria concilio

Maria,

Does this statement not do anything for you?

This one plant will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared with a similar coal plant - it won’t persuade all the environmentalists, but it is an argument that does weigh heavily with some of them - Mark Mardel

taken from our latest post.

February 16, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterUranium Stocks

Greetings from Belgium to everyone,

Nuclear energy is still very much needed today because there are not yet better alternatives - or are there?
The classical green solutions are no solutions at all: windmills and solar panels simply cannot deliver what we need. They only exist because they are heavily supported by the government...so by our hard earned money. Political solutions are nearly always the most stupid ones.Why are we governed by politicians instead of experts???
That said I'm also not so sure that there are no valid new energy sources that are continuously suppressed by the powers that be! What would happen to the big guys when today or tomorrow a free unlimited energy source would be available to everyone? I'm convinced that is not a dream.
Think about Tesla and so much other ones after him.
My humble conclusion: let's use the best that is available now and in the mean time look HONESTLY for better alternatives.

Regards,

Edmond

March 15, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterEdmond

The wasted time and TAXPAYERS money of self serving politicians to prop up the FAD of wind power will only delay the real tech advances that can deliver the goods.

September 22, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterJack

I'm with you Edmond! Nuclear is the best that we have right now considering that we really need greenhouse gases out of the air even while we have the monstrous energy appetite. Lets us it and in the meantime, continue working on better and better methods of production and conservation. I'm pro solar, wind, geothermal--but they are not developed enough to meet our needs and have probably a decade or more to get there. Use nuclear--its the cleanest and safest we have that can meet our needs.

February 22, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterBrenda

if the money that has been invested in nuclear power research had been invested in improving renewable & safe energy sources, we would have a solution by now.

@mike oliver -! i am astounded that you feel you will be 'destroyed' by a group that is simply striving for a sustainable way for us humans to live on this planet without poisoning & destroying everything on it, including ourselves. the earth will survive, it will re-generate, in some way, once we are gone. this is about or continued survival on the planet-i do not want my grandchildren & great grandchildren to have to live with our mistakes.
yes, nuclear may well be STATISTICALLY safer than oil, coal, gas etc, but this is because of the inordinate amount of work & effort that goes into keeping nuclear power 'contained'
-do minute amounts of coal, oil , gas etc cause devastating effects that last for generations? No.

Do they leave a 'waste' product that will continue to be radioactive for hundreds of years? No

Do you really believe you are justified in your use & waste of as much energy as you want, at the cost of future generations? .....?

We are destroying ourselves.

Greenpeace have to make these strong & difficult demands because it is fast becoming too late. They are in no way 'facist' they try to lead by example, as we 'free nations' should do. These strenghthening nations are trying to emulate the lifestyle we have been enjoying for some time-it is now time for us to show them the error of our ways.

i hope you can undrstand what ive said.

March 29, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterbeca

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>