Greenpeace On Nuclear Power

[A_Wanderer]

They couldn't get the right "alarmist and armageddonist factoid"

Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania Wednesday to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.

"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the "threat" posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.

But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.

We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."

Had Greenpeace been hacked by a nuke-loving Bush fan? Or was this proof of Greenpeace fear-mongering?

The aghast Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, said a colleague was making a joke by inserting the language in a draft that was then mistakenly released.

"Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, I don't even think it's funny," Smith said.

The final version did not mention Armageddon. It just warned of plane crashes and reactor meltdowns.

link

The mask slips on the opposition to one of the more viable carbon free alternative energy sources.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Doesn't change anything.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Right it doesn't, well maintained nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases and the burial of nuclear waste in stable geological settings is a reasonable method of disposal.

 

[nbcrusader]

Good money to be made with alarmist and armageddonist factoids

 

[Tania]

Tell me where you can 100% guarantee a stable geological setting?

 

[Irvine511]

Good money to be made with alarmist and armageddonist factoids

oh come on.

i'm not going to defend Greenpeace on this one -- though nuclear power requires the utmost caution, especially because the potential benefits are tremendous -- but to paint it as some sort of money-making scheme, as if the members of Greenpeace are looking to get rich and make a profit ... that's hardly the case.

99% of people who work for Greenpeace (or PETA, for that matter, who i often disagree with as well) are very sincere people who work very hard for very little money. there's not much money to be made in left-wing activism (as opposed to, say, Exxon), so to paint this as a money-making scheme is silly. will it increase their donations? yes. but it's not like there's even a profit motive to begin with.

 

[martha]

Tell me where you can 100% guarantee a stable geological setting?

Still waiting for an answer on this one.

Perhaps Australia is nicely geologically stable?

 

[nbcrusader]

oh come on.

i'm not going to defend Greenpeace on this one -- though nuclear power requires the utmost caution, especially because the potential benefits are tremendous -- but to paint it as some sort of money-making scheme, as if the members of Greenpeace are looking to get rich and make a profit ... that's hardly the case.

99% of people who work for Greenpeace (or PETA, for that matter, who i often disagree with as well) are very sincere people who work very hard for very little money. there's not much money to be made in left-wing activism (as opposed to, say, Exxon), so to paint this as a money-making scheme is silly. will it increase their donations? yes. but it's not like there's even a profit motive to begin with.

There are many organizations that make money by simply "raising awareness". In a dichotomy where corporations are thought of as "bad", these entities can make some good money, as the "good guys". Usually off the backs of the sincere, low or unpaid paid members.

Perhaps you should take a peek at their financials. Sure their not Exxon, but then again, they don't produce a product or service we use on a daily basis. With reported 2005 income of over $200 Million, it looks like there is money to be made in left-wing activism.

 

[Tania]

Still waiting for an answer on this one.

Perhaps Australia is nicely geologically stable?

Yep, and I think it will be a long time coming.

And, much as I would love to say, yes, Australia is geologically stable, unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) it is not.

Oh, and while we are talking about nuclear waste, what exactly is the half-life of an isotope?

 

[Irvine511]

the president of PETA is salaried at $30,000. i make more.

Kristen Engberg the Ex. Director of Greenpeace makes $133K. i have friends in their first year at law firms who make more.

you've got to also be aware of the difference bewteen "raising" money and "making" money.

does Greenpeace put forward an image of sincere, hard-working, underpaid do-gooders who need your money? yes. is this largely correct? yes. is anyone going to get rich off working for Greenpeace? no.

it would also be interesting to see the discrepancy between the highest salaried employee at Greenpeace vs. the average salary and compare that to the inequities between CEO and average worker at a place like Exxon.

 

[Tania]

There are many organizations that make money by simply "raising awareness". In a dichotomy where corporations are thought of as "bad", these entities can make some good money, as the "good guys". Usually off the backs of the sincere, low or unpaid paid members.

Perhaps you should take a peek at their financials. Sure their not Exxon, but then again, they don't produce a product or service we use on a daily basis. With reported 2005 income of over $200 Million, it looks like there is money to be made in left-wing activism.

No, they do produce a service. They "raise awareness" and in doing so have made people see another point of view or perhaps even research something that normally would have been taken for granted. While the methods they use may not be to everyone's taste, how is this method any different to the crappola we are force fed about needing a war or that there is no money for education or for schools?

In emotive situations, such as nuclear power, where accidents can/do and will continue to happen (as in any industry) but were the consequences can be horrendous to err on the side of caution or alternative sources of power (hey, lets think about this for a minute... solar power.... clean resource, freely available, little impact on the environment, if the money spent on the generation of nuclear power was diverted to R&D for solar power, hmm.... maybe we would have a better environment. Now there's a thought!) would probably be a sensible thing to do.

 

[nbcrusader]

the president of PETA is salaried at $30,000. i make more.

Kristen Engberg the Ex. Director of Greenpeace makes $133K. i have friends in their first year at law firms who make more.

you've got to also be aware of the difference bewteen "raising" money and "making" money.

does Greenpeace put forward an image of sincere, hard-working, underpaid do-gooders who need your money? yes. is this largely correct? yes. is anyone going to get rich off working for Greenpeace? no.

it would also be interesting to see the discrepancy between the highest salaried employee at Greenpeace vs. the average salary and compare that to the inequities between CEO and average worker at a place like Exxon.

Again, I agree that the average worker at Greenpeace probably makes below market salaries & benefits. We can maintain the do-gooder image by contrasting with large multinational corporations all day. But it is still a $200 Million/year business - a fact that most supporters are not fully aware.

And, one can live quite comfortably on $133K a year - many would consider that "rich".

 

[nbcrusader]

No, they do produce a service. They "raise awareness" and in doing so have made people see another point of view or perhaps even research something that normally would have been taken for granted. While the methods they use may not be to everyone's taste, how is this method any different to the crappola we are force fed about needing a war or that there is no money for education or for schools?

How many people budget for "raised awareness"? It is not a commodity people seek. Companies that produce goods and services that people seek will naturally make more money.

 

[Irvine511]

But it is still a $200 Million/year business - a fact that most supporters are not fully aware.

And, one can live quite comfortably on $133K a year - many would consider that "rich".

the real question is not how much money flows into Greenpeace in any given year -- for an international organization, that's not exactly a mind-blowing number -- the question is how that money is spent.

you and i both know that in coastal urban america, $133K would make someone comfortably middle class. and this is the top salary at the organization. no one gets paid more. in fact, i bet most supporters would be surprised at how little it is -- i expected the top paid person to be making at least $200K, as you'd need some semblance of a 6 figure a year salary to get someone with the skills needed to run such a large organization when they probably could be making three times that in the private sector.

 

[nbcrusader]

At least $200K a year? I guess there are higher expectations of "making money".

 

[Irvine511]

At least $200K a year? I guess there are higher expectations of "making money".

i think we can safely assume that Ms. Engberg is hardly in it for the money, nor does her salary increase as donations increase.

 

[nbcrusader]

We don't know the bonus structure.

 

[Irvine511]

all-expense paid trips to Vieques?

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess they have a few of their own boats as well!

 

[Irvine511]

I guess they have a few of their own boats as well!

great way to cut travel costs.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Still waiting for an answer on this one.

Perhaps Australia is nicely geologically stable?

It is actually a very stable geological setting, Central Australia is considered to be a craton, that is a block of very old and stable continental crust - this is an ideal place to bury nuclear waste as has been laid out in the Pangea Proposal.

Another idea is burial at subduction zones, however without a good understanding of the processes that would occur could lead to more radioactive volcanos.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yep, and I think it will be a long time coming.

And, much as I would love to say, yes, Australia is geologically stable, unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) it is not.

Oh, and while we are talking about nuclear waste, what exactly is the half-life of an isotope?

I disagree with this assertion, the cratons in central Australia are sone of the most geological stable places we can find, the other options are really in Africa and I don't think that is a wise place to put radioactive waste.

The half-life is a length of time derived by the probability of the decay constant for half of the radioactive isotopes to decay, if I have 1 kg of radioactive potassium 40 then after 1.25 billion years the sample will have broken down to 0.5kg.

 

[martha]

Awesome! How nice of you to volunteer your country! Do you live in that area, or are you just hoping that the few people who live there will consent to this?

As for the whole subduction zone thing: Are these people out of their fucking minds?????

 

[Angela Harlem]

Still waiting for an answer on this one.

Perhaps Australia is nicely geologically stable?

ask the good folk of Maralinga how stable we are.

tania, i love you. gin & tonic's are on me when you come back.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Awesome! How nice of you to volunteer your country! Do you live in that area, or are you just hoping that the few people who live there will consent to this?

As for the whole subduction zone thing: Are these people out of their fucking minds?????

Your opposition seems highly reflexive, nuclear is one of the few viable options for carbonless generation of energy (the cost effectiveness of wind and solar are prohibitive). The biggest concequence of it is nuclear waste and it's reprocessing and ultimate disposal, given the concern at dependence on fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change nuclear power has an important part to play in the future. Probably worth pointing out that any future rollouts of nuclear power will be sourcing their Uranium in large part from Australia, as such there is practically an obligation to manage the waste after it has been cycled for power generation.

the proposal for burial at subduction zones are one of the better suggestions, they can returns the nuclear waste to the earth where it will be locked up and spread around.

Consent on crown land should be no different than that of testing missiles out near Woomera, there is a significant difference between using an area as a repository for nuclear waste and testing nuclear weapons as was done at Maralinga in the 50's (for which the fallout has all decayed by now).

 

[Tania]

How many people budget for "raised awareness"? It is not a commodity people seek. Companies that produce goods and services that people seek will naturally make more money.

"People" don't have to "budget" for raised awareness. Isn't watching the news, a documentary, reading a pamphlet that comes through the mail, the newspaper, the internet etc, raising their awareness?

If you want to consider Greenpeace or PETA as a "company" then they must be doing okay as you have already stated they make money (whether or not this is true I do not know) and they have both been around for quite some time.

While I don't always agree with their methods, at least they get people talking and considering a proposal. Isn't that why we hold democratic values so high? That we want to be able to argue/disagree/refute another point of view?

 

[Tania]

I disagree with this assertion, the cratons in central Australia are sone of the most geological stable places we can find, the other options are really in Africa and I don't think that is a wise place to put radioactive waste.

The half-life is a length of time derived by the probability of the decay constant for half of the radioactive isotopes to decay, if I have 1 kg of radioactive potassium 40 then after 1.25 billion years the sample will have broken down to 0.5kg.

A-Wanderer, can you tell me exactly how much nuclear waste we (as in the whole world or even Australia would do) have currently sitting there waiting for 1.25BILLION years to pass before only half of the stuff is left? And, could you also tell me how much nuclear waste this proposal is going to generate, say, in the first one to ten years?

Also, why is it "wise" to dump nuclear waste in the middle of Australia but "not wise" to do it in Africa? What, there are no people who live there? It's a big pile of sand that doesn't really matter? Australians are so relaxed about stuff, no one will worry about it? Sorry, but to decide to upend the middle of Aus (and hence the ecology of this island) for something that can cause untold disaster is ridiculous.

Until there is a method for disposing of the waste that is safe and doesn't take over 5 billion years to reduce to almost nothing, then I don't want to have nuclear power.

 

[Tania]

ask the good folk of Maralinga how stable we are.

tania, i love you. gin & tonic's are on me when you come back.

 

[A_Wanderer]

A-Wanderer, can you tell me exactly how much nuclear waste we (as in the whole world or even Australia would do) have currently sitting there waiting for 1.25BILLION years to pass before only half of the stuff is left? And, could you also tell me how much nuclear waste this proposal is going to generate, say, in the first one to ten years?

Also, why is it "wise" to dump nuclear waste in the middle of Australia but "not wise" to do it in Africa? What, there are no people who live there? It's a big pile of sand that doesn't really matter? Australians are so relaxed about stuff, no one will worry about it? Sorry, but to decide to upend the middle of Aus (and hence the ecology of this island) for something that can cause untold disaster is ridiculous.

Africa is much more populated than Australia and the political situations can always be fluid, Australia to date hasn't had these problems and given how inhospitable the area is it is not likely to in future.

Until there is a method for disposing of the waste that is safe and doesn't take over 5 billion years to reduce to almost nothing, then I don't want to have nuclear power.

And that is an unrealistic demand, we cannot accelerate radioactive decay (something that is happening all the time - radioactive decay is what keeps the earth hot), what we can do is lock it away for good. Or even fill it out and fill in the original Uranium mines with it. If it was affordable (space elevator perhaps) then launching it out into space would be a way to deal with it.

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Pfft, just dump it all in New Jersey