The recent government budget in South Africa put R2 billion towards ALL renewables and about R342 billion towards bringing back some mothballed coal stations (we are in an energy crisis here) and the building nuclear power stations (cannot remember the exact numbers of stations being built). Now that to me is a huge difference in bueget figures. At the very least, surely solar water heaters should be installed as a basic prerequisite for low cost housing? This would reduce the tenants’ electricity bill as well as lessen then impacts on the grid. Perhaps I am simplifying things, but onthe other hand perhaps politcally motivated energy policies overly complicate issues to dirty the waters so we cannot see clearly?

I also think that some of the smaller/medium wind and solar companies who have been around for some time are surely driven by profit now? Perhaps they began with a dream, but to survive they need to be economically viable and many of them are. Perhaps legislature drives some changes, but economic viability & sustainability has to be a factor in the long term.

I think we could argue the finer points ad nauseum, but it seems we certainly do agree that we do need to do something now and not wait for the next great thing! And yes nuclear is an option now, but that does not mean it is the only solution and that we should stop looking for the next best thing or keep working on developing current technologies.

It’s not my place to defend or apologize for Dr. Moore. From what I have read, he was one of the originators of the group. I mentioned the Amchitka cruise to show that he was there at the beginning.

He says that his criticism is aimed at separating science from political activism within the environmental movement. His view is that political activists have distracted the movement away from real environmental concerns and toward ideological causes. In that context, nuclear energy is a central point of interest. It seems to me that people with little scientific training view nuclear technology through fictional novels and movies–to them it’s a fiendish threat. People with more scientific training view nuclear energy as a means of minimizing environmental harm.

An awful lot of money has been spent on R&D for renewable energy sources. It would be hard to make the case that spending more would make them more practical. At present, expansion of wind power, PV power, and biofuels is being driven not by economic or environmental considerations but only by legislative mandate, under pressure from political groups and specialized businesses.

From what I can see, wind power and nuclear energy, along with strict conservation, can do the most to forestall global warming. PV may offer benefits in the future. Biofuels don’t show any evidence of future practicality and are mandated only to draw political support from farmers. I think we need to move beyond R&D and politically-driven energy policies. It’s time to start building new energy facilities.

I suppose what bothered me the most was his ongoing ‘greenie’ bashing instead of just getting on with what he called the Politics of Consensus. It seems to me he has some serious issues with GReenpeace and I would have thought he would be better off just to move on rather than slander Greenpeace to achieve goals he can achieve with his positive politics.

At the end of the day I am not necessarily anti-nuclear, but I would like to see the same amount of R&D funds thrown at renewable energy research as has been thrown at nuclear & oil & coal energy sources before we write solar or wind off as being inefficient.

Greenpeace’s website lists Moore as one of the Greenpeace members on the first cruise to Amchitka.

Is it possible that an anti-nuclear group can’t be trusted to tell the truth?