"Privately, I am told that Gore now opposes atomic energy, including new reactors."

[bananas]

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2008/1663/

Harvey Wasserman

Al Gore inches toward Solartopia
July 18, 2008

Bit by bit, Al Gore seems to be inching toward a Solartopian view of a future that must be completely sustainable in green energy. This week he advocated getting to an electric power system that is "carbon free" within ten years.

<snip>

It's thus extremely problematic that Gore continues to publicly avoid the issue of nuclear power. There are those who believe he remains essentially pro-nuclear, as he was earlier in his career. In that, he followed his father, US Senator Al Gore, Sr. (D-TN), a very pivotal early backer of atomic energy.

But just prior to the 2000 election, then-Vice President Gore wrote me a letter (posted at www.nirs.org) firmly renouncing atomic energy as a possible solution to global warming. Apparently due largely to his efforts, nukes were not included in the Kyoto Accords as a route to be taken for reducing carbon emissions. This was huge victory for the safe energy movement.

But Gore's stance on building new reactors today has not been part of the public dialog. If the issue is mentioned on his web site, I couldn't find it. Just prior to this week's speech, he apparently told the Associated Press that he expects reactor generation to stay at "current levels." But does that mean it will continue to account for about 20% of our overall electric consumption, or does it mean the same gross amount will be produced? Would that require building new reactors, or expanding the capacity of existing ones, or none of the above?

Privately, I am told that Gore now opposes atomic energy, including new reactors. But if so, his public silence---and lack of action---is deafening, incongruous, and ultimately unsustainable.

<snip>

--
Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, is at http://www.solartopia.org. He helped coin the phrase No Nukes, and helped co-found Musicians United for Safe Energy. This article first appeared at http://www.freepress.org.

[xchrom]

1. i hope so -- we need to get as much non-nuclear technology

r&ded and heading for mass production as possible.

[zbdent]

2. I wonder how many pro-Nukes people (and pro-refinery, for that matter)

are willing to have them placed upwind and upstream of them, so that they can enjoy the "cheap electricity"?

So, you got slightly cheaper electricity. Sell your puppy with the 5th leg to the carnival people to pay for your cancer treatments ...

[jpak]

3. Solar will Save US - nuclear will not

Grear Minds think alike...

:thumbsup:

[bananas]

4. Here's the letter Al Gore sent to Harvey Wasserman in 2000

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/nws/gore.html

November 3, 2000

Mr. Harvey Wasserman
Senior Advisor
Nuclear Information and Resources Center
755 Eau Claire Avenue
Bexley, Ohio 43209


Dear Mr. Wasserman:

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding nuclear energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Let me restate for you my long held policy with regard to nuclear energy. I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy. Moreover, I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable. In fact, you will note that the electricity restructuring legislation proposed by the Administration specifically excluded both nuclear and large scale hydro-energy, and instead promoted increased investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It is my view that climate change policies should do the same.


Sincerely,

Al Gore

[bananas]

8. NIRS press release dated Nov 13, 2000

Just to make clear that Gore's letter was made public 8 years ago:

http://www.nirs.org/press/11-13-2000/1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 13, 2000

CONTACT
Peer de Rijk, WISE 312-061-2636 8
Michael Mariotte, NIRS 301-270-6477 12
Paul Gunter, NIRS 301-270-6477 18


New Letter from U.S. Vice-President Al Gore Suggests Change in U.S. Position on Nuclear Power in Upcoming Climate Change Talks


A new letter from Vice-President Al Gore suggests a possible change in the U.S. position on nuclear power and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) at the COP6 international negotiations beginning today in The Hague, Netherlands.

The November 3 letter, faxed to Harvey Wasserman, senior advisor to the Washington-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and NIRS' executive director Michael Mariotte, states a position contrary to that previously supported by the Clinton-Gore Administration.

Gore wrote, "I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy. Moreover I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable." Gore said that the Administration's legislation on electricity restructuring "specifically excluded both nuclear and large scale hydro-energy, and instead promoted increased investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It is my view that climate change policies should do the same."

A key tenet of the Administration's position—stated at a meeting in Lyon, France in September—has been that nuclear power should be treated the same as renewable energy under the Clean Development Mechanism. The CDM allows developed nations to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction credits by providing low-emissions technologies to developing countries. This U.S. position is opposed by the European Union, and numerous other nations throughout the world, which have proposed a CDM that does not include nuclear power.

Gore's statement that climate change policies should exclude nuclear power and large scale hydro-energy contradicts the stated U.S. position, and presumably indicates that the U.S. will change its position at the COP 6 talks beginning today.

"This is welcome news," said NIRS' executive director Michael Mariotte, who is in The Hague for the COP6 conference. "The previous U.S. position was indefensible on both environmental and economic grounds. We hope this means the U.S. now recognizes that allowing nuclear power to be equated with renewables and energy efficiency would simply be trading one environmental disaster for another, and would—given nuclear's huge cost—be remarkably ineffective at reducing greenhouse emissions."

[Rene]

5. Read about what 6 Canadian nuclear plants are doing to 2 of the Great Lakes and

you'd always be opposed to nuclear power plants too. using h u g e amounts of water to cool and then dispersing extremely high temp water back to the Lakes. 17 million gals per minute to cool

[stuntcat]

6. science..

We will figure out how to collect and store a lot more energy from wind & sun & waves. Maybe we'll even figure out how to get the energy where it needs to go and use it efficiently.

IF those technologies grow exponentially and end up being cheaper in every way that making nuclear energy then I guess it will disappoint a few people.
Nukes would have been a lot better than all the oil and coal we've used, but soon maybe we'll be able to get energy cleaner than that.

[phantom power]

7. Although I don't care a great deal about what Al Gore thinks about nukes...

I can't think of any motivation for him to remain silent on this subject, if he is opposed to nuclear energy. Anti-nuke is a popular political position, and Gore isn't beholden to any political pressure, anyway. He can say whatever he thinks.

[bananas]

9. I care what Al Gore thinks, and here's why.

He's extremely well-informed, his thoughts are carefully considered and based on the opinions of experts.
That's the main reason.
He's also the leading public figure on Global Warming, what he says has a great influence on the public.
His thoughts are respected by major political figures like Obama and he is a great influence on them.
This is an issue he's cared about and spent much of his life's work on.
When he expresses his thoughts, he's saying something important.
And he's usually right.

[phantom power]

10. I agree that he's smart and influential.

All I'm really saying is, I can't think of any reason for Gore to hide his opinions about nuclear power. He isn't beholden to anybody on either side of that debate.