Al Gore’s Nuclear Power Hypocrisy

[wtmusic]

"I recently had the pleasure of reading Al Gore’s latest volume, The Future. This not particularly tightly written book has among other things a section on biotechnology that shows that Gore’s attachment to science is somewhat fleeting. Of particular interest to me is a comment Gore makes about nuclear power."

<>

There is still a distinct possibility that the research and development of a new generation of smaller and hopefully safer reactors may yet play a significant role in the world’s energy future. We should know by 2030.

<>

"However, instead of moving the clock forward 18 or so years, let’s move it back 19 years. In 1994 the Clinton-Gore administration shut down work on the Integral Fast Reactor, the very type of reactor Gore is complaining about being years away. If this decision had not been made we would not be looking at new reactors by 2030, but instead new reactors up and running right now, and also capable of running on nuclear waste."

http://theenergycollective.com/breakthroughinstitut/184916/al-gore-s-nuclear-hypocrisy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice. - Scott Adams

[bananas]

1. Al Gore has enough experience not to fall for stupid nuclear industry hype.

The student who wrote that blog post is young and naive and gullible.

[bananas]

2. Oh look at the ad on that website

No surprise to see Big Oil attacking Al Gore:

[FBaggins]

5. Don't you think that ad-hominem attacks on the messenger...

... would be more effective if it weren't a site that you've used for OPs in the past?

[joshcryer]

6. You do realize that The Energy Collective is a blogger aggregator, right?

The "future energy fellows" "in partnership with Shell" make up a very small percentage of posts there (a total of 8).

If you're going to attack the messenger you can go to the blog where this was originally posted: http://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/al-gores-nuclear-hypocrisy/

Of course, Al Gore is correct, that new generators are at least 15 years away or more. Pointing out that IFR was canceled does not change anything. Al Gore is right that Gen IV is not on the horizon, and certainly not in a time frame to stem catastrophic climate change.

But neither are renewables. The resource equation simply doesn't work out.

[bananas]

3. John Kerry played a lead role in getting that piece of crap cancelled.

Kerry would have made an excellent choice to replace Chu at DOE, he is very well versed on environment and energy issues.

[FBaggins]

4. Kerry makes much more sense at State

He has been on a finance subcommittee dealing with energy/infrastructure/resources, but that's hardly comparable to being chairman of Foreign Relations. Note that this is not the Energy & Natural Resources Committee... it's part of Finance.

But I can see why you would prefer a politician to an actual expert. The experts are almost universally pro-nuclear, while the politicians can be persuaded by protests (and rarely know better).

Moniz is obviously far more qualified for Energy. You can't pretend that Kerry is anywhere near as "well versed on environment and energy". You just don't like his position.