“We have no reason to be against nuclear energy other than prejudice & stupidity” – Dr Patrick Moore.

In Part Two of the BizNews interview with Dr Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace and the most prominent figures in the field of environmentalism, Moore makes a compelling case for nuclear energy. Moore shares why he was silenced on the topic of nuclear energy during his years at Greenpeace and provides excellent insight into both the misconceptions around the risks of nuclear energy and why it is not inherently evil in any way. Moore argues that we should conserve the most precious fuels we have, which are fossil fuels, by replacing them with nuclear energy where feasible. A brilliant perspective on the world’s current energy dilemma and the best way forward. – Nadya Swart

See timestamped topics below:

  • 00:00 Dr Patrick Moore on nuclear energy 
  • 01:49 On speaking in South Africa
  • 02:22 On Germany giving up nuclear power and going along with Net Zero
  • 03:28 On Net Zero being a death wish in disguise
  • 04:42 On those enforcing Net Zero and the World Economic Forum
  • 05:34 On silviculture in Europe
  • 06:26 On natural gas and fracking
  • 07:07 On the beauty of natural gas
  • 08:00 On the carbon dioxide we get from burning fossil fuels being the backbone of planet Earth
  • 10:45 On the bans and virtual criminalisation of nuclear power
  • 12:43 On the longevity and durability of a nuclear plant
  • 13:08 On the comparison of energy generation
  • 13:32 On those countries who aren’t following Net Zero regulations
  • 14:43 On nuclear power being the safest and longest-lasting energy source
  • 15:27 On electric vehicles
  • 16:40 On the “Greens” not being very green
  • 17:07 On his advocacy for nuclear energy being heavily criticised by Greenpeace
  • 19:11 On nuclear energy being lumped together with the negative aspects of nuclear science
  • 20:08 On carbon dioxide being inherently good for the Earth
  • 21:29 On fossil fuels being labelled as dirty energy
  • 22:36 On the issues we can address to respect the Earth more
  • 24:06 On the life we have now and its ability to flourish

Excerpts from the interview with Dr Patrick Moore

Dr Patrick Moore on Greenpeace’s stance on nuclear energy and his advocacy thereof post-Greenpeace

In 2007, Greenpeace still had my name listed as one of the founders of Greenpeace in February, and that’s when they took it out because I wrote an editorial in support of nuclear energy. And I should have done it years earlier, but it was difficult. I ended up working for the Nuclear Industry Institute in the United States with Christine Todd Whitman, who’d been the governor of New Jersey and also the head of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) under Bush 2 (George W. Bush). So it was a high-level position, and I was really glad to be able to help offset the damage we had done in Greenpeace being opposed to it. I didn’t speak out against nuclear energy when I was in Greenpeace. I just didn’t talk about it. 

Read more: Meet Dr Patrick Moore: a true environmentalist, climate change realist, and co-founder of Greenpeace who left after its hijacking by the political left

But the way I put it is that nuclear energy should not be lumped in with nuclear weapons. It should be lumped in with nuclear medicine. There’s a thing called nuclear medicine, which is used to give people radiation treatment and many other aspects of radiation used to help people stay alive. And nuclear power should be included in the positive aspects of nuclear science and nuclear technology, not in the destructive ones. What’s an atomic bomb got anything to do with a nuclear power plant? Except that it’s nuclear. But nuclear isn’t evil. Like anything else, it depends on what you do with it. 

Read more: Dr Richard Lindzen exposes the climate change movement as a fabricated, politicised power play motivated by malice and profit.

On the benefits of nuclear energy

Nuclear energy is by far the biggest technology to do that and the safest and longest lasting because there’s enough nuclear fuel to last for thousands of years. And fossil fuels are precious and not renewable and should be saved for things that can’t be done with anything else. 

Read more: Neither an energy transition nor climate crisis exists – Alex Epstein builds the moral case for fossil fuels

If we adopted nuclear energy on a large scale, which could be done in 100 years, we could get off of at least 50 to 75% of the fossil fuels we’re using today. Everything stationary can be provided by nuclear power. Heat and electricity in buildings – buildings use about 30 to 40% of all the world’s energy – everything in those buildings can be done with either heat or electricity. 

Visited 1,749 times, 3 visit(s) today