It was in the newspaper the other day and frankly I’m surprised I haven’t read more about it on blogs, or in other news outlets. What am I on about? How the British nuclear industry expects a bill of £90 billion for cleaning up its sites. But then again, for a nation heavily dependant on coal, we need something more efficient and powerful.

Of course, I then read about how Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore wrote an article in the Washington Post about how his views on nuclear energy have changed, radically. He’s now advocating nuclear as the way to go. Talk about a total reversal, this is one in spades.

Mind you, there are things that we’re not seeing here that perhaps we should consider. Currently, for example, the fuel consumption for nuclear sites is quite high. Only a small percentage of the uranium is used, then the used fuel is either dumped, or converted/enriched. There ARE plants on the table that can use nearly 100% of the uranium, but those are still in pilot stages and will take some time to get into large-scale production. We have a finite amount of uranium, and we’re using it up at a faster pace, not helped incidentally by everyone else ramping up their own use of nuclear energy.

Now the real kicker, if you do some digging of course, pointed out by Politics for Political Junkies, is that Patrick Moore is a paid consultant for the mining industry. Instapundit appears to believe him wholeheartedly though.

So should we take his editorial with a pinch of salt or should we think that maybe here is someone with a lot of experience with some good fundamental thinking? Personally I think he has ulterior motives, but then again I’ve always been for the nuclear industry anyway. And since we on thinking, some have brought up Three Mile Island. I wonder why, given that the design of the plant was successful in containing the radiation. They’d be better off bringing up Chernobyl.

If we can plaster wind farms around the british coast or on mountains I’m for that too but Patrick feels that they are intermittent. Patrick, have you ever been to Britain? Solar may be intermittent here, but wind isn’t. As for places like the middle east, or the western US, solar is not “intermittent” by any means. We need energy, we use it, and so we must find the least damaging form to use and nuclear energy is one of the most efficient. Go nuclear!