Global warming row goes nuclear as bishop quits Friends of the Earth
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor 22 October 2004
He's the nearest thing Britain has to an eco-bishop, having campaigned on environmental issues for more than 30 years. Yet now the Right Rev Hugh Montefiore, the former Bishop of Birmingham, has been kicked off the board of Friends of the Earth (FoE), the leading environmental group, for saying publicly that the fight against global warming should involve using nuclear power.
The outspoken prelate, one of the most colourful figures in the Church of England, has been an FoE trustee for two decades, and chaired the group from 1992 to 1998. But in an extraordinary and acrimonious row, he has been forced to sever his links with the organisation because of an article on climate change which he has written for tomorrow's edition of The Tablet, the Catholic weekly.
In it, Bishop Montefiore says that the dangers of global warming are greater than any others facing the planet, and that the solution is to make more use of nuclear energy. Nuclear does not produce the carbon dioxide (CO2) that comes from coal, gas and oil-fired power stations - global warming's main cause.
In doing so he becomes the second major green figure this year to advocate a radical step that is deeply unpalatable to most of the environmental movement, which opposes nuclear power as almost an article of faith. It was first put forward in May by James Lovelock, the independent scientist and green guru behind the celebrated Gaia hypothesis (the idea that the whole earth behaves like a single living organism).
Writing in The Independent, Professor Lovelock set off an international argument when he said that climate change was now proceeding so fast that there was simply not enough time for renewable energy, such as wind, wave and solar power - the green movement's favoured solution - to take the place of conventional power stations burning fossil fuels. Only a huge expansion of nuclear energy could check a possible runaway warming which would be disastrous for the world, he said.
Bishop Montefiore's article for The Tablet comes to the same conclusion in a similar way. He goes through the renewable options and says he does not believe they can do the job in time. He writes: "The real reason why the Government has not taken up the nuclear option is because it lacks public acceptance, due to scare stories in the media and the stonewalling opposition of powerful environmental organisations. Most, if not all, of the objections do not stand up to objective assessment."
The bishop, who says he has been "a committed environmentalist for many years," makes it clear at the outset that writing the piece is costing him his long-standing place on the FoE board. "I have been a trustee of FoE for 20 years and when I told my fellow trustees that I wished to write for The Tablet on nuclear energy, I was told that this is not compatible with being a trustee," he writes. "I have therefore resigned because no alternative was open to me." He adds stingingly: "The future of the planet is more important than membership of Friends of the Earth."
Bishop Montefiore, who is retired but is still an honorary assistant bishop in the diocese of Southwark, has impeccable green credentials. In the 1970s, when he was a suffragan bishop of Kingston-upon-Thames, he was much involved with campaigns for environmentally friendly transport, and protested against Concorde and excessive aircraft movement in and out of Heathrow. He was also anti-nuclear. As Bishop of Birmingham from 1978-87 he had an agenda of helping the poor and was regarded as being very much an anti-Thatcherite.
He comes from a famous Jewish family and converted to Christianity when he was a pupil at Rugby School. He has been a lecturer in New Testament studies at Cambridge, and dean of Gonville and Caius College.
He declined yesterday to talk in detail about his row with FoE but he said that "of course" he felt sad about what had happened. "I have great admiration for FoE in many ways," he said. "But they don't seem to think it's appropriate to have nuclear and I do. I think it's the only way to get out of this mess."
He said he had once been an opponent of nuclear power. "I was against it. I thought it wouldn't be necessary. But I've changed my view. I just don't see it [the fight against climate change] happening without nuclear."
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said last night: "Hugh has been a very valuable member of our board of trustees for two decades, and has made an enormous contribution to Friends of the Earth's work.
"But having analysed the energy choices and different options that we have as a society, we are firmly of the view that we can and should fight climate change without relying on nuclear power, and that has led - sadly - to a parting of the ways.
"To have us saying one thing and a member of the board of trustees saying the opposite is clearly unworkable in practice. We can't have the organisation saying two things at once."
Reminds me of when John Porrit incurrred the wrath of the green hardliners by stating that Nuclear power had the least enviromental impact of all power generating technologies.
On a more serious note I really suspect that the reason why the greens dislike Nuclear power so much isnt because of the risk of accedents or to do with the waste problem or even proliferation.
Its because they know it will work!
The dark greens do not want a solution that works! they regard humanity as a disease on the plannet and actually want civilisation to fail and global populations to crash to a few tens of millions living in the stone age "in harmony with nature"
The greatest threat to this objective is a successfull nuclear power programme!
Interestingly, they (the environ -mental- ists) are all a bunch of hypocrites.
I don't hear much of them riding electric or non-petroleum based cars to work, to meetings, et cetera.
It's not like merely using electric cars will stop pollution. For one, where does the electricity come from? Power plants? Are they nuclear? I doubt it, and we probably aren't going to see the end of petroleum for another few decades. Couple that with the fact that quite a few types of battery leave environmentally dangerous materials, you have a little problem here.
Enviro-Hypocratic Oath: "I will not harm Mother Earth."
We can only hope the two factions kill each-other off, probably in non-polluting combat.
Actually, dusty, I just had an additional thought. Large hydro has been excluded from the category of renewable because it is allegedly "unsustainable". Anyone know how they figure that? Anyway, you only have to look at Canada to realise that an alliance between hydro and nuclear is enough to provide all the energy we need in a clean manner. So what do the "environmentalists" do? They say we should avoid them and depend on dubious to pathetic options.
Here in Northern California we had a new 7 Megawatt biomass (Ultra Power of Blue Lake, California) powerplant that burned chipped wood waste (from the brush that CalTrans and Department of Forestry chips and leaves beside the highways in huge piles--for fire prevention, etc. ) The plant also burned some logging wastes and experimentally chipped slash (branches, bark, and stumps from tree harvesting) as well as some agricultural wastes. The unit operated cleanly and reliably for four years until the environmentalists shut it down.
The area that I live in is notoriously Green (the environmental lobby, not the trees(but their green too)!), but whenever something good actually comes along (such as an actual environmentally conscious industry) it is usually run out of town!
1) Large hydro actually produces useful amounts of electricity on a reasonably reliable basis, therefore the greens wont like it for the same reason they don’t like Nuclear power plants! (Well that’s the cynics view. )
2) There *is* actually a problem with large (or indeed any) hydro schemes. They have a tendency to silt up over time eventually rendering the power plant useless. How long this takes depends on the local geology. One of the criticisms of the "Three gorges" scheme was that it would only have a very limited life as a consequence of this. I suppose that in principle it may be possible to dig the reservoirs out periodically out or dredge them on a continuous basis but i am not aware of anywhere where this has been done, nor do I know what the energy balance of such large civil engineering projects would be. It is arguable that this may provide the justification for claiming that hydro is non-renewable though it is my impression that for the most part this is a slow process (That’s the engineers view)
Incidentally Hydro-power shows just how difficult relying on "renewable" energy actually is. Most people think of hydro as just building a dam across a river to build up a head of water and then to use that water to drive turbines. Whilst this is correct it also misses the point.
It completely misses the bigger picture. What actually happens is that sunlight falling on millions of square miles of ocean evaporates water which is then carried high in the atmosphere, the same solar heating agitates the atmosphere and carries the water vapour over high ground where it falls as rain over hundreds of thousands of square miles. The water collects into trickles, streams, brooks and eventually rivers! If we are realy REALY lucky that river will flow down a valley that has the correct profile and geology to make building a dam possible.
Hydropower is basically solar power. Solar power is tantalising because we know it is vast, the problem though is that is of low concentration, Collecting it directly with solar panels is hugely expensive and only really worthwhile for remote, low power applications. Indirect solar power (wind, hydro, biomass and even fossil fuels!) is more useful to us because natural processes have concentrated the solar energy into a form that is more easy to use.
Of all the renewables Hydro-power is the most usefull because it is the most concentrated and the easyest to use and controll. however we can only put dams where nature has provided us with a site and good hydro sites are rarely where we would want them to be.
Solar power is tantalising because we know it is vast, the problem though is that is of low concentration, Collecting it directly with solar panels is hugely expensive and only really worthwhile for remote, low power applications.
Actually, solar power also appears to be "worthwhile" as a public relations gimmick for some utilities : unlike windmills, which must be turned by a motor when the wind doesn't blow (to provide a good show to the public driving by on the highway), solar power panels just sit there - regardless of whether its sunny or cloudy or dark - without requiring any power to put on a show
In regards to renewable Hydro--I wonder if it would be possible to design a system whereby periodic bottom flushings, perhaps annual or biannually, to bypass the generators and let the water current uninhibited through the dam. I am thinking in terms of some kind of bottom bypass gate with its own 'spillway' to deflect the current in a non-destructive manner. Gravel, silt and other bottom debris could be released this way in a controlled way. Preventing accumulations of backfill this way would greatly extend the life of the dam.
Bristol docks (UK) used to have a system like this that washed out silt at low tide through sluce gates.
Something like this could work quite well with deep and narrow resevoirs like the hoover dam. I think it would be less effective for broard and shallow schemes such as Itapu (have I got the spelling right?)
nevertheless, it is a problem that needs to be addressed, good hydro sites are a finite resourse. we cannot afford to lose them!
the way the silting works at hydro reservoirs, is that it proceeds from where the river feeding the reservoir comes in -- usually the end opposite the dam -- because moving water in the river keeps the silt suspended, and drops it once it slows down in the reservoir. So the silted-up part is usually way too far from the dam & its flood gates, to be able to do any good in any attempts to flush out the silt. What happens over many years, is that the silt gradually displaces the water in the reservoir, proceeding in the general direction of the dam, like a giant moving Blob monster. What this does is gradually wipe out your reservoir's water storage capacity, as the great volume of water in a deep reservoir gradually gets replaced by a "delta," with a wide, but very shallow water cover. Eventually you end up with so little storage capacity, that your hydro turbines operate pretty much like windmills -- only when the (variable) flow down the river happens to be good.... By contrast, the large hydro reservoirs in James Bay (Northern Quebec) get much of their yearly reserve of water from the winter precipitation of snow, and its melting in spring. Of course the late spring & summer rains are needed to top off the storage as much as possible, but this is a relatively small fraction of the total.
Interesting, makes sense too. It sounds like you would have to wait for the winter-time water runoff for a really good flow and then open the gates--but as you say Jaro it is too far from the dam to have much current. You'd have to open it up wide to be really useful. This leaves the manual method of dredging. Perhaps a giant sized version of a pool cleaner? This sounds like a horribly complicated proposition, however....
Environmental considerations won't stop humanity from burning oil, but it won't be needed either: the oil reserves on earth are emptying, and the crisis is coming very soon ---> See the new topic I have just started!