Greenpeace - Are they pro-nuke and don't know it?

["Gerry W. Kindred" <gwkindred@centerior.com>]

The recent Greenpeace activity in Canada, where they stopped a shipment of
coal to a fossil plant, implicity proves they are pro-nuke.  You may ask
how, well - those folks surley know that the loss of generation from the
Canadian plants shutdown recently has to be replaced from some other
source.  They recommend solar; however, they know that there is no
available solar (or additional hydro) power to make up for the loss.  They
have not been very proactive in their efforts against the Canadian Nuclear
Power rogram, have they?  Therefore, instead of rejoicing at the fact the
nuclear plants shutdown, they have concentrated their efforts on the fossil
issue...or in other words, their lack of action against nuclear, and
proactive position against coal clearly demonstrates they favor nuclear
power over coal.  

I found the following interesting regarding energy density, I think most of
you will too...
from the September 1997 issue of Nuclear News...an article by entitled
"Nuclear Energy in teh 21st Century" by Hans Blix:

		1 kg of firewood produces about 1kWh of electricity
		1 kg of coal produces about 3 kWh of electricity
		1 kg of oil produces about 4 kWh of electricity
		1 kg of natural uranium produces about 50,000 kWh of electricity
		1 kg of plutonium produces about 6,000,000 kWh of electricity

Also,  "The low energy density of the renewable sources means that if you
want significant amounts of energy (electricity) from them, you must
"harvest" them over large areas - and this is expensive.  It has been
calculated that to achieve the electricity generating capacity of a
1000 MWe power plant, you would need: an area of 50 to 60 km^2 to install
solar cells or windmills, or an area of 3000 to 5000 km^2 to grow the
needed biomass".

Sign me...an Enviromentalist for Nuclear Power Generation of Electricity