The new push for nuclear energy

Nuclear energy.

Early June, 2019

The Global Warming theory became widely known around 15 - 20 years ago. The rising of sea levels was the problem most emphasized then. And I was dubious from the start, as I could perfectly well see that homes close to the beach were still much in demand, and still cost a fortune. There was also that I never believed that humans were sufficiently powerful to influence the climate.

Those who have always lived in cities seem to forget that most of the country is not composed of dense city with its air hazy with pollution, but is instead covered in farmland and forest, mountains and lakes and plains and ocean. It is only a tiny percentage that is covered in city. (And thank goodness for that!)

 I wondered then whether it was a ploy from wealthy industrialists wanting to make themselves more
wealthy by investing in nuclear energy.








But if the promotion of nuclear energy was the purpose of the scare, then progress has been slow. The same ones who are most eager to embrace the idea of human-caused Global Warming are also those most adamantly opposed nuclear energy.

Evacuation areas, 2011

And then there was Fukushima, 2011. This was a disaster caused by an earthquake and the consequent tsunami. Hundreds of thousands of people were evacuated, though there were no deaths directly related to it.

http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclear-accident/whats-happened

This was a nuclear disaster. There have been other nuclear disasters

Chernobyl

.

   Left:  Chernobyl, USSR, 1986. 

Three Mile Island

Right:  Three Mile Island  The well known accident was in 1979, Pennsylvania, USA.

One reactor is still working at Three Mile Island, though it is due to be shut down by the end of September, 2019.






There have been other accidents, less well known,, even when those very first reactors came with the assurances to the public that were absolutely and totally 100% safe. There are good reasons why the populace is wary of nuclear energy, especially when we have abundant coal in Australia.

Al Gore, preaching.
This man uses far more energy
than any of we normal folk. 

2019, Climate change protesters
London

It is 2019. The climate has not warmed, and the sea has not risen, but the alarmist cries have only become more shrill. 'Global Warming' has become 'Climate Change' and now it is spoken of as a 'Climate Emergency.'



 Children are taught it as fact, and to say that it is all nonsense is absolutely not politically correct.



But now, it appears, the time has come to start pushing. From several different sources, but almost in unison, suddenly the cry has come. They are not saying we have to have nuclear energy - yet, rather they are saying 'we have to have the debate,' and 'we are mature enough to talk about it.' Craig Kelly, Liberal MP, for instance, that it 'must be on the drawing board' and the fear of nuclear energy 'must be overcome by an education process.' (Bolt Report, 6/6/19) And Peta Credlin, 'We are a grownup country and we have to have a grownup debate about it.'

The message is that we must go to nuclear energy because it is 'nil emissions' (so they say) and because the price of electricity has sky-rocketed. 

Wind farm in South Australia

But the price of electricity has sky-rocketed because the subsidies for inefficient renewables are very high and the provision of coal and gas energy has been actively sabotaged. Look at the fight against the proposed Adani coal mine, and Al Gore's nonsense that 'India will not want coal anyway.'








Maybe there are other reasons for this Climate Change scare. I assume some of the powerful might believe in it, though there never was a 97% Consensus of Scientists. There is also the fact that it has given more power to the Globalists of the UN.  A theory is that it is all about the redistribution of wealth from richer countries to poorer countries.

So maybe soon, we will see the first nuclear power stations in Australia. There was a headline (WIN TV, 13/6/19) that 'the government is more than willing to consider nuclear energy if it is economically viable.'

 And 14/6/19, a headline 'the NSW treasure is 'open' to nuclear energy, and 'there is no doubt that it is a cleaner form of energy.'

Nuclear Power Station, maybe coming soon to Australia

Coal is dirty, and always will be dirty. But the dirt is visible and can be reduced.

Nuclear energy is dirty as well, but the 'dirt' is invisible and lasts thousands of years. Look at the way that nuclear waste has to be managed. It is a problem that has no solution that will last as long as it needs to last.

Think of the children

They say that we should think of our children and reduce emissions in order to reduce the human-caused warming of the climate. But I consider the risks of nuclear energy as a far bigger threat to our descendants. Radiation does not just go away. It lasts - for a very, very long time. And damage to genes can result in a deformed child in the tenth or twentieth generation as much as it can in the first or second generation. While there is a viable alternative, it would be foolish to go down the nuclear path.

*

25th June, 2019:

And the fight back against the prospect of more nuclear energy has begun. Not this blog (which has zero influence) but there was a news report yesterday about someone who collected a large dose of radiation when something went wrong at the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney, and then today, a story about people 'risking their health' by visiting the site of the Chernobyl disaster.

So how will it go now? A few more stories of people being harmed by radiation maybe? And then the promoters of nuclear energy again speaking of how the technology is vastly improved and the dangers have been grossly exaggerated? The number of fatalities from Chernobyl has been estimated at under a hundred to 93,000. It was 1986, the time of the Cold War, and the Soviet Union was secretive. I have read (years ago) that anyone who worked on bringing the fires under control and sealing off the reactor were deliberately dispersed and no records kept.

And there is a film about Chernobyl just released, that 'gives a strong sense of the catastrophic effects' of nuclear accidents.

I have also seen an expert, Robert Gale, bone marrow expert, who treated the victims for burns in the immediate aftermath, knew about subsequent instances of cancer, especially thyroid cancer attributed to the radiation, and asserts there were nearly as many cases as alleged. He is an advocate of nuclear energy. ('The Bolt Report',  June, 2019)

As usual, 'facts' are contradicted by 'facts' on the other side of the argument.

But there is no denying that a large area around Chernobyl is still empty, the same as a large area around Fukushima, too much polluted by radiation. They will be radioactive for more generations to come.


I guess we will see in the next few years how it will turn out.  Nuclear energy with its inherent risks, or a return to coal, which is relatively cheap and plentiful?  A whole generation has been convinced that climate disaster is just around the corner.  Will they shun electricity, cars, aeroplanes, and all the other conveniences of modern living?  Will they opt for 'zero-emissions' nuclear?  Or will they look at the evidence of no actual 'climate emergency' at all, and accept more traditional forms of energy?