![Ansel%20Adams,%201984[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ansel20adams2019841.jpg?quality=83)
Go back and re-watch Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth from 2006 and you’ll find that he never once voices the word “nuclear” although there is a long visual scene of a nuclear warhead exploding and the subsequent mushroom cloud filling the screen. Early AGW enthusiasts never seemed to acknowledge that if fossil fuels were the problem, nuclear power would be the solution that would work.
But now it seems environmentalists are being told that nuclear power is not so bad after all. The current movie, Pandora’s Promise (http://pandoraspromise.com/), has as its major theme that nuclear power and radiation are not so scary, really. This is of course true, reiterating arguments that pro-nuclear advocates have been making for 70 years.
The selling point is that nuclear power will not lead to global climate change. Another webpage from the Breakthrough Institute is entitled Liberals and Progressives for Nuclear (http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/liberals-and-progressives-for-nuclear/). Quoting such luminaries as Bill Gates and Richard Branson, it argues for the coming “Atomic Age,” again, because of the “urgency of climate change.” Even Al Gore (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/) seems to be slyly acknowledging nuclear’s possible role.
As a long-suffering nuclear engineer, I have to ask (in a conservative webzine, American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/nuclear_powers_new_friends.html), is it in nuclear power’s best interest to make public alliance with the climate change crowd? I say no, citing the growing awareness of the “tells” on display, i. e. signs of fraud, we see documented here on WUWT and elsewhere. “Lie down with the dogs and get up with fleas” is my warning. Of course, any rational environmentalist SHOULD embrace nuclear just on its relative conventional pollutant profile and would be welcome to say kind words about nuclear – just don‘t ask that the support be reciprocated.
Yet, others in the nuclear power community disagree (http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2013/08/progressives-for-nuclear-progress.html#.Uf7Ly23pySr) (and here (http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/)) and embrace our new Best Friends Forever (BFFs). Many are sincere believers in climate change themselves, as I had been until I read the 2001 IPCC technical reports. Others just seemed hopeful that we might no longer be the pariahs of polite (PC) company.
Yet, my simple question is, should nuclear reactor manufacturers like Toshiba, General Electric, Areva, Bill Gates, Hitachi, Rosatom, etc publicly advertise that their products can help prevent climate change? Besides the expectation of further public trust deterioration for climate change, one has to look at the companies that would buy a nuclear power reactor. Almost without exception, they also have substantial fossil fuel powered generation assets.
Plus, environmentalists, like revolutionaries, have a habit of changing their minds as to who was good and who was bad. Probably the most infamous event was when Ansel Adams resigned from the board of directors of the Sierra Club over his support of nuclear power (http://www.anseladams.com/ansel-adams-the-role-of-the-artist-in-the-environmental-movement/).
The Sierra Club had been generally pro-nuclear although they could oppose specific plants on specific grounds, like the Bodega Bay nuke to be build about 400 yards from the surface trace of the San Andreas fault in the bay‘s headlands. To this day, the foundation diggings are called “the hole in the Head.” But a tide of anti-nuclear feeling swept over the organization and Adams gave up his seat on the board in 1971 due to the ill will and back biting.
My take-away lesson is political winds change, and so do the policies of environmental groups. I’d rather nuclear power not get involved.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Joseph Somsel!! That is SO COOL! I “tipped” A-th-y about your American Thinker piece last week and he went one better and got YOU to write directly to WUWT. Hurrah!
I agree completely with you. Nuclear power has an impeccable safety record and, where it is as cheap as coal or natural gas or other fossil fuels, it is an excellent source of power. Linking arms with pro-CAGW (or pro-“sustainability”) forces with the silent imprimatur that would give to their “cause,” is NOT good. It is best to keep the Fantasy Science Club at a great distance.
And we do not need such allies-of-dubious-intent. Truth alone will win the battle just fine.
AND I EVEN GOT TO POST THE FIRST COMMENT!!! What a lovely way to end the day.
A desire to promote nuclear power is part of the reason the whole GHG eco-nightmare got into the mainstream.
Margaret Thatcher wanted to break the power of the coal unions. So she promoted the idea that coal was creating dangerous climate change, in passionate speeches to the UN, and founded the Tyndall Centre for climate research (the policies she set in motion is why the UK is one of the major players in the alarmosphere).
Never in her wildest nightmares did she imagine that the movement would be hijacked by ex-communists, and would be used to undermine free markets and Capitalism.
Like you say, be careful who you get in bed with. The environmentalists hate all big industry, they are only turning to the nuclear lobby IMO because governments are not taking their phonecalls anymore, and they’re strapped for cash. They’ll turn on the nuclear people the moment they get the opportunity IMO – with no concern over what damage they cause.
In 1979, Michael Douglas and Jane Fonda tainted nuclear power for what I thought would be forever in the movie “The China Syndrome”. How far we’ve come. More importantly, how far have they come? I think not far. The First Gen environmentalists are still out there (James Edward Hansen ring a bell?) and they’re mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore, to drag in yet another hysteria-filled plot. And Hollywood is nothing of not a hyperbole-rich source of societal devolution and embroilment.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Somsel and second the sentiment. Nuclear power, yes, getting involved with environmentalism, no. Besides, nuclear power will be with us for centuries, environmentalists, not so much.
Wake me up when UCS issues a press release supporting nuke.
The catastrophists are suffering from the ills of the permanent revolution and they are fragmenting. But it simply means that we are a little bit closer to the day a new evil is invented.
Good article. I have had exactly this conversation a number of times and come to the same conclusion. Nuclear power has to make its own case based upon its efficiency and reliability. If it tries to jump on the AGW band wagon for tactical advantage it is asking for trouble because, as you say, the warmistas are fair weather friends and will turn at any time.
Hopefully after the AGW hoax is exposed the average person might try to distinguish between the sides that pushed the hoax and the sides that exposed it. As a result the extremist ant-humanity eco movement might lose influence and we can get back to doing what we have been doing for the past 10,000 years – Developing.
What will Germany do if most of the rest of the world goes nuclear?
“Nuclear power has an impeccable safety record”
Fairly safe perhaps, safer than some other fuels possibly. But “impeccable”, no way. Exaggeration does not help.
Janice Moore. By impeccable safety record are you referring to Chernobyl or Fukashima and the nuclear leaks in the US?
When someone like George Monbiot endorses Nuclear power on the heels of the Fukashima disaster, their agenda 21 depopulation plan and disregard for human life comes to the fore.
In essence some form of nuclear energy is the future, the rest energy of matter provide enormous energy potential but when the alarmist movement complete with their paid shills like Monbiot support something you can bet your bottom dollar it’s all about destruction of the economy and control. At the very least it’s about getting rid of cheap fossil fuel energy, that way, once they have replaced fossil fuels with nuclear power they can then stage nuclear leaks/events and shut down those and hey presto, their depopulation, energy-free societal implosion begins.
Watch this vid and then say “Three Mile Island” to a staid old group of 60’s liberals.
Nobody knows why, anymore, but nuclear is evil. You can take it to the bank of liberal thought.
Co-founder of Greenpeace left the organization because of their irrational opposition to nuclear power. The original organization was against nuclear weapons testing in the ocean, not nuclear power. Nuclear power has a great track record so far for safety. Chernobyl saw 64 deaths, and the majority of those were due to a slow government response. Fukushima is 0 dead, 0 injured, 0 sickened and likely to remain that way with a worst case scenario of three units malfunctioning at the same location at the same time. We have seen conventional industrial accidents claim many more than nuclear power has. If nothing else, Fukushima showed how safe that mode of power generation can be even in a scenario most would have thought impossible only a short time ago. Also note that these units were the oldest nuclear power plants in Japan. Fukushima Unit 1 was the first commercial nuclear plant on line in Japan and was three weeks from final shutdown for dismantling when the quake and tsunami struck. The Fukushima Di-Ichi plants on the other side of town were able to shut down as they were a newer design that used steam turbine pumps and didn’t require external power. This is a great testament to the engineering of even the very first generation of nuclear plants. Modern plants would have survived the incident without any problems.
Jimmi the Dalek (re: 9:18PM),
“Impeccable” is, if taken to mean absolute perfection, indeed too strong. Thank you for correcting me. Without attempting to find the precise description, I would like to sincerely ask (I’m not an expert in this area): how many serious safety incidents directly involving nuclear plants have happened that were NOT due to either: 1) poor design or construction; and or 2) poor maintenance or ignorance in their proper use? Where and when and what happened in these incidents (just the basic details)? Thanks!
Hoping you will be willing to give me a meaningful answer to my question,
Janice
**********************************
Re: Germany, until coal and other sources of power are not cheaper than nuclear power (to get it to market), Germany will likely stick with clean coal and other sources of energy, but, when it becomes cost-effective, Germany will do the rational thing: use nuclear power.
@dp — LOL.
When was the last time you saw “China Syndrome” on a TV listing?
Has it become an un-movie?
I wonder who owns the rights today.
Every fuel type has risks .As long as gas, oil ,and coal are in ready supply nuclear power will be a tough sell despite it’s many attributes. Enviro lobby groups are possibly just spending their limited revenue on globull warming conferences and their pay packs as they realize saving the planet won’t be as much fun when you are broke..
Seems to me that just about every nuclear accident occurred because somebody didn’t do a proper risk assessment – example Fukushima – the reactor shut down perfectly, but was reliant on cooling from seawater which came through electrically driven pumps. The mains power failed, and the diesel generators kicked in – all good so far, and then the tsunami took out the diesel generators. However, the tsunami did not take out the reactors – why because they were inside re-inforced reactor vessels. So my question is – which genius decided that the backup power generators shouldn’t have similar protection?
My point is that the technology existed to avert the Fukushima incident, but somebody did a risk assessment and decided that the probability of two powers supplies failing was too small to require further protection. Trouble is they probably underestimated the consequence.
So as far as nuclear technology is concerned, I have no qualms that it can be constructed safely. My problem is that the nuclear industry itself keeps hiding behind the technology and doesn’t have in place the proper and sensible risk management protocols.
crosspatch says:
August 6, 2013 at 9:29 pm
Fukushima is 0 dead, 0 injured, 0 sickened and likely to remain that way with a worst case scenario of three units malfunctioning at the same location at the same time. We have seen conventional industrial accidents claim many more than nuclear power has.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
….. not to mention organic food:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak
…. and that’s not the only one.
Worth noting that more people have died from wind power accidents in the past decade than died from radiation at Fukushima.
In the Guardian newspaper, George Monibot wrote just after the Japanese Tsunami and said if this is the worst that happens with Nuclear then we should move to it. Maybe this has been in the pipeline for longer than we think.
Absolutely not. Germany decided to close all its nuclear plants by 2022; they’re shutting them down as fast as they can.
http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-12582-germany-dumps-nuclear-opts-for-green-power-plants/
Terrified of Nuclear Energy, Germany Goes for Fossil Fuel
http://depletedcranium.com/terrified-of-nuclear-energy-germany-goes-for-fossil-fuel/
WUWT wrote about this in 2011.
FYI for anyone with concerns about the oversight of nuclear power licensees in the U.S.A.. A quick tour of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s site indicated to me that it is highly unlikely any U.S. nuclear plant is going to be able to hide for any significant time behind technology or not have proper risk management procedures. The NRC is thorough, highly knowledgeable, and conscientious. [site link: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/actionmatrix_summary.html%5D
Just click on home page on the lessons learned from Japan incident on left side bar and then, go to page where EVERY plant in the U.S. is given a specific set of mitigating or other measures to take based on that incident. Well, I was impressed, anyway!
james hansen, uk dept of energy & climate change, george monbiot, fred pearce, james lovelock & more…has no-one been listening to their pro-nuclear talk? renewables (solar/wind etc) were simply included to get the “greens” on board. fukushima derailed the plan:
5 Aug: Reuters: Exclusive: Japan nuclear body says radioactive water at Fukushima an ‘emergency’
This contaminated groundwater has breached an underground barrier, is rising toward the surface and is exceeding legal limits of radioactive discharge, Shinji Kinjo, head of a Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) task force, told Reuters.
Countermeasures planned by Tokyo Electric Power Co are only a temporary solution, he said.
Tepco’s “sense of crisis is weak,” Kinjo said. “This is why you can’t just leave it up to Tepco alone” to grapple with the ongoing disaster.
“Right now, we have an emergency,” he said…
The admission on the long-term tritium leaks, as well as renewed criticism from the regulator, show the precarious state of the ***$11 billion cleanup and Tepco’s challenge to fix a fundamental problem: How to prevent water, tainted with radioactive elements like cesium, from flowing into the ocean.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-japan-fukushima-panel-idUSBRE97408V20130805
5 Aug: Asahi Shimbun Japan: 9,640 Fukushima plant workers reach radiation level for leukemia compensation
Only four people who worked at the stricken Fukushima No. 1 plant have applied for compensation for cancer. Their requests are currently under review.
“The government does not appear to be serious about protecting workers,” said Saburo Murata, deputy director of Hannan Chuo Hospital, who is well-versed in radiation dose management. “It should provide medical checkups on its own responsibility as a way to steadily carry out decommissioning.”
The health ministry acknowledged it has no system to inform all workers of the standards for workers’ compensation. ***It said it is considering distributing leaflets…
The number of workers reaching the 5-millisievert threshold for possible leukemia compensation is expected to further increase because TEPCO is planning measures that could expose them to high radiation levels…
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201308050104
MSM might be silent, but not ene news:
http://enenews.com/
I started my career as a nuclear engineer. That was in the 1980’s. I thought the time had come for clean limitless power. Boy, was I wrong!!!
My conclusion is that there is no limit to the stupidity of environmental activists.
30 years ago the G-D greens we protesting nuclear power because they conflated nuclear power with American Military Power and the cold war nuke threat, IMO. Then, just like now, the greens hated industry, they hated power, they hated human population, they just hated themselves. They especially hared stainless steel.
Unfortunately, I was always near the top of my class, and I had to tolerate the tyranny of the collective stupid. You know what I mean. If you are on this site, you in some way are ahead of the learning curve and you too simply can’t make other people understand the obvious. You, like me, are condemned to bullied by the brainless masses.
I quit my dead-end new career in nuclear engineering in 1990s and decided to exploit the stupid while calling them as much. It is working well. Ailing baby-boomer greenies are a real gold mine. They will spend their children’s inheritance for their own selfish wants.
Nuclear energy was fantastic then, it is better now. What has changed is the hoards of dumb greens from the 1970 are in convalescent homes with oxygen supplies and diapers. It is too hard to protest nuke plants with COPD and arthritis.
Now, the new generation of stupid hoards think they’ve invented nuclear power as a solution to “CO2 pollution”. Since they learn nothing in school, they don’t know it was industrialized in the 1950s.
I say fine.
Let them think they thought of it and let’s get on with it.
Exploit the stupid hoard’s anti-humanity, industrial hating, self destructive impulses and tell them uranium is made of rainbows and unicorn farts and prevents overpopulation and stimulates marijuana proliferation.
Cynical much?… Oh yeah… 50 years of living amongst the stupid will do it every time.