Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Only solutions which don’t involve extractive industries or capitalism seem to interest Aussie greens.
Environmental groups warn against push for nuclear power in Australia
Paul Karp @Paul_Karp
Mon 16 Sep 2019 04.00 AEST
Last modified on Mon 16 Sep 2019 10.02 AESTJoint submission calls nuclear ‘a dangerous distraction’ from real action on climate as Zali Steggall backs 2050 zero-emissions target
Environmental and civil society groups have warned the government nuclear power has “no role” in Australia as crossbench independents urge it to recognise climate change as a health issue.
…
The anti-nuclear group warned it is “a dangerous distraction from real movement on the pressing energy decisions and climate actions we need”.
“If Australia’s energy future was solely a choice between coal and nuclear then a nuclear debate would be needed. But it is not,” they said in a statement.
“Our nation has extensive renewable energy options and resources and Australians have shown clear support for increased use of renewable and genuinely clean energy sources.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/16/environmental-groups-warn-against-push-for-nuclear-power-in-australia
Green opposition to nuclear power completely undermines their claims that we face a climate emergency.
Claims that nuclear power is too expensive are straight out lies. France has had an affordable nuclear programme which delivers most of their nation’s electricity since the 1970s.
Claims that nuclear power is too dangerous – dangerous compared to the end of the world? If a global climate disaster is imminent, how can it possibly make sense to oppose a potential solution because of concerns about the alleged risk of a few meltdowns?
If greens think there is time to play politics and oppose the one zero carbon energy source which might win bipartisan support, they obviously don’t believe the problem is that urgent. Fake concern about global warming is just an excuse greens use to advance their political agenda.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Green New Deal is a harbinger of anthropogenic climate change, death, and dodos from recovery to reclamation, for the feathered, the fetal, and other inconvenient conceptions.
The environmental lobby for the Green New Deal is for clean, green, and redistributive change. But are people so green?
The Greens like to point to the occasional problem with Nuclear, and say, “”There we told you so , its dangerous, so never have it.
So lets look at Civil Aviation. In the early days, 1920 to about 1970 there were air crashes, and yes people died, but in every case the cause was found and the solutions went into new designs. QANTAS was and still is the safest.
Today we seldom hear of big disasters and going on the millions of kilometres per person, air travel is far safer than driving a car.
By the same way of thinking we should ban all privately driven motor vehicles. In the case of cars, most crashes are caused by human error, and even that is getting better from a safety point of view. Of course the Greens want to ban them, its far more their way that we only travel by bus and trains, but of course they are so important that they must have their hand built cars, remember the big Ziss of the old USSR.
The Greens are only interested in one thing, Power and how to obtain it. Today that is CC , if that does not work then they will find something else to scare us with, possibly Plastic .
Their aim is and has always been, to destroy the economies of the Western countries, then to offer the voters their alternative political system which looks a lot like Communism, with them as Boss, fat chance.
MJE VK5ELL.
Thank you Michael.
As I read down the comments, I was planning to post one mentioning the issue you just highlighted – if nuclear poses some identifiable risks, we should refrain from using it, but for some reason this “logic” doesn’t apply to aeronautical, naval or terrestrial transport solutions.
The disconnect with rationality by The Greens is always on display.
“Michael September 16, 2019 at 5:49 pm
Today that is CC , if that does not work then they will find something else to scare us with, possibly Plastic.”
They are already on to that one banning single use bottles, plastic bags and straws etc. With the plastic bag bans (We now have multi-use plastic bags made from 80% recycled plastic. How much energy is consumed, no-one tells us). Once consequence I see with the change in bags, people use the trolleys to carry shopping home. Those trolleys need to be collected using a truck and trailer.
The French in the 70’s were not bound and gagged by lawfare preventing the building of nuclear power plants, in typical French style, they just got on with it. Since the last French nuclear weapons test on Mururoa in 1996 (I was in NZ then) in the Pacific however, they have given up their nuclear programs, as we know, in favour of “renewables”.
The Aussie Greens are bourgeois inner urban enclave dwellers who are almost exclusively employed by the public service at pay rates far higher than comparable jobs get in the private sector. Most of the jobs they hold have vague position descriptions with no assessable outcomes. They mainly work from home too.
Now what did Travis Bickle say about some day a rain will come…
Because my poor country can’t afford the Greens and their lifestyles.
The greenies display considerable ignorance about the future nuclear technology – small modular molten salt Thorium/uranium reactors. Anything that one can say negative about current conventional nuclear reactors, regardless of how exaggerated, cannot be said about molten salt reactors
Thorium is vastly safer than Uranium. Here in Australia, we have around 17 1/2 % of the world’s Uranium and around 20 % of the world’s Thorium. The Thorium reaction requires 2 neutrons, which means that in the event of an untoward event, the collar of U235 can be released from the reactor, quenching the reaction almost immediately. Thorium reactors can also use existing nuclear waste and get some energy out of it! How good is that? It is also said that Thorium reactors can be made small scale, reducing transmission losses. Thorium powered car or house out the back of nowhere perhaps. Goes for 200 years without refuelling. How about Antarctic bases powered by Thorium- great for the telescopes at the south pole that have the most insanely clear atmosphere.
The Greens are obviously not genuinely interested in having carbon-free baseload power. They seem to have a love of their bird munching windmills that give expensive, intermittent energy. I can, however, see the logic of their insanity- it is based on consistency. Those useful idiots that vote for them expect the Australian Greens (like AOC) to regularly come out with utter lunacy. It is almost like they are actually the Village Idiot party. Their supporters, who behave more like dung beetles than humans, are addicted to their lunacy and would suffer withdrawal symptoms if their regular diet of BS were to be disrupted. Heaven forbid, they might actually have to use their brains!
Alas, our pathetic politicians in Australia are sucked in by their noise-making and bow down to their idiotic demands. They think the din of their demands in mainstream media and hysterical diaper-soiling tantrums are majority thinking. Much kudos to the political parties (like One Nation) that tell them where to go. Note, these parties will and have been equated with Nazis. They smear those they fear. Thus, it is these parties that get smeared as racists, deniers, Nazis etc that are the ones to vote for.
The irony is that want something that doesnt work, as this keeps them in jobs where they can forever ask for things for which there is no solution.
And renewable energy is supposedly environmentally friendly?
sigh….
I keep pointing out that Big Oil runs the Greens.
‘Renewable’ energy is not a substitute for conventional oil and gas
Nuclear, coal and fracking are.
Cui Bono?
They dont want solutions that work because what they really want is a radical change of society. The made up “problems” and “solutions” are just an economic and cultural attack on the Western World. Ask what are the alternatives? What will it cost? And who is going to pay? If there are no alternatives and they dont know what it will cost its typical socialism.
The principal problem with nuclear power is that, if propagated on a world-wide basis, it can put the ability to make nuclear weapons into the hands of all sorts of unsavoury régimes led by none-too-stable lunatics who might well use them… Just saying.
“Joint submission calls nuclear ‘a dangerous distraction’ from real action on climate as Zali Steggall backs 2050 zero-emissions target.”
It sure is a distraction, not from real action on climate, but from the real goal, controlling the world and forcing all in it to live by their commands. The last thing they want is non-polluting, CO2 free, cheap electricity.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.” – Michael Mann (Climategate Emails)
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
In these times, its important to reflect on how such movements ended in the past and how very similar CC?AGW alarmism is to them.
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
The great ideological divide is between those who believe that theories should be adjusted to reality and those who believe that reality must be adjusted to fit their theories. Many of the horrors of the 20th century were created by the latter. Thomas Sowell
i am, and always have been a lot more worried about my personal end, than the end of the world. Live everyday as if it is your last, it just could be. If you are a Christian, remember Jesus points that out in the Bible.
I am not Christian and I live every day as if I will have many more.
I do not want to spend all my money today and wake up broke tomorrow. I never live with an empty larder since a catastrophe might close all the supermarkets and I might be alive and hungry.
I have built a warmer house because we will likely still have cold winters but of course it is also easier to keep cool. I have a window air conditioner in case it gets too warm. Used it for the last two warm years and did not even bother to install it this year. It was a darn cold summer and spring.
By the way I live in Alberta, a Canadian province subject to extremes of heat and cold but warmer could only be an advantage.
Living every day as your last seems to be totally insane and likely to become a self fulfilling prophecy
Attcman Sept 17. If the use of Nuclear power caused all nations to have a atom bomb, how come nations such as Iran don’t already have one. ?
A bomb requires about 99 % purity, a power station requires about 12 %, a very big difference.
MJE VK5ELL
Tell that to the customers who are paying for the Virgil Summer Units 2 and 3 and Vogtle Units 3 and 4 debacles. Or Flamanville 3 in France, for that matter:
https://www.powermag.com/edf-announces-more-delays-cost-overruns-for-flamanville-3-reactor/