Ghana, Turkey, Armenia Going Nuclear Because of Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The IAEA has written an enthusiastic report about nations embracing nuclear power to combat climate change.

Nuclear Energy for Climate Change Mitigation to Benefit Several Countries, New Studies Show

Nicholas Watson, IAEA Department of Nuclear EnergyJeffrey Donovan, IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy

Countries from Armenia and Ghana to Poland and Turkey show significant potential for using nuclear energy to slash greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and meet climate change goals including those agreed at the COP26 climate summit, according to national research conducted in a three-year project coordinated by the IAEA.

The findings of the Coordinated Research Project (CRP) illustrate the potential scope for increasing the use of nuclear power to support stronger national climate change mitigation goals as requested in the “Glasgow Climate Pact” agreed at COP26 last month. Around 30 countries include nuclear energy in plans submitted under the 2015 Paris Agreement — including both near-term (2030) targets in so-called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and longer term strategies for net zero emissions — and the CRP results reflect growing interest in nuclear among additional countries seeking to adopt more ambitious climate goals.

“Overall, the country teams’ research demonstrates that nuclear energy has significant potential to contribute to climate change mitigation, depending on national circumstances,” said Hal Turton, an IAEA energy economist and scientific officer for the CRP. “The research teams also noted that nuclear energy is well suited to powering economic growth, maintaining energy supply security by reducing import dependence, ensuring a reliable and flexible electricity system, and supporting broader sustainable development objectives.”

The CRP, entitled “The Potential Role of Nuclear Energy in National Climate Change Mitigation Strategies”, brought together research teams from 12 countries facing a range of energy, development and climate challenges with the goal of examining how nuclear power, together with other sources of low-carbon energy, could help. These teams developed and applied various analytical frameworks and modelling tools to project energy demand over the next few decades, assess technology options and supply portfolios to satisfy the projected demand, and evaluate the implications of those portfolios for GHG emissions.

The research teams in Armenia, Pakistan, Poland and Turkey identified significant potential for nuclear power in climate change mitigation in their countries. If upfront investment costs and financing barriers can be addressed, nuclear power was also seen as increasingly attractive for mitigation in Chile, Ghana and South Africa. For three other countries— Croatia, Lithuania and Viet Nam — nuclear power was seen as currently uncompetitive. Australia and Ukraine shared their expertise under different reporting arrangements; the research team in Ukraine identified a significant potential for nuclear power.

Read more: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/nuclear-energy-for-climate-change-mitigation-to-benefit-several-countries-new-studies-show

The full paper can be downloaded here.

The full list of countries using climate change as a justification for developing their nuclear capability are Armenia, Chile, Croatia, Ghana, Lithuania, Pakistan, Poland, South Africa, Turkey and Vietnam.

Armenia is in a near permanent state of war with Azerbaijan, a lethal border clash occurred last month in November, with far more serious clashes in 2020. Armenia tends to be at a disadvantage to their richer neighbour Azerbaijan.

Croatia was one of the major participants in the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s. Although things have been quieter for the last few decades, there are still unresolved issues in the region, such as Serbia’s upset at their loss of Kosovo, so it is not impossible tensions could flare up again in the future.

Pakistan is in a permanent state of heightened tension with India, over Kashmir and other issues, though they already openly possess nuclear weapons.

Erdogans’ Turkey, to their credit, have been holding talks recently with Israel, in an effort to improve relations. This is a marked improvement on 2010, when Erdogan vented utter fury over Israel’s interception of a Turkish attempt to send supplies by sea to Gaza.

Ghana hasn’t threatened to blow anyone up that I know of, but they have ongoing serious problems with an ETA style rebellion in Western Togoland, which lead to a serous clash in 2020.

Maybe a civilian nuclear programme will help boost all these economies, improved incomes have a way of defusing other tensions. All of these nations have energy intensive industries they want to grow, and nuclear programmes would certainly help insulate economies from energy supply price shocks, which might genuinely help create a more positive business environment. Lowering CO2 emissions while growing the economy would be a diplomatic win for any nation, in the current global geopolitical environment.

5 9 votes
Article Rating
83 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarkW
December 19, 2021 2:17 pm

Doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

December 19, 2021 2:18 pm

Being antinuclear is as illogical and misinformed as being anti-vax.

Both issues require basic understanding of risk magnitudes on a logarithmic scale.

Nuclear risk is measured in bananas 🍌 , vaccine risk is measured in aspirins.

Last edited 1 month ago by Phil Salmon
Ron Long
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 19, 2021 5:07 pm

Phil, clever mentioning “Nuclear risk is measured in bananas…”, as bananas are radioactive, due to K40. I have several times held my geiger counter over bananas to prove this. By the way, go ahead and eat bananas, an excellent source of potassium (K), just don’t eat a whole bunch.

Reply to  Ron Long
December 20, 2021 9:20 am

Indeed – Brazil nuts are even more radioactive – although a Geiger counter might not detect it all since much of it is 226Ra alpha activity. Some inner shell xrays also I guess.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
December 20, 2021 9:40 am

I love my radioactive bananas!

I read once that the radioactivity is supposed to have some health benefits.

Derg
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 19, 2021 5:17 pm

I am not sure people with heart issues should be getting the gene therapy shot.

Tom Halla
December 19, 2021 2:20 pm

If anyone actually takes climate change seriously, nuclear is pretty much the only real choice. Germany and Japan are dealing with Luddites.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 19, 2021 3:17 pm

Tom H,
To the extent that Germany invented big slabs of the global warming/climate change narrative, it might be better to say that Germany invented Luddites (though Britain is often said to be their original home). Geoff S

AndyHce
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 19, 2021 6:41 pm

most of the world is NOT DEALING with Luddites.

Joao Martins
Reply to  AndyHce
December 20, 2021 3:41 am

Yes. But the contagion is fast and their number is increasing everywhere.

griff
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 20, 2021 1:26 am

Well Japan clearly has a reason to be distrustful of nuclear.

Disputin
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 2:54 am

They have? And what is that? Please explain.

Voltron
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 3:13 am

What, Godzilla?

LdB
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 3:36 am

By that sort of logic China and much of Asia have reason to be fearful o Japan which occupied lots of their territories.

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 3:44 am

Well Japan clearly has a reason to be distrustful of nuclear.

griff, does in your newspeak “nuclear” mean what is commonly known as earthquackes and tsunamis?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joao Martins
December 20, 2021 9:45 am

Or failure to plan adequately to keep the reactors cool, which could have been done despite the tsunami hitting, if proper backups had been available. Poor planning. It could have been prevented using a little common sense.

Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 9:23 am

Modern 3rd/4th generation reactors dont need to be by the sea.
They are small and modular enough to sit on a seismically isolated platform.
Why cant green technology innovation and ambition be applied to nuclear as well?
Is it due to tribal anti-nuclearism which people value more than reducing CO2?

December 19, 2021 2:20 pm

The slow spread of nuclear power common sense is one of the only good things to result from climate alarmism.

Mr.
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 19, 2021 2:30 pm

Charles Mackay observed and wrote about this aberration of h0mo sapiens intelligence back in 1852 –

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Mr.
December 19, 2021 3:10 pm

Did he also mention women in his observations? I only ask as the same principle of herd madness is clearly evident. Though there is more study required to establish if they ever return to their senses, en masse, or one by one, or even at all…
Ow!!…. my wife just confirmed my thinking!

Mr.
Reply to  Rod Evans
December 19, 2021 3:40 pm

Rod, “just thinking out loud” is something every husband has lived to regret at some time or other. 🙁

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mr.
December 19, 2021 4:16 pm

First you learn not to think out loud. If the marriage survives that phase, you learn not to think!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 19, 2021 9:24 pm

Wives read husbands’ minds.

Lrp
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 20, 2021 9:34 am

You’re quiet because you’re guilty of something

Dave Fair
Reply to  Lrp
December 20, 2021 10:24 am

Stalin’s man Lavrentiy Beria learned his famous quote (“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”) from his wife. [Or so I imagine.]

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 20, 2021 9:47 am

There’s no escape!

Derg
Reply to  Phil Salmon
December 19, 2021 5:20 pm

Slowly but surely we need to migrate to nuclear but until then fossil fuels are fantastic for humanity.

Vuk
December 19, 2021 3:20 pm

Have no oil, build nuclear, France shows the way, Germany not so.

John K. Sutherland
Reply to  Vuk
December 19, 2021 4:14 pm

As Japan learned in 1946 and beyond… No coal, no oil, no gas… No choice. It had to be nuclear.

Raven
Reply to  Vuk
December 19, 2021 4:46 pm

Not so fast.
Beginning in 2012 and passing in 2015 France was saddled with the “Energy Transition for Green Growth Act” which limits their nuclear capacity to 63.2 GW.

Operating licences will no longer be granted for nuclear power plants that would raise total authorised capacity above 63.2 GW, the total output of the fleet currently in service.

That 63.2 GW limit on nuclear capacity meant that EDF is prevented from uprating their nuclear plants.
French Energiewende!

With that said France recently announced they’ll build new nuclear reactors, so maybe the cracks are appearing.

LdB
Reply to  Raven
December 19, 2021 5:30 pm

The blunt instrument called reality opens up many a crack.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Raven
December 20, 2021 3:51 am

Well… an Act of Law is only in force up to when another Act of Law revokes it… And that often happens, when governments or parliaments approve Laws to condition and restrict the future or forever, without concern with the “now”…

Pat from kerbob
December 19, 2021 3:47 pm

Personally the only reason to hope the CO2 doom scenario is true is so that Jane Fonda will understand before she dies that she has destroyed the planet with her anti-nuclear efforts.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 19, 2021 4:22 pm

I was gonna say she can go ahead and die, no need to wait. But hey, that’s not very nice to say. Christmas and all. So I didn’t say it 😜

Disputin
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 20, 2021 2:58 am

No, and I didn’t think it, either.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Disputin
December 20, 2021 9:53 am

I think Jane saw the error of her ways over hurting the Vietnam war veterans. She apologized, and I think she was sincere about it.

Now, if she could just see the error of her ways over the CO2, Human-caused Climate Change scam.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 20, 2021 7:04 pm

That’s mighty charitable of you Tom.

Forgive me for cynically thinking that the secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

I’m sure nobody would have suggested that her box office receipts could improve if half the country stopped thinking of her as a traitor. And anyway how could she fake sincerity? She’s only an actress.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 21, 2021 3:47 am

She was young and stupid. Kind of like a lot of young people today who think they have the world all figured out.

I understand the bitterness people felt and feel towards her. I felt the same way myself. But no more.

Mr.
December 19, 2021 3:48 pm

You know how everyone and their dog is now an expert on why historic wars etc and other policy mistakes that resulted in human misery should been avoided, well – I have no doubt that in around 2070 or thereabouts, folk will be saying –

“why the fook did our grandparents think that wind & solar would give us the electricity we need to live a civil life, when all the while they had safe nuclear generators they could have built in every suburb and town?”

Bruce Cobb
December 19, 2021 3:55 pm

It couldn’t possibly be because nuclear makes good economic sense, and will provide steady, reliable electricity for decades to come.
Nah.

M Courtney
December 19, 2021 3:56 pm

There are many reasons to support Armenia in its fight for survival against Azerbaijan.

H B
December 19, 2021 4:55 pm

Bring up the Nuclear issue in an argument with a green tell them it is the only answer see there enthusiasm drop

John Hultquist
December 19, 2021 4:58 pm

Can they get the nuke facilities built before the world ends in 10 years or whatever time remains? (I can’t keep up.)

Dennis
Reply to  John Hultquist
December 19, 2021 6:19 pm

You mean the every ten years or so scare campaign.

But like the children’s story about the little boy who cried wolf too often the scare is losing traction.

And interestingly in Australia the aged below 25 young people are the most indoctrinated yet becoming the least concerned as they treat the deception with scorn, not all of course, but most.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dennis
December 20, 2021 10:04 am

In this case, scorn is good. Future generations are going to have a lot of scorn for the “leadership” of this generation.

Patrick Hrushowy
December 19, 2021 5:00 pm

As has previously been noted, climate alarmism began as a way to collapse western industrialisation. Nuclear was left off the list of green alternatives deliberately because it would enable the whole world to continue economic growth.

Kevin R.
Reply to  Patrick Hrushowy
December 19, 2021 5:23 pm

That and hydroelectric.

Mr.
Reply to  Kevin R.
December 19, 2021 5:59 pm

Yeah but hydro is limited to suitable geography / topography.

Nuclear now just needs a supermarket carpark size hole in the ground anywhere.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mr.
Dennis
Reply to  Mr.
December 19, 2021 6:21 pm

Or the Rolls Royce modular reactors on order for the UK Government that require much less area but more of them spread around where needed.

Dennis
Reply to  Patrick Hrushowy
December 19, 2021 6:23 pm

As admitted by UN Official Christiana Figueres in October 2015 shortly before the IPCC Paris Conference began end of November 2015.

It’s not about climate, the objective is to wreck the capitalist (free enterprise) system and redistribute the wealth of nations and citizens.

Dennis
December 19, 2021 6:14 pm

Meanwhile one of the world’s largest source of Uranium, the Commonwealth of Australia, is exporting limited by mining bans Uranium shipments and bans the use of nuclear energy apart from one reactor at Lucas Heights, a suburb of Sydney New South Wales, that has been operating safely since the 1950s producing radio isotopes for medical and commercial purposes, for national and export markets.

And the push to increase unreliable energy sources continues, with subsidies for profits, and coal fired power stations are not being replaced or replacements planned as they reach the fifty year accountable working life, ignoring that well maintained eighty years or more is possible.

RonPE
December 19, 2021 9:46 pm

Exactly none(or zero) of these countries will complete a nuclear power plant in my lifetime.

meab
Reply to  RonPE
December 19, 2021 10:27 pm

The four nuclear power plants at Akkuyu, Turkey have been under construction for almost four years and are scheduled to begin operation in 2023. I’m sorry that you plan to be gone so soon.

griff
Reply to  meab
December 20, 2021 7:42 am

considering there are Finnish and French nuclear plants over 10 years building…

Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 9:27 am

France have 56 nuclear power stations.
How did they ever get these built?
How did it not bankrupt France to build them?
Why is their electricity now 1/3 of the price of Germany’s?

The ability of Neanderthal anti-nuclear greens to sabotage nuclear projects is not a valid argument against nuclear. It’s an argument that Neanderthal anti-nuclear greens are endangering human society and economies (which need energy).

Lrp
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 9:41 am

Better than wasting money on wind and solar

Disputin
Reply to  RonPE
December 20, 2021 3:02 am

I’m so sorry to hear that, Ron. My best wishes, anyway.

Mr.
Reply to  RonPE
December 20, 2021 6:40 am

“Predictions are tricky. Especially about the future.”

Some sage advice for you RonPE courtesy of Yogi Berra.

Mohatdebos
Reply to  RonPE
December 20, 2021 7:43 pm

Pakistan will complete one this year and one next year. Please Google KANUPP.

HvR
December 20, 2021 12:30 am

To the list of countries you can add the Netherlands. An existing plant will be kept open longer (Borssele) and the government is planning for two new plants.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  HvR
December 20, 2021 10:22 am

Slowly coming around to reality from an alarmist’s point of view.

Nuclear is good. Both sides: those who think CO2 needs to be reduced, and those who don’t, can agree on nuclear.

The Climate Change Pipe Dreams of windmills and solar are running up against Reality now.

Vincent
December 20, 2021 1:06 am

I’m surprised no-one has mentioned in this thread the obvious increased risks of nuclear catastrophes if nuclear power were to become common in less developed countries.

A major problem with fossil fuels is the lack of adequate emission controls because of the increased cost of both the installation and the usage of such controls.

For example, the awful air-pollution in major cities in China and India is mainly due to the use of cheaply constructed coal-fired power stations and ICE vehicles, both without state-of-the-art emission controls.

Can we be sure that the safety of nuclear power plants will not be compromised by money-saving decisions and short-cuts during the construction and operation of the plants? That’s the major issue.

griff
Reply to  Vincent
December 20, 2021 1:27 am

Chinese nuclear experts have already criticised China’ lack of a safety culture in building nukes…

Disputin
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 3:07 am

And where are they now. Does anybody know?

griff
Reply to  Disputin
December 20, 2021 7:41 am

Hmmm. Can’t find any recent reference to one I quote below…

LdB
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 3:36 am

Evidence or it’s bullshit.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 9:45 am

The Guardian is the opposite of evidence

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 3:59 am

Funny… in China the only reliable opinions and statements are those of the opposition to the government… two weights and two measures? … Why not becoming skeptic and distrut both?

Disputin
Reply to  Vincent
December 20, 2021 3:05 am

No, we can’t, except that there has been a marked lack of disasters, world-wide.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Vincent
December 20, 2021 9:04 am

The safety record of nuclear power is far better than the common impression and considerably better than coal or any other thermal type. Outside of Chernobyl (47 confirmed, 15 estimated radiation deaths) there have been only 4 confirmed and 55 estimated radiation deaths at civilian nuclear power reactors. The estimates are for “attributed excess cancer deaths” — the other 55 were at the 1957 Kyshtym reactor accident in the USSR.

In addition to civilian power deaths we have:

  • military reactors: 30 deaths (27 from Soviet submarine reactors; 3 from US SL-1 accident).
  • military research: 2
  • military tests: 1
  • radiotherapy: 79
  • radiography: 10

Most of the radiotherapy/radiography deaths were caused by improperly dismantling medical equipment that had been stolen or abandoned at bankrupt clinics.

There is considerable disagreement about attributed excess deaths for radiation exposure, particularly with Chernobyl. The figures of 47 confirmed and 15 estimated come from the 2008 UNSCEAR report. You can find published estimates of several hundred thousand estimated premature deaths but none of the markers for such a widespread effect were evident in 2008.

Nobody died of radiation exposure at Fukishima or Three Mile Island.

And double-checking these figures just now revealed that the 1957 Kyshtym accident was at at a military plutonium production facility, so not a civilian reactor at all.

There are obviously gaps in the official nuclear accident reports: there are none from China or N. Korea, which is not credible given known data from the Soviet nuclear program.

Compare civilian reactor safety to US coal mining deaths here — a high of 3,242 in 1907 out of 680,492 employed, and routinely over 2,000/year from 1900 to 1930 (figures after 1973 include office deaths). Those years were of course a different era in terms of safety regulations and practices.

However since 2000 there have been 506 deaths; an average of over 23 a year. I don’t have figures for the entire world handy, but at least 5 times US deaths over the same period would be a reasonable minimum. Most US mining these days is open pit strip mining which is considerably safer than deep shafts.

The Three Mile Island reactor accident occurred in 1979 — total fatalities: 0; total injuries: 0. In the same year 144 US coal minors died out of 260,429 employed.

Total US civilian reactor radiation deaths in the history of nuclear power: 1 in 1964 at the United Nuclear plant in Wood River Junction, Rhode Island. This is a nuclear processing facility “designed to recover highly enriched uranium in scrap material from fuel element production”, so not a reactor per-se, but likely part of the civilian nuclear reactor program. An accident exposed one worker to “more than 700 rem”; he died 49 hours later.

This source gives deaths from “accidents and air pollution” by Terawatt hour (TWh):

  • brown coal — 30.72
  • coal — 24.62
  • oil — 18.43
  • biomass — 4.63
  • gas — 2.82
  • nuclear — 0.07
  • wind — 0.04
  • hydro — 0.02
  • solar — 0.02

This probably overstates the fossil fuel risks due to attribution of estimated pollution deaths.

Vincent
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 20, 2021 7:13 pm

“This source gives deaths from “accidents and air pollution” by Terawatt hour (TWh):
brown coal — 30.72
coal — 24.62
oil — 18.43
biomass — 4.63
gas — 2.82
nuclear — 0.07
wind — 0.04
hydro — 0.02
solar — 0.02″

If these figures are reliable, Alan, then I agree that the scare about nuclear accidents might be exaggerated and unfounded. However, there are other issues of concern apart from the number of deaths related to accidents. For example, you mention that nobody died of radiation exposure at Fukushima, but the cost of evacuating 150,000 people, the decommissioning of the plant, and the continuing clean-up of a large area of many square kilometers of land, is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. One ‘possibly extremist’ site predicts the eventual cost, taking everything into consideration, could reach a trillion dollars.

There would still have been a significant cost because of the damage caused by the Tsunami, even if there had been no nuclear reactor at that location, but not nearly as great a cost. Another issue is the long term effects of the radiation that many people were exposed to. We can’t be certain their lives will not be shortened.

The political problem, as I see it, is as follows. If so many people are scared about the climate effects from increases in minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, then it’s reasonable to presume they will be equally alarmed, or perhaps even more alarmed about proposals to build thousands of nuclear power plants around the world to replace all the fossil fuel plants, especially in undeveloped or less developed countries.

There is also a concern about potential terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants in certain countries where there are continual conflicts, and also the high cost of ‘responsible’ nuclear waste disposal when the nuclear plants are eventually decommissioned.

So, perhaps the issue is, which would be easier, (1) to persuade the majority of the population that CO2 is not a harmful pollutant, or (2) persuade the majority of the population that nuclear reactors are not a potentially disastrous threat to our economy and wellbeing whenever there are nuclear accidents, due to whatever cause.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Vincent
December 21, 2021 7:02 am

Vincent:

There would still have been a significant cost because of the damage caused by the Tsunami, even if there had been no nuclear reactor at that location, but not nearly as great a cost.

There is a proven mechanism for handling extraordinary costs: insurance. US nuclear electricity sales are already taxed to fund the eventual decommissioning expense. A similar tax to fund a risk pool for nuclear accidents would likely not be any more expensive than that.

The 2016 MITI estimate for the Fukashima nuclear accident was $187 Billion, of which $69 billion was “compensation for victims”. The 2011 Deepwater Horizon accident resulted in a 2016 settlement totalling $20.8 billion, and yet oil recovery in the Gulf continues. Oil spills are far more common than nuclear accidents, but insurance to cover accident claims is affordable as long as there is a market for petroleum products.

Another issue is the long term effects of the radiation that many people were exposed to. We can’t be certain their lives will not be shortened.

Radiation exposure from Fukishima was much smaller than Chernobyl, and the UNSCEAR report issued 22 years later attributed a total of 15 cancer deaths (thyroid) to exposure from the accident. One source states these were all children in relatively remote areas who were not given iodine tablets promptly; children much closer to the reactor site given the tablets immediately did not die. The claims commonly made for “premature deaths” are statistical calculations which assume any radiation exposure above background levels shortens life proportional to the exposure. Someone whose calculated life shortening is a few days or weeks is still included in the “premature death” figures. It is difficult to validate these calculations as the followup takes decades. A person exposed to radiation at age 35 who later dies at 88 from a heart attack almost certainly did not suffer any shortened life due to the exposure.

It has been known for centuries that people are bad at estimating risks: they tend to exaggerate remote but terrifying possibilities and dismiss familiar but common ones. Adam Smith noted this in 1776 in The Wealth of Nations. More recently, the average person gave absolutely no thought to what the potential rewards and risks were for gain of function research — who was conducting it under what regulations and safety protocols and whether there was any kind of insurance to compensate losses. I humbly suggest that was a gross mis-appreciation of risk.

And to this day there has been no public debate on this issue, despite tens of trillions of dollars in economic losses and over 5 million attributed deaths. We don’t know whether the virus resulted from a lab accident; we do know the doctors behind the letter assuring us this was not possible all had connections with the Wuhan lab. We also know China lied to us about the initial outbreak, continues to lie to us about the infections and deaths inside China and has obstructed attempts to investigate more fully. We also know the Ministry of Truth has decreed that any discussion of a possible lab leak is “misinformation”.

The risks of nuclear power: manageable. The risks of public health bureaucrats funding frankenvirus research and then placed in charge of “protecting” us from the results: incalculable.

“Lord, protect me from my friends; I can protect myself from my enemies”

Lrp
Reply to  Vincent
December 20, 2021 9:43 am

Life is a risk; you can’t be sure of anything.

Charlie
December 20, 2021 1:18 am

Where is Al Gore? He could be anywhere in the world, as he saves the planet by the ton of jet fuel.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Charlie
December 20, 2021 10:27 am

Cold weather follows Al Gore around so look for the coldests places to find Al Gore.

griff
December 20, 2021 1:24 am

Well, I wish them luck, but it will prove very expensive, take much longer than they think and honestly without adopting a Chinese design and finance, don’t think they have much chance.

LdB
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 3:37 am

So a bit like the UK grid then 🙂

Last edited 30 days ago by LdB
griff
Reply to  LdB
December 20, 2021 7:36 am

The UK grid will be fine…

I think all know my views on UK’s current plans for new nuclear.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 9:51 am

The future of UK is one of energy constraints

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  griff
December 20, 2021 7:09 am

Sort of like the Green Leap Forward.

December 20, 2021 9:16 am

Rolls Royce receives new investment from Qatar allowing their SMR program to move forward to start taking orders…

Rolls-Royce lands £85m Qatar boost for small nuclear reactors (msn.com)

John Kassabian
December 20, 2021 10:57 am

Armenia has nuclear power because it has no oil and gas and is in a hostile geopolitical environment. Gas is imported. Any lip service to green issues if for foreign consumption FYI.

%d bloggers like this: