Ziggy Spinowski still spruiking “clean” “green” nuclear power
Christina Macpherson 18 Dec 09 Why does the media continue to give such a platform to the narrow views of a nuclear physicist obviously spruiking for his business? Is it because of some mindset that sees “hard” science (nuke physics, geology etc) as somewhow “real” scince, as compared to the “soft” sciences like ecology, environmental science, climatology?
It wouldn’t be so bad if Ziggy Switkowski showed that he had a clue about the ecological effects of radiation from uranium tailings, or the discharge of hot water into marine environments. He obviously doesn’t. Nor does he show any understanding even of the problems that will shut down nuclear plants as extreme weather events occur, and as sea levels rise.
But perhaps most of all, Ziggy Switkowski is right out of his depth on economics – as predictions of nuclear’s likely costs show not just the exorbitant construction costs, but also the running costs. As quoted today (by Tessa de Ryck) “a 2007 report that nuclear power will likely cost over $7,000 per kilowatt, Moody’s Investor Services is now taking an even more cautious view towards investment in nuclear power,”
A clean and green way to fuel the nation THE AUSTRALIAN , Ziggy Switkowski, 18 Dec 09 “………Cost. Nuclear energy has the highest capital cost, up to $4 billion to 6bn for our first 1000MWe reactor, but low running costs largely independent of the cost of uranium itself………………….
Nuclear Energy specifically excluded under Kyoto Protocol
Copenhagen, nuclear power, and the Clean Development Mechanism Nuclear Reaction, by Justin, 18 Dec 09
“……..For those who don’t know it,the Clean Development Mechanism the CDM is a system set up under the Kyoto Protocol which allows industrialised countries committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to earn carbon credits by investing in low-carbon projects in developing countries rather than building more expensive projects in their own countries.
Nuclear energy was specifically excluded from the CDM at the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change conference in 2001. Needless to say, the nuclear industry and its supporters have been lobbying hard ever since for nuclear’s inclusion in the mechanism. Continue reading
Aborigines get tainted land back, but no compensation for cancers
Just as the Maralinga army veterans find no justice from the Australian government, in their fight for compensation for radiation-induced illness, so those surviving aborigines affected by the atomic tests still go unrecognised.
In the true tradition of British and Australian governments, it is hoped that they will just all die out and be forgotten.
It sounds fine for SA’s Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Jay Weatherill to claim that this land handover is the” final chapter of a 50-year struggle for justice.” But it’s not – those victims of nuclear radiation are still there, and so are their children. The veterans are taking their case to Britain, particularly on behalf of their children and grandchildren. Why should the aboriginal victims continue to be ignored, in the pretense that their health was not affected? Continue reading
Nuclear “cure” for climate change – a $10 trillion useless exercise
Greenpeace debunks nuclear benefit Malaysia Business Insight BY PAUL ICAMINA 18 Dec 09 NUCLEAR’S contribution in easing climate change is “too little, too late,” the anti-nuclear group Greenpeace said.
“Most of the hypothetical new big reactors would start to generate energy well beyond 2020, probably after 2025, Continue reading
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 