Antinuclear

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………………….

December 18, 2009 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, spinbuster, uranium | antinuclear, Australia, nuclear, nuclear costs, nuclear wastes, uranium, Ziggy Switkowski