Self-seeking motives in promoting nuclear power
Capt D has pointed out how political leaders can become beholden to the nuclear lobby . So, indeed, can academics who are paid for pro nuclear views and research. So, of course, many writers are already benefiting financially from promoting nuclear power.
But it’s not that simple, especially in Australia. There are other motivations – such as being seen as important, as a leader, even if there is not, at present, any financial gain from promoting the nuclear industry. For example, I’m pretty sure that Barry Brook gains no financial return from the industry, for his extensive pro nuclear lobbying. But he does gain the importance of being almost certainly the only Australian climate scientist who devotes himself to the nuclear cause. Definitely a leader – of sorts!
Then there are the academic and other sheepies – who note all this pro nuclear stuff, and, without much scrutiny of the full issue, decide to go on the “nuclear fixes climate change” bandwagon. After all, the trend is for scientists to be concerned about climate change (and rightly so – plenty of evidence there). So they now seem to adopt the (much more dubious) trend that nuclear power is the cure for climate change.
Then there are the thorium nuclear wannabees – who like to enthusiastically jump on a new bandwagon – be part of the “latest” gee-whiz thing – again , that’s a motive that need not involve financial gain – but does involve some sort of glory by association with the new thorium nuclear companies.
Grim reality of government moves to get Aborigines off their homelands
Aboriginal communities under threat Ft.com Jamie Smyth in Sydney December 26, 2014 Dickie Bedford was born in the 1960s at a time when thousands of aboriginal people were being evicted from pastoral cattle stations. Half a century later a new generation of indigenous Australians faces a similar fate as budget cuts threaten to close hundreds of remote communities.
“They will turn us into fringe-dwellers again if they go ahead with these closures,” says Mr Bedford, executive director of the Marra Worra Worra aboriginal corporation in Western Australia.
“Withdrawing municipal services from these remote communities will force people to move into overcrowded hub towns where they are much more likely to encounter drugs, alcohol and family dysfunction,” he says.
Western Australia has warned that 150 of its 270 remote indigenous communities may have to close as the state cannot afford to pay for road, power, water or waste services. A further 60 aboriginal communities in South Australia are under threat as the federal and state government argue over who should fund basic services.
About 16,000 indigenous people live in these remote communities, which have received federal government funding for more than 50 years. Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, has decided to phase out federal funding and shift responsibility to state governments following final one-off payments of A$90m (US$73m) to Western Australia and A$10m to South Australia………
In May, the federal government unveiled the toughest budget in two decades, which included a A$500m cut in aboriginal funding programmes, to tackle a $48.5bn budget deficit. Western Australia, which is heavily dependent on taxes from mining companies, is selling state assets and considering spending cuts.
Advocacy groups say aboriginal people, already the most marginalised group in society, are bearing the brunt of the tougher economic climate. They say the threat to close hundreds of communities harks back to an earlier era when indigenous people were forced from their land by white settlers following a court ruling that they must be paid a basic wage.
“Forcing aboriginal people to move from their communities is a form of cultural genocide,” says Tammy Solonec of Amnesty International Australia………..
The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, an advocacy group, has written to Mr Abbott urging him to intervene.
A federal government spokeswoman said the issue was a matter for states to settle.
South Australia’s government is resisting the federal government’s decision to withdraw services, accusing it of using “gun-toting” tactics to force states to accept “insulting” final payments from Canberra. ………http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f12f376c-81ba-11e4-b9d0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3N84itvYv
“Profitganda” how political leaders might be enriched by the nuclear lobby
Capt D 27 Dec 14 The reality is that in Japan and many other “civilized” countries the nuclear “lobby” is so powerfully that they in essence control not only the Government but also what forms of energy are used by the people of that country.
I have coined the term “Energy Slavery” as describing how many people are forced to buy their “Energy” from a Utility that does not provide the types of generation that the ratepayers want because it would not benefit the Utilities shareholders as much.
This will become ever more prevalent as Solar (of all flavors) cost continues to decline while Nuclear generation continues to increase in cost. Most new reactors that will be built will result in generating very high cost energy, which local ratepayers will be forced to pay, thanks to agreements being forced upon ratepayers in order to get these same nuclear reactors built.
I predict that history will show that the Leaders supporting these BIG reactor projects will themselves be enriched by these ☢ Energy deals, in what I call Profitganda*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Profitganda
Profitganda is the use of phony “feel good” information to sell an idea, product or concept to the masses.
USA government struggles to estimate carbon emissions of nuclear power
E.P.A. Wrestles With Role of Nuclear Plants in Carbon Emission Rules By MATTHEW L. WALD NYT DEC. 25, 2014 WASHINGTON — Trying to write a complicated formula to cut carbon emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency thinks it has found a magic number: 5.8.
The agency is trying to complete a rule governing carbon emissions from power plants, and among the most complicated and contentious issues is how to treat existing nuclear power plants. Many of them are threatened with shutdowns because cheap natural gas has made their reactors uncompetitive.
The agency’s proposal gave an odd mathematical formula for evaluating nuclear plants’ contribution to carbon emissions. It said that 5.8 percent of existing nuclear capacity was at risk of being shut for financial reasons, and thus for states with nuclear reactors, keeping them running would earn a credit of 5.8 percent toward that state’s carbon reduction goal.
Since receiving tens of thousands of comments on the proposal, the agency is now reviewing the plan. It must evaluate all comments before it sets a final rule, which it hopes to do by June. That rule, however, is likely to be challenged in court. Continue reading
France’s nuclear company EDF shares plummet, as nuclear maintenance costs rise
France failing to keep up with nuclear reactor maintenance http://enformable.com/2014/09/france-failing-keep-nuclear-reactor-maintenance/ Lucas W Hixson Website According to the head of the French Nuclear Safety Authority, Electricite de France SA (EDF) – the largest generator of nuclear power in the world, is unable to keep up with maintenance needs at aging nuclear reactors in its fleet. The state-controlled EDF operates 58 nuclear reactors at 20 nuclear facilities and nearly 85% of its electrical production comes from nuclear energy.
After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, EDF was forced to conduct repairs and safety improvements at its nuclear power stations, but according to Pierre-Franck Chevet, head of the Nuclear Safety Authority in France, “There are delays and complications and some could affect safety.”
EDF has estimated that it will need to spend at least $71 billion to improve safety at its nuclear power plants before 2025.
EDF shares have fallen as much as 4.2% since June 19th.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 