Climate action distracted by talk of uncosted, unbuilt, unproven and unpalatable technologies such as nuclear.
|
SMH, February 10, 2020 – Chris Danckwerts, Turramurra I thought we’d all realised by now that the nuclear power option was never going to be viable, until I read Katie Allen’s article (“Keep an open mind to nuclear“, February 8-9). She ignores a number of crucial facts. First, the timeframe to build nuclear (a decade at least). Second, the cost (many billions). Third, safety. She says that smaller, more modern reactors will only “moderate” the risks, not eliminate them as most of us would wish. Finally, there would only be “less” nuclear waste to get rid of, which will still continue to be a problem. The sooner we eliminate nuclear, coal and eventually gas power options and move to 100 per cent renewables, pumped hydro, hydrogen et cetera the better off we will be.
Christopher Hill, Kensington, It seems Katie Allen has been electorally charged with selling us nonexistent new-nuclear power technologies and asking us to spend time and taxpayer money on something we never asked for. Sounds familiar. Given the continuing fallout from this government’s self-interested spending of taxpayer money, why not go nuclear? Well, the plea for open minds is all well and good. However, real movement on national energy policy and transition is now on the table. We are at that table and we are hungry for a workable energy and climate change policy. Sure, keep an open mind, but fill it with well-informed realistic debate anchored in the present, not on distracting unwanted promises of uncosted, unbuilt, unproven and unpalatable technologies such as nuclear. – Helen Lewin, Tumbi , If, as Peter Hartcher suggests (“Be amazed by our masters of delusion“, February 8-9), Allen is voicing her pro-nuclear stance in order to drag her conservative Coalition confreres into a world free of fossil fuels, I respectfully suggest she dumps this minority group of Luddites rather than tempting them with nuclear energy. She admits in her article that the “concerns” around the development of nuclear have only “moderated”. I’m afraid that won’t be enough to drag me along with her or many other Australians. – Umbi https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/argument-goes-nuclear-in-search-for-energy-solution-20200209-p53z2c.html |
|
No comments yet.
1.This month.
The Road to War brings a sharp focus to why it is not in Australia’s best interest to be dragged into a war with China which will almost inevitably go nuclear very quickly. The filmmaker has interviewed some of Australia’s senior foreign policy analysts who have vast experience behind them in analysing what really is going on here as the United States rattles its sabres with China. And sets us up to be its proxy, like the poor Ukranians have been fed into the Meatgrinder. So America can remain the Top Dog. The Road to War reveals how the United States through its spy base at Pine Gap and by stationing six nuclear capable B52 bombers in the Top End (without permission from the traditional owners) is making Australia a prime nuclear target if the current war of words suddenly melts down into full scale war.
The Road to War shows the implicit connection between Carbon emissions (the US military uses a whopping 70% of America’s annual petroleum to move its armies and vast War Machine around the globe to its 800+ military bases..but under a loophole wangled at Kyoto, the US military does not have to report its C02 annual emissions). The Road to War starts screening at selected cities and regional centres in March. See the trailer end for details.
Antinuclear 
Leave a Reply