Home
Nuclear Power Fueled by Climate Change Fears

SK: Nuclear Power Fueled by Climate Change Fears

What do environmentalists and nuclear power have in common? More than you might think. Even though many with a deep concern for the environment are also opposed to nuclear power, worries about climate change are pushing the world inevitably in that direction. In fact, a sequel to Kyoto could soon become the final catalyst for a worldwide proliferation of nuclear power.

Nuclear advocates and climate change activists have been strange bedfellows for a long time. The British documentary, “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” claims the connection started in the 1980s. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wanted to break the power of the coal-mining unions. And, in a two-pronged strategy, the “Iron Lady” pushed for nuclear power while funding research that suggested burning fossil fuels such as coal could warm the earth.
 
The Chernobyl disaster put nuclear development on hold in Britain and almost everywhere else. Only four new nuclear plants were built worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Yet, as many as 226 new nuclear plants could be built or underway by 2020, according to Saskatchewan’s own Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) report. This dramatic shift could only happen in an era when carbon, the substance that makes up every living thing, is considered a pollutant. Only then could nuclear emerge as the “clean” energy for a power-hungry world.

The UDP report states with surprising candour that the only way a nuclear plant in Saskatchewan would make financial sense is with a carbon price of at least $30 per tonne and a natural gas price above $6 per mmBTU. Otherwise, gas or coal would be preferable. The report estimates that the current price on carbon of $18 per tonne could rise to $50 per tonne following a new “global deal” on carbon.
 
This means that both climate change activists and the nuclear industry are waiting with baited breath for a sequel to the Kyoto accord. This could happen as early as December as the nations gather in Copenhagen to hammer out a carbon reduction agreement. Carbon taxes or cap-and-trade schemes are just the beginning of potentially devastating consequences.
 
Just ask Lord Christopher Monckton, once a science adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Monckton says that carbon causes only one-sixth as much warming as the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would suggest. This means it would take 2 trillion tonnes of CO2 emissions just to increase the temperature of the earth by one degree. Conversely, since human activity produces just 30 billion tonnes of C02 annually, it would take 430 years without any industry or even a man-made fire on earth just to lower the temperature a single degree.
 
Monckton warns that the early drafts of the Copenhagen Accord call for nations who sign on to surrender substantial national sovereignty. An unelected United Nations would have substantial sway over domestic fiscal and environmental policy all to reduce carbon. In other words, democracy will be compromised to save the world from a problem that may not be serious.
 
Rest assured, such an accord would make life more difficult. Food will become more expensive as crops are used for biofuels. Carbon levies would also make gas and electricity more expensive. Yet, should a Copenhagen Accord occur, two groups could be cheering the loudest: climate change activists and nuclear power companies. Sometimes the law of unintended consequences also creates unintended bedfellows.

By: Lee Harding
Posted: October 09, 2009
Topic: Saskatchewan

Contact the regional director Colin Craig for further information.
Type: Commentary

Bookmark and Share Join Us   |   Donate

Comments

Sat, 2009-12-12 12:23 — An Anonymous Taxpayer

nuclear power

In my last six years of reviewing medical documents and environmental information, I have come to the conclusion that nuclear power via nuclear waste and pollution, is linked to BSE (otherwise known as mad-cow disease, CWD - deer, and vCJD in people).   Uranium concentrates in the distal ileum and subsequently is reabsorbed into the blood stream (do a pubmed search for "uranium and peyer's patches", you'll find this document).  

Don't listen to those who spout that nuclear technology is safe and effiencient.  The money wasted on this industry of death could be more appropriately spent on other technologies that won't leave a permanent toxic radioactive legacy.

All nuclear power is for, is an excuse to mine and manufacture weapons from uranium products.  Depleted uranium weapons used for bullets to bunker busters - are a crime against humanity.  The DU weapons are effective because the uranium is "pyrophoric" meaning it burns agressively when these weapons are shot, and blown up.  Toxic uranium nanoparticles are contaminating the environments these weapons are used, including on Canadian military bases, and over the lands which cruise missiles have been fired.  Canada needs to stop mining uranium and stop contributing to the war-crimes against civilians, inflicted by DU weapons....  Kathy Czar

 

Sun, 2009-11-29 01:10 — An Anonymous Taxpayer

 It would seem on the surface

 It would seem on the surface that the interests of the nuclear industry and the "Climate Change" industry would be on the same page but they actually are not. While it's true that the advocates of nuclear energy are capitalizing on the Earth Warming bandwagon they don't actually need the man made climate change fraud to make a credible case for building nuclear power plants. At the same time most of the corporate movers and shakers in Earth Warming Incorperated are solar and wind power proponents like G.E or carbon trading racketeers like Al Gore.

Coal is a very dirty source of energy, there are no two ways about it, even given that C02 is not a serious problem there are plenty of real polution issues surrounding the burning of coal. There are various impurities to be found in coal such as lead, mercury, cadmium, radium, and thorium that either go up the smokestack or into the ash pile from burning it, so the CO2 and sulphur dioxide are only part of what comes out. What's more power plants burn hundreds of millions of tons of coal in a year, from that there are millions of tons of ashes, clinkers, and other debris that need to be disposed of.

 While nuclear power has it's issues most of the high costs are involved with plant construction not with operations, once they are in operation most of the promises made about operating costs, efficiency, and lack of polution happen to be true. In Canada the construction costs are the direct result of a state owned monopoly, the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada Limited, overseeing the engineering, construction, and refurbishing of all nuclear power plants in this country. You would think that with a single entity controling the engineering and design that they would have a standard plan by now, but when they sell a CANDU power plant they are selling an unfinished product and making it up as they go along. The AECL has never constructed a nuclear power plant on time or on budget in their entire history, and since it is in effect run by government employees there has been no incentive to do so. As I understand it the Federal government is in the process of changing this and move nuclear power out of the Trudeau era and into the 21st century.

Best Regards

Frit Becker

Thu, 2011-01-13 02:45 — An Anonymous Taxpayer

hidden costs

There are hidden health costs with both nuclear and coal powered electricity production.  However, I do not see the investment in smoke stack systems, that could be used.  Yes there is much debris... but at least for the most  part it is not radio-active and harmful to everything around it for as long as nuclear waste.  And I don't see any military weapons being manufactured out of coal fly ash.  Surely, the military is fond of nuclear... they have big bombs, they have big nuclear powered ships, they have DU bunker busters, cluster bombs, bullets and DU gas (ready if need be)..... to hell with the environmental impacts (foreign and domestic).

The hidden costs of nuclear power, on the other hand, are so tightly guarded by government, military and the nuclear industry we, as the general public, simply have no idea about the truth.   What little we can throw together, demonstrates that nuclear power is a selfish power source,  just do this now and let future generations deal with the troubles, who cares "I'll be dead by then" attitude.

Every time a space shuttle or russian rocket goes up to launch a nuclear powered satellite (many powered with plutonium), we endanger the health of the whole planet.  The "cumulative effects" of nuclear power/weapons/research/boo boos.... must be stacked upon each other with the understanding that 1 plus 1 makes more than 2.   Same is also true of the combined effects of various toxins, that together enhance their negative effects.  

A more progressive solution to all this is curtailing our un-natural demand for consumerism.   Buying crap we do not need, especially when it is manufactured in another country where we don't personally see the day to day impact of our greed, on the environment, has lead to each generation wanting MORE, than the last.  I must say I am proud of people that have recognized their own extravagances and have limited their spending to more meaningful products, or just to spending quality time with their families.   

The IMF is shoving nuclear power down the throats of developing countries.  They will never be able to pay for it, their debts will always grow; and the IMF and their corporate masters will step in to SECURE physical assets belonging to these developing nations.  Sovereignty is a luxury afforded ONLY to countries that manage their finances within their inhabitants (aka taxpayers) ability to pay.     

 

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Canada's Federal Debt

Your Share

The federal government is adding $58 million a day to our debt. By 2015-16, the debt is slated to hit $614 billion. Support our campaign for balanced federal budgets and help us STOP this clock.

View Debt »

Spokespeople & Blog

In five provinces and Ottawa a team of dedicated professionals is standing up to special interests, ensuring that taxpayers' voices are being heard.

View all spokespeople »
Go to Blog »

In The News

 

 

Sign-Up

Join with over 70,000 Canadian taxpayers. Get instant action updates and make a difference.

64,232

Donate
Take Action

Vimeo video Facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube Channel