The world’s authoritative climate science group Sunday threw its arms around nuclear energy, among others, as a future source for powering economies. The industry’s share of global electricity generation has been falling since 1993.
The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, emboldens proponents of nuclear energy, who tend to talk it up no matter what the issue is at hand.
Take the op-ed in last week’s New York Times, “Global Warming Scare Tactics,” by the founders of the energy and environment research group, the Breakthrough Institute. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger dress up a pro-nuclear argument as criticism of a new, nine-part documentary series about climate change.
The piece reads as if, say, when someone sneezes, the authors say gesundheit and then make the case for nuclear power…..
Fukushima Radiation Scare Stories Are Going Viral On the Internet. Are They Real Or Fake? http://www.policymic.com/articles/78287/fukushima-radiation-scare-stories-are-going-viral-on-the-internet-are-they-real-or-fakeBy Benjamin Cosman 8 Jan 14 The news: A few suspect news stories have been making the rounds on the internet in recent days, suggesting that radiation from the Fukushima power plant disaster has hit the West Coast of the United States and is causing major harm to the Pacific Ocean off California. Most pernicious is the report from NaturalNews.com that a scientific study found a significant drop off in sea life in the Pacific Ocean near the U.S. coast.
The fine folks at Deep Sea News — which features writers with academic degrees, actual professional credentials, and expert knowledge — are doing their best to debunk the rumors spreading about Fukushima radiation and its impact on the U.S.
Take the dangers of radiation hitting California. Will it kill you? Are we all going to die? DSNhas your answer: “No it will not be dangerous … It’s not even dangerous to swim off the coast of Fukushima.”
If you went swimming in the waters right next to the actual power plant, you would only experience “0.03% of the daily radiation an average Japanese resident receives.”
So I’m thinking everybody in the U.S. will be OK. But back to that story about sea life dying in droves off the California coast: what’s going on? The Natural News article cites an actual study with scientific evidence published in a real academic journal. There has to be some truth to the fact that “the number of dead sea creatures blanketing the floor of the Pacific is higher than it has ever been in the 24 years that monitoring has taken place, a phenomenon that the data suggests is a direct consequence of nuclear fallout from Fukushima.”
If true, that’s pretty freaking scary. That means radiation from Fukushima is killing off mass amounts of sea creatures right off the U.S. coast. The only problem is that the study the article cites contains no actual mention of Fukushima. In fact, the study offers a perfectly logical explanation for the mass die-offs: a natural cycle of increasing and decreasing levels of algae and other sea life depending on climate and the seasons.
The study’s findings even cite trends that began five years before the Fukushima disaster occurred. Indeed, the study’s authors have gone out of their way to be very clear: “There is no indication that any of the events in this study were associated with the Fukushima nuclear accident.”
The /Energy subreddit isn’t the only one where the prejudice seems to be widespread. I’ve noticed it on the /Technology subreddit (to a lesser extent), and elsewhere.
Why Are So Many Redditors Obsessed With Uncompetitive Nuclear Energy? http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/27/many-redditors-obsessed-uncompetitive-nuclear-energy/ 27 Dec 13
I’m not a big reddit user, but I like the site and find it quite useful at times. Of course, reddit is humongous and the users span the social spectrum. Furthermore, there are hundreds if not thousands of subreddits, each with their own unique subculture. However, time and time again, I see a highly unrepresentative sample of nuclear enthusiasts over there, or in the comments of our posts when someone submits one of our stories to reddit and it does quite well there.
Nuclear supporters are far outnumbered by solar power supporters amongst the general population. Within the overall energy world, the general consensus is that solar power will grow tremendously around the world; nuclear power… not so much. Yet, on the /Energy subreddit, a popular solar or wind power story is sure to get swarmed by nuclear enthusiasts. Actually, it’s rare to even see a solar or wind story do well there despite the massive growth of these industries around the world. Renewable energy stories submitted there have a history of being immediately downvoted by redditors who simply don’t want to hear any positive news about renewable energy. Continue reading
He argues that nuclear power’s primary drawback — …. is that the amount of energy it requires is too high, from construction costs to waste disposal to the high volumes of water it requires. Kreith says we can’t afford to wait two decades — we need to accelerate the move to renewable energy before we run out of fossil fuels
the idea of nuclear solving our energy problems is “ridiculous” because the types of reactors that would be needed haven’t even been invented yet
CU prof: Don’t buy the promise of nuclear energy Pandora’s Promise is not realistic Boulder Weekly By Jefferson Dodge 26 Dec 13, A retired University of Colorado mechanical engineering professor is challenging a new documentary that espouses the virtues of nuclear power…….Kreith argues that the pro-nuclear stance outlined in Pandora’s Promise is not realistic, given that the technology needed to make it a viable source of energy is decades away. He says society should begin an aggressive transition to renewables like solar and wind now — while we still have the surplus energy needed to make that shift.
Kreith presented his views to a packed auditorium in CU’s Engineering Center on Dec. 12, showing clips from the film and countering its claims with his own charts and graphs. His central argument revolves a concept known as “energy return on energy investment,” or EROI, which compares the amount of energy that a given system, like a nuclear power plant, produces during its lifetime against the amount of energy that needs to be expended in its production. Dividing the amount of energy produced by the amount expended, both directly and indirectly, Kreith translates the EROI into a number.
This effectively silenced one of the Pandora promoters’ favorite sound bites: that the developing world needs electricity and that the best and only way to bring it to them is with nuclear energy.
Undaunted, however, one of the Pandora protagonists, Gwyneth Cravens, is still sputtering spurious pseudo-science from the dying embers of this box office flop. Continue reading
Pandora’s Promise doesn’t live up to the hype – review by Alice Bell Monday 9 December 2013 20. theguardian.com “…….. Pandora’s Promise presents a pro-nuclear documentary……The key problem I had, however, was how politically disempowering their message was, and how they used allusions to science to do this. Clips of news coverage of radiation are used to suggest – oh so sympathetically, but also rather patronisingly – that we normal people can’t possibly understand.
We get references from Rhodes about talking to experts, and a few expert witnesses, but very little detail. Explanations are heavily abstracted and stylised. They feel comforting, but scratch the surface and you’re left with many questions. Moreover, as Damian Carrington’s reviewpointed out, there is a massive hole in its discussion of economics. It also misses a lot from the history of Atoms for Peace. The nuclear story is not just one of images of nature, science and technology, and they shouldn’t be used to obfuscate the politics and economics at play. Because energy policy needs to take it all seriously: science, politics, economics, engineering, culture and more.
The film clearly paints anti-nuclear activists as irrationally emotional; carefully juxtaposed with Brand, Lynas et al as calm, silently brooding in deep, wise thought. There’s even a line from Cravens about women being hardwired to protect their families (apparently as opposed to thinking rationally). At one point it shows activists handing out and eating bananas accompanied by a voiceover explanation of how much naturally occurring radiation there is in the fruit anyway. It’s a neat trick, making the activists look stupid, but it’s science communication by way of laughing at others’ ignorance. I don’t like it…..
I also felt the film seems to exhibit a rather depressing lack of faith in social change, especially when it came to global negations and energy efficiency. The concluding message seemed to be that we should give in to the particular idea of growth we currently work by; spread it, fuel it and accept it but don’t question or imagine anything new. The pro-nuclear lobby often presents itself as the hopeful, optimistic end of environmentalism, but with such a lack of belief in people, who exactly are the pessimists?. …..http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/dec/09/review-pandoras-promise-doesnt-live-up-to-the-hype
biggest criticism is over ministers’ insistence that the deal agreed by the Treasury and EDF to fund the construction of a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset is not a subsidy.
“New nuclear is being subsidised and the coalition should come clean and admit it,” said Walley. “The government cannot escape that clear fact by talking about ‘support mechanisms’ and ‘insurance policies’ instead of ‘subsidies’.”
A parliamentary watchdog argued on Monday that ministers should admit they are already providing £12bn of annual subsidies to fossil fuel operations and windfarms while lining up more support for shale gas and nuclear.
The environmental audit committee (EAC) said subsidies to oil and other carbon fuels should be scaled back because of the impact on global warming, and also urged ministers to restate a previous commitment to ending fuel poverty.
A report on energy subsidies just published by the committee says the chancellor’s autumn statement later this week is an ideal chance to provide a “clear and comprehensive analysis of energy subsidies in the UK”. Continue reading
Iran’s Nuclear Deal Triggers Spin War By Pepe Escobar Global Research, November 27, 2013 Iran’s nuclear deal with the P5+1 group of world powers in Geneva has triggered a spin war which will last for the next 6 months, as many of the parties involved will pursue their own business interests in this situation, journalist Pepe Escobar told RT.
RT: As we see, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif came out of the talks with different views. Why’s there such diversity in the interpretation of the deal?
Pepe Escobar: Because the spin war started at 3am in Geneva. It’s going to go on for another six months, until May 2014, that’s the duration of this “first step” deal. [It’s] very important: Kerry had to say [this] so that he could appease the Israel lobby, the US Congress and the Wahhabi petrodollar lobby in the US, not to mention some neocons in the US as well, [who are] still very powerful.
Follow the Money: How Lobby Interests are Spinning Iran Nuclear Deal
In Iran it’s different. They are saying, “We still have our right to enrich uranium,” and this is correct, because they will keep enriching uranium to 5 percent for the next six months, [while] 20 percent [enrichment] is frozen. They will discuss… the next deal, which will be the definitive deal, starting from May 2014.
And all the 20 percent enriched uranium that they have is going to be diluted, so it cannot be used later on for weapons-grade material………
For the moment we have a breakthrough – it’s going to last for six months. There will be all sorts of interests that will try to bombard this deal; I’m saying especially about Wahhabi petrodollar monarchy interests and the Israeli lobby as well.
But for the moment we have diplomacy in action, something that we haven’t seen, especially between Iran and the US, for 34 years. This is the major breakthrough at the moment. But we have to be vigilant.http://www.globalresearch.ca/irans-nuclear-deal-triggers-spin-war/5359638
Fear is not the problem – It is our last safeguarding against an invisible enemy November 11, 2013 by Mikkai 妊娠中の日本人女性の避難すぐ Fear and stress are not the problem! They are our last safeguarding! Against an invisible enemy: RADIATION http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/how-the-nuclear-industry-first-kills-the-children-and-then-the-parents/
The nuclear industry helps irradiating and murdering Children, assisted by IAEA, WHO, ICRP, BEIR, UNSCEAR and local and national health authorities. With Cover Up, Dose Limits and Do not evacuate Policy.
Here is a belarusian Example: CORE / ETHOS Program:
= learn how to live in irradiated areas (no word about evacuation) & avoid stress (instead of radiation protection) & build industry, infra structure, accept the radiation, resettlement of people in contaminated areas <- instead of evacuation!
! This is PRO NUCLEAR!
“Even in the present, over one year after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, there are restrictions on children playing outside in areas of Fukushima”
Of course it is. Children still live in irradiated areas and are massively more vunerable to it, than their parents. Children = Mitosis = faster cell division = FAST CANCER GROWTH & silent death
“their physical strength has declined greatly due to insufficient exercise and they are also experiencing mental stress.”
Is stress the problem? Or is a Cesium 137 radionuclide in their heart tissue the problem? A plutonium atom in the lungs? Strontium 90 in bones and teeth? Is stress really the problem? Continue reading
As always in the face of failure, the industry puts forth new designs as a basis for new promises, now touting small modular reactors with the same fervour with which it touted large, partially modular reactors a decade ago. Congress finds a few hundred million to preserve these dreams even as its cutbacks shatter so many others.
In the astonishing persistence of the global appetite for false nuclear promises lies the critical importance of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report,
Nuclear Renaissance Was Just a Fairy Tale http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/nuclear-renaissance-was-just-a-fairy-tale 2013•07•12 Peter Bradford Vermont Law School Nuclear power requires obedience, not transparency. The gap between nuclear rhetoric and nuclear reality has been a fundamental impediment to wise energy policy decisions for half a century now.
For various reasons, in many nations the nuclear industry cannot tell the truth about its progress, its promise or its perils. Its backers in government and in academia do no better.
Rhetorical excess from opponents of nuclear power contributes to the fog, but proponents have by far the heavier artillery. In the US, during the rise and fall of the bubble formerly known as “the nuclear renaissance”, many of the proponents’ tools have been on full display. Continue reading
Myth-busting Germany’s energy transition Smart Planet By Chris Nelder | October 12, 2013 Major English-language media have been propagating a false narrative about the stunning success of Germany’s transition to renewable energy: theEnergiewende. To hear them tell it, the transition has been a massive failure, driving up power prices, putting Germany’s grid at risk of blackouts, and inspiring a mass revolt against renewables.
Nothing could be further from the truth……..
I debunked a few of the hoary tropes about the Energiewende one year ago, such as the notion that the grid can’t handle a large share of variable renewable power. But apparently many in the major Western media still haven’t gotten the memo.
So let’s clear out the fog and debunk a few of the favorite myths about theEnergiewende.
Myth: “After the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan two-and-a-half years ago, Merkel quickly decided to begin phasing out nuclear power and lead the country into the age of wind and solar.” (This one is from the above-mentioned Der Spiegel article.)
Fact: Germany’s switch to renewables started in 1991, and the nuclear phaseout started in 2002. Continue reading
Plenty of funding is available. The USA’s Department of Energy funds programs worldwide, (including in Australia) to research dodgy science about the safety ‒ even alleged benefits ‒ of low level ionising radiation. Nuclear physicists and others, quite inexpert in this field, pronounce solemnly about non-hazardous nature of low dose radiation.
The anti-science about ionising radiation Independent Australia Some people would have you believe that low level ionising radiation is perfectly safe; this is a sinister and troubling fallacy, says Noel Wauchope. 10 Oct 13 DENIAL OF THE HEALTH EFFECTS of ionising radiation is the latest of the lies against science……….none of these motivations would get “airplay” ‒ would prevail, if it were not for the money motive, - that’s the impetus behind public relations people, consultants, journalists, commentators, TV producers, film-makers, and so on who are paid by think tanks that are fronts for polluting industries and billionaires like the Koch Brothers. And don’t let’s forget the scientists and science media who are paid by governments that are financially beholden to polluting corporations and to the military industrial complex.
There is extensive literature in books and on the Internet about the campaigns of science denial regarding asbestos, tobacco and climate change. These are global campaigns, Continue reading
“The credibility problem is as great as the engineering solution,”
Scientists dismiss claims that radiation in Japan is contained TEPCO’S radiation claims called ‘silly’ The Columbian, By Jonathan Tirone, Bloomberg News October 7, 2013, VIENNA — Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s claim that radioactive water leaking into the sea from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant is confined to the coast doesn’t make scientific sense, according to a U.S. researcher who surveyed waters off the site last month.
Japan’s government has supported the utility’s statement that the irradiated groundwater flowing into the Pacific Ocean at a rate of some 400 tons a day remains in an area of 0.3 square kilometers (0.12 square miles) within the bay fronting the atomic station. Continue reading
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- indigenous issues
- marketing of nuclear
- opposition to nuclear
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- MIDDLE EAST
- NORTH AMERICA
- SOUTH AMERICA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- rare earths
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual