Worried about global warming? Never fear! There is an easy solution just around the corner…
The Greens are the only parliamentary party opposed to all aspects of the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is directly linked to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Future generations must not be burdened with its toxic waste for which there is no safe disposal. When renewable energy and energy efficiency can reduce emissions faster and cheaper, nuclear power is just a dangerous distraction.
The Greens will end the mining and export of uranium and oppose the establishment of nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel processing, enrichment facilities and radioactive waste dumps.
Nuclear is No Solution (whichever way you pronounce it)
Why can’t we have rational, informed, scientific, civilised, well-researched discussion and debate about the case against or for nuclear power in the context of all the alternative energy systems, without resorting to silly, childish cartoons with no factual significance?
Sure, it probably works politically, as far as some segment of the public is concerned, but I don’t think intelligent people, anti nuclear energy or pro nuclear energy, give it the time of day.
Nuclear power reactors are not a great concern from the point of view of production of weaponisable plutonium - research reactors are a bigger concern here. Also, plutonium-239 for nuclear weapons can be produced successfully with no reactor at all, using a cyclotron(s), or spallation neutron sources.
Stopping nuclear proliferation can never confidently be acheived by trying to restrict any and all nuclear technologies - the elimination of nuclear weapons from the world will only be acheived when we create a world where nobody wants nuclear weapons.
As for nuclear waste disposal - if we do the exact same thing that we know nature did with the waste from the 16 nuclear fission reactors created in nature two billion years ago, which we know was successfully immobilised and isolated from the environment over a time scale sufficient for the radioactivity to completely decay, then how can it be said that this is not safe?
The deep geological disposal of radioactive waste in an appropriately engineered repository can, in the same way, isolate the waste from the environment over the time scale needed for the immutable progress of radioactive decay to render the material harmless.
Sweden’s SKB is working to realise such a repository in a meticulous, scientific way that is arguably World’s Best Practice. Their web page is worth checking out.
http://www.skb.se/default2____16759.aspx
As far as not having radioactive waste “dumps” in Australia, even without the use of nuclear energy, we still need to safely, sensibly and responsibly manage the radioactive waste generated in the course of scientific and medical research, medical nuclear imaging, diagnostics and treatment, the use of nuclear industrial technologies, mineral processing, oil and gas production, and geothermal energy production. Whilst we should manage these wastes close to the site of their generation, it seems a little naive to suggest that Australia will never have radioactive waste or radioactive waste dumps - we’re producing radioactive waste every day, and even without nuclear energy, our way of life depends on that to a large degree.
Toxic watste is horrible.
But still Global warming is another story…
And Take - action
-
/the \
greens\ action.. change the moto!
great message done in animation.
I like the animation as a form of communication rather than pontification and use of other big words like that in blog posts.
Luke, make your ideas into an animation and spread your message more efficiently.
Really well done and a good laugh (love that 50’s feel).
Oh and just for the doubters, a significant amount of power is possible through renewable energy, for example Sweden gets around 50% of its power via renewable energy and I believe is close to 20% base-load, at times moving to 30% (although might be Norway, can’t quite remember).
There is more than enough evidence supporting significantly reducing CO2 without the “assistance” of Nuclear.
That is more because Sweden and Norway are both countries with very small populations and small eco-footprints to begin with than anything else.
Ahhhh, no, it is because they have chosen to go down this path.
The size of your population has little to do with obtaining renewable energy.
Norway is able to capture large amounts of wind power because of its location though.
These countries should be prasied for the stance that they have taken.
Norway gets something like 90% of its energy from hydro. It has been this way for quite some time, that is the small beginning eco-footprint I mentioned. Having a small population and the 2nd highest GDP makes this even easier.
You know that Sweden gets ~45% of its energy from nuclear right? Sweden gets most of its energy from hydro and nuclear, with renewables providing most of the rest. It will probably be the first oil-free economy.
These countries are in excellent positions to take advantage of renewables, especially hydro, and have been for hundreds of years. Being eco-friendly is a new (40 years?) idea that they were following because it was cheap.
Small population = less centralized energy, which = less nuclear. I’m not saying that they don’t deserve a lot of praise (oil free is awesome!) but applying their success to the whole world is a little silly. Its why most energy experts separate hydro from renewables.
Why it is rather amusing that you should bring up the percentage of nuclear power in Sweden. You, of course would know that Sweden is currently looking to bring down its reliance of nuclear to 0% right?
And lets not forget why; because it is seen to be unsafe, the very reason stated in this video. Due to accidents in the country and internationally they are moving to replace nuclear with more renewable energy.
You are the one that brought up Sweden, not me, I have to look this stuff up. :)
Polls show that Sweden is well on the way to removing the 1980 referendum (halt) on nuclear construction. The 2010 phase-out was created then, when Sweden didn’t have any environmental commitments, now things are different. The party (Center?) that most supported the halt dropped its opposition to nuclear in 2006 because it was unrealistic to expect a phase-out any time soon.
Greens are retarded.Nuclear energy is the best way to produce baseload power without CO2 emmissions.Its sad that they use this kind of misinformation to LIE to people.
They’re not lying. They’re putting forward a valid argument:
We shouldn’t use nuclear power because:
* Mining Uranium requires Petrol and Oil and Diesel
* Nuclear Plants require VAST amounts of water, which is often not recycled
* Nuclear Waste is incredibly irresponsibly managed due to company’s profit margins
* Nuclear Power would not promote energy efficiency in homes and industries!
So in this sense, the Greens aren’t lying at all! Nuclear power is just not sustainable.
The amount of energy produced by nuclear has increased ~250%, despite the halt. Some politicians have been trying to get rid of nuclear for 35 years, with little success, yet polls say 83% of the pop wants to maintain or increase levels of nuclear energy. If there was a good alternative, there might be more support; but with no more water to dam and renewables being more expensive, its a lot of work for an overall net energy/money loss. Nuclear may be “seen” to be unsafe, good thing it isnt.
No pixman you are the one that brought up the percentage of nuclear without stating the fact that Sweden was in the process of moving away from their dependance in nuclear (but you already knew that, right ;)
True they will not make the 2010 phase-out but they are still making serious attempts to invest more in renewables and rely less on nuclear. Clearly they see that there are safer, more environmentally responsible alternatives to nuclear.
Lots of problems with your reply here.
The amount of oil used mining is minimal considering how little ore is actually needed per plant. It is negligible compared to the mining and smelting needed to create steel. Complete oil independence is unreasonable.
All power plants that burn fuel use water, nuclear is no different. All of it is “recycled” since it just heats the water as an energy transport mechanism. It would be like saying a farmer watering crops needs to recycle the water.
What about motorcars? Nuclear power doesn’t solve THAT oil dependence.
Water is lost through state-change in cooling towers. This water is not ‘recycled’ by the plant. In this sense, my concern for the wasteful nature of nuclear power is not analogous to a farmer needing to recycle the water her uses.
Actually it does, but not by itself.
Hydrogen fueled cars will depend on the hydrogen generated from natural gas or the electrolysis of water; either way lots of electricity will be required. If nuclear and renewables provide this energy then the 2 largest sources of pollution will be eliminated. This is probably why I am so in favor of nuclear energy. Renewables can’t provide enough for our current needs, let alone the energy needed to generate hydrogen, yet nuclear can do both easily.
As far as oil goes, we will need some for lubrication and plastics. We aren’t getting rid of oil for a long time, but we can reduce our usage.
Once the water evaporates it eventually becomes rain, it isn’t “lost.” Nuclear plants don’t use filtered fresh water, they use whatever water is available. If they are configured for desalination, they actually produce clean fresh water for areas with poor water quality. I can give you links if you want.
I also just found out that the Palo Verde nuclear plant uses treated sewage as its water source. It recycles 20 billion gallons of wastewater each year. So I think your concerns about the water aren’t really a problem.
The biggest irresponsibility has been on the part of governments and special interest groups which have prevented the utilities from eliminating the waste. Breeder reactors can use the waste as fuel (and create fuel for other plants) yet public policy has prevented the use of such plants. “We” created the fuel waste problem, not the utilities.
Well if there’s a fuel waste problem, why are some insisting we create more nuclear plants, and aggravate this issue?
The waste “problem” isn’t really a problem at all. It will be really hard to explain all of the reasons for this in 500 char blocks, but I can assure you that this is just another scare tactic. The best way to prove this is to show you. FYI: I’m one of those insisting we build more. :)
Go to wikimapia and search: “palo verde nuclear power plant.” Once you get there, look at the tag marked “dry spent fuel storage.” Newly removed spent fuel is placed in pools to cool and “settle” but the rest is left here. Those 47 casks are all of the fuel waste generated by this plant in almost 20 years of operation. Since this is the largest generating facility is the US, and is only 14% full, do you still think there is a waste problem?
What does promoting energy efficiency have to do with energy production? They are both work on the problem, but from separate angles. I can make the same claim about any source that increases the amount of energy on the grid.
Nuclear energy is the most sustainable source of energy known to man. Even with only fission there is enough fuel for BILLIONS of years. With fusion the amount of fuel is astronomical.
Nuclear power has the propensity to generate /incredible/ amounts of energy - that I won’t contest.
I’m saying that there’s a problem with this. It’s going to encourage people to increase their consumption of energy, and increase their dependence on electricity, which is very wasteful.
Nuclear power won’t encourage business to innovate and create more efficient electrical products to conserve energy.
Nuclear power is going to encourage people to use more, eat more, drive more and waste more.
That is a societal and economic problem with progress, sources of power don’t really affect this. Most people only choose the more environmental option when they can afford it anyways. People are using/eating/driving/wasting more than ever before, do you really think that nuclear will have a big influence on this? China is opening coal power plants at a rate of 1 per 7 to 10 days. They WILL produce the electricity, the question is how much will they (and the rest of the world) suffer for it.
I brought up the percentages, you brought up Sweden. You own up for your part and I’ll own up for mine. I have to research stuff on other countries as I go along. When the best possible sites are in a language I can’t read, things get even harder. So don’t assume I know too much about the situation in Sweden, google can only take you so far. :P
As far as I can tell Sweden WAS in the process of reducing nuclear dependence. I haven’t seen anything that says they continuing to do so and I have found plenty of info that makes me think that Sweden will be expending their nuclear program in the next decade or so. Despite the efforts you mention, capacity has remained unchanged for the last ~20 years. If you have better sources, please share them so that I can get my story straight.
Pixman, I think at the end of the day that it is a case of agree to disagree. My 2 points still stand, Nuclear is not as safe an option as renewables and it is possible to to generate significant energy via renewables in this country. For every point, country and scientist you bring up to disagree I can come up with one to agree.
Oh, and my understanding is that Sweden is still in the process of reducing nuclear dependence. Yes it might take a while but it is the very idea that speaks to me.
Nuclear is more dangerous and more capable than renewables, but less dangerous and better for the environment than what we currently have. You can get a significant about of energy from renewables, but I haven’t heard any reliable source that says they can provide all of it anytime soon. Nuclear is the same way. Personally, I think that the world is going to end up relying on both of them because of how well they support each other.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree, its not like I am keeping points or anything. I debate to learn, inform, and help make beneficial change; not force people to agree with me. Besides, science doesn’t need or want consensus, that is the realm of politics. Besides, I’d hate to ruin this great conversation. :)
PS. Please send me some sources to that effect, PM if you need to, because I really would rather give out the correct position if at all possible.