Week in Review
In the war to save the world from global warming one of the first campaigns was the battle against coal. The backbone of baseload power. One of the most reliable means to generate electric power. Fed by a large domestic supply of coal. You could always count on power being there in your homes with our coal-fired power plants feeding the electric grid. But coal had to go. Because they were melting the Arctic ice cap. And raising ocean levels. Not quite like they did during the Ice Ages when glaciers covered most of the Northern Hemisphere. Until global warming pushed them back a couple of thousand miles or so. At a time when only Mother Nature released the carbon boogeyman into the atmosphere. But we ignore this historical climate record. And only pay attention to temperature changes that suit the global warming agenda. Because the real goal of the war to save the world from global warming is to expand government control into the private sector economy.
Australia wants to show the world that they take global warming serious. They enacted a carbon tax. To help fund their investment into renewable energy sources. Which has increased the cost of electric power. And if the carbon tax and higher utility prices weren’t enough they also are talking about raising their GST. Of course the GST has nothing to do with climate change. But it just goes to show that Australia is trying hard to raise tax revenue. Which is perhaps the driving force behind their carbon tax. Revenue. On top of this there is a growing opposition to the only source of power generation that can duplicate what coal-fired power plants can do but without the pollution (see Meltdown fears crush case for nuclear power – Brisbane Times posted 11/11/2012 on Canberra Hub).
THE Fukushima nuclear accident has quashed consideration of nuclear power in Australia, with the government’s energy white paper arguing there is no compelling economic case for it and insufficient community acceptance…
Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has said it should remain ”a live debate”. Foreign Minister Bob Carr said before he re-entered politics: ”I support nuclear power because I take global warming so very seriously … [it] should certainly play a role in Australia’s future mix of energy sources.”
Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop has said it should be considered ”in the mix” and Senator Barnaby Joyce has said: ”If we are fair dinkum [i.e., truthful] about reducing carbon emissions … then uranium is where it’s going to be…”
Labor argues nuclear power is not economically necessary in Australia, since the carbon tax and the renewable energy target are already shifting power generation to renewables.
There are some fundamental truths about power generation. Coal, natural gas, and petroleum provide reliable and abundant electric power while being safe but they pollute. Nuclear power provides reliable electric power without any pollution but can be dangerous. Though for the half century or so we’ve been using nuclear power the number of accidents that have claimed human lives is statistically insignificant.
There have been about 68 people killed in nuclear power accidents If you count the future cancer deaths from the Chernobyl accident you can raise that to about 4,000. Fukushima in Japan claimed no lives other than one apparent heart attack someone had carrying heavy things in the aftermath of the accident. It was nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl. But if it, too, claimed 4,000 lives in future cancer deaths that brings the total death toll from nuclear power to approximately 8,000 deaths for the half century or so we’ve been using it. Sounds like a lot. But you know what nuclear power is safer than? Driving your car. In 2010 the number of motor vehicle deaths was just over 32,000. Again, that’s for one year. Making nuclear power far safer than getting into your car.
The opposition to nuclear power is based on fear. And politics. Not the facts. Yes, nuclear power accidents are scary. But there are very few nuclear power accidents. For a statistically insignificant risk of a nuclear catastrophe we’re giving up the only baseload power source than can do what coal can do. Give us abundant and reliable electric power. But without the pollution. However, they oppose nuclear power. Not because of facts but because of irrational fear and scaremongering. And if we know they’re doing this for nuclear power can we not conclude that they’re doing the same thing in the war to save the world from global warming? Especially considering how many thousands of miles glaciers moved long before man released any carbon into the atmosphere? Yes. We can believe they base their war to save the world from global warming on nothing but irrational fear and scaremongering.
Tags: Australia/New Zealand, baseload power, battle against coal, Carbon, carbon tax, Chernobyl, climate change, Coal, coal-fired power plant, electric power, Fukushima, glaciers, Global Warming, nuclear power, nuclear power accidents, pollution, reliable electric power, renewable, save the world from global warming