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.
Forward page to friendCanada's Federal Debt
Your Share
The federal government is adding $135 million a day to our debt. At this rate, the $105-billion in debt repayment between 1997 – 2008 will be wiped out next year. Support our campaign for a federal balanced budget law and help us STOP this clock.
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.
In The News
-
Vancouver's questionable city hall renovations
read more » -
Translink should pass on free passes
read more » -
Why does Saskatchewan government need promotional items?
read more » -
Manitoba Hydro pays out sick time
read more » -
Cost of refugees
read more » -
BC government should get out of online gambling
read more » -
Winnipeg needs a time out on stadium project
read more » -
Prisoners accidentally released in Manitoba
read more » -
Winnipeg's rapid transit debate
read more » -
BC: Taxpayers should have say on Port Coquitlam city council pay increase
read more » -
AB: Edmonton Arena controversy
read more » -
BC: Backlash against massive pay hikes at Port Coquitlam city council
read more » -
Ontario government pummels taxpayers with Eco Tax
read more » -
Growing opposition to Ontario Enviro taxes introduced July 1, 2010
read more » -
Winter Olympic Costs Continue to Snowball
read more » -
Carbon Tax Slams BC Taxpayers July 1, 2010
read more » -
CTV interview with Kevin Gaudet on Ontario’s HST
read more » -
HST coming to Ontario July 1, 2010
read more » -
Setting priorities for Foreign Aid subsidies
read more » -
CTF Launches Pig Brigade on Parliament Hill to Expose Excessive MP Pensions
read more » -
CTF Bombards Parliament Hill with Pigs
read more » -
Stick to the bear necessities in Manitoba
read more » -
Cost breakdown of G20 Media Centre
read more » -
MP's family has him flying high
read more »
Comments
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
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
Post new comment