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

Join Us | Donate

Forward page to friend

Comments

Sat, 12/12/2009 - 19:23 — 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, 11/29/2009 - 08:10 — 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

Post new comment

Canada's Federal Debt

This option will not work correctly. Unfortunately, your browser does not support inline frames.

Your Share

The federal government is adding $153 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.

View Debt »