Hi Bob
>Hi Keith,
> Here in the clean and green where hydro, wind, thermal and
>tidal energy options are coming out of our ears the nuclear crazies have
>suddenly resurfaced. They look sane, they even wear suits and ties, carry
>laptops and talk in full sentences. Among other things they've launched a
>media campaign to rethink a New Zealand decision of many years ago to ban
>the use of nuclear energy, including the admission of nuclear-powered ships
>to our waters.
So I noticed. :-(
New Zealand's obviously after building a WMD, we'd better nuke them
while there's still time, would that help? LOL!
What's mainly brought the nuke lobby staggering zombie-like back into
current affairs is the quaint idea that nuclear power is green
because it doesn't use fossil fuels, no carbon emissions so it won't
wreck the climate. Todd shot all that down here a while ago.
>They seek the construction of a nuclear power station, slap bang in an urban
>area in an island nine by seven housing more than half our population. Their
>bona fides are impeccable (top academics, energy consultants, corporate
>heads etc) and their arguments smoothly plausible. They will win eventually
>unless opposed with better and more persuasive argument.
>Years ago I fought a five-year campaign against a nuclear powerstation in
>South Africa and lost.
I think that young feller Peter Ravenscroft was involved in that too.
I wasn't in Cape Town at that time.
>That was before Chernobyl.
Early 70s.
>The chickens of cost are
>only now coming coming home to roost for the South African idiocy.
But they wanted their bomb, them and Israel and Taiwan.
>Shortly
>the aging plant near Cape Town - built on the coast of what was once
>described as the fairest Cape in all the earth - will have to be mothballed.
Not just on the coast, on that particular stretch of coast at Melkbos
yet, a special place. But I guess most of the Peninsula's a special
place.
>Apart from the fact that such a process will suck up billions of dollars
>best used to eradicate poverty in a needy continent, it will when finally
>decommissioned remain forever a target for terrorism and an excrescence on
>the face of the planet.
That's also a special place.
>During its lifetime it produced electricity at twice the cost of alternate
>fuels. It also provided weapons material for the regime.
About par for their course, the true costs are hidden, the
environmental and other costs externalised.
>I'd hate to see it happen again, here in what Kipling called "last,
>loneliest and loveliest" of lands. But I'm getting too long in the tooth now
>to do the research though I'm happy to fire the bullets.
>A disk crash wiped my archives,
Shudder! Sorry about that.
>including some useful material you sent from
>JTF. Canst please repeat the favour or perhaps point me to suitable sources?
Not easily. It wasn't from JTF, I believe it was onlist, but I didn't
find it. I did a quick search and I found a lot of things, probably
including what you're looking for, but no way to know. There's a
large amount of good material on nuclear power in the list archives
(including contributions from you), it's often been discussed. I
think all the debunkings are there. If I wanted to research it that's
where I'd start. But searching for "nuclear" won't do, there's too
much material, you need better keywords. But I'm sure you have them.
>If anyone else has anything to add in terms of solid, well-sourced and
>dependable anti-nuclear energy background material I'd be most grateful.
Try the archives. There are people here who know a lot about nuclear
power, if you need more specific info I'm sure they'd help.
Regards
Keith
>Regards,
>Bob.
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
