The Rock Burners
Here they come.
The most fascist, most expensive, most environmentally destructive, most generational legacy leaving, clearly unsustainable energy technology ever devised by man, with a horrific accident potential from terrorists, bottom liners, or military attack is set to make a comeback on the back of the most dangerous, most pressing problem mankind has ever faced.
Climate meet 'will recommend nuclear'
Bangkok Post
The United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which gathers in Bangkok this week is expected to throw its weight behind nuclear energy as a means of mitigating global warming, media reports said Sunday. "In addition to renewable energy sources, nuclear power will be recommended by scientists as a lesser evil in terms of global warming," Wanum Permpibul of the Climate Action Group said.
On Monday through Friday, 80 of the world's leading experts on climate change will meet in Bangkok to debate the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to 150 state representatives on policy recommendations to mitigate the impact of global warming, blamed primarily on consumption of carbon-based fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal. The final report, after what is expected to be a heated debate among participants, will be made public on Friday. more
At the same time, Greenpeace comes out with their new report.
Nuclear power a 'dangerous distraction'
Thursday May 3, 2007
The Guardian
The average nuclear power station is four years behind schedule and runs three times over-budget, a new report out today says.
The Economics of Nuclear Power, commissioned by Greenpeace concludes that atomic power has been historically linked with high subsidies, complex technology and safety concerns, leaving it a "dangerous distraction" to finding better ways of tackling global warming.
Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at Greenwich University and an author of the report, said: "The nuclear industry has always made unfulfilled promises; history reveals a damning testament to its failure. Pursuing a new programme of nuclear reactors would deny us the opportunity to make the necessary investment in renewable technologies and energy efficiency to meet future energy needs in a viable and sustainable way."
A review of nuclear construction in the US shows that 75 reactors were predicted to cost $45bn (£22.5bn) but the actual cost was closer to $145bn. More recently, in India, completion costs for the last ten reactors have been 300% over budget.
The report also quotes details from the World Energy Council showing that construction times for the industry were rising from 66 months in the mid-1970s to 116 months - nearly ten years - for completions between 1995 and 2000.
clip
Claiming that nuclear is necessary to prevent the lights going out by 2015 is not only alarmist, but untrue and smacks of desperation from a government determined to justify pro-nuclear agenda," said Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Nathan Argent last night.
Immediately, the Nuclear Energy Industry shot back.
NIA hits back at greenpeace claims
THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (NIA) took the lead yesterday in countering greenpeace claims that nuclear power is expensive and dependent on subsidy. The greenpeace report entitled "The economics of nuclear power" and a press release claiming nuclear power stations couldn't be built to time and budget were sent to national and regional media outlets.
The NIA communications team handled several media calls for clarification and got across key messages in support of the industry. Following the NIA response, the report received limited coverage in the evening media and national press today. Todays coverage centred around government sources suggesting a fast-tracking for new nuclear build.
The NIA believes that the market will decide on the economics of new build and pointed out to the media that evidence suggests a worldwide nuclear renaissance with utilities prepared to invest. This evidence counters greenpeace's selective claims."
Now, I don't see any evidence in the NIA statement. I do see evidence in the Greenpeace study. What I see is a version of the "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" argument, which might be true when it comes to wine, but maybe not in their appliances.
Stating that Utilities are prepared to invest in no way counters the argument that they are too expensive and a very very bad idea. Yet, according to the Industry's own hubristic writings, "following the NIA response, the report received limited coverage in the evening media and national press today and instead "coverage centred around government sources suggesting a fast-tracking."
This is the power of plutocracy talking, not the true spirit of humankind.
As I predicted many years ago in Lightland:
"The realization of the truth of a great global environmental crises caused by the release of carbon into our biosphere will precipitate two responses: There will be the response of the Titans. These Titans of Commerce and Government will call for action to reduce CO2 through national commitments, but it will in fact only be a call to freeze the status quo.
Moreover, they will call for the reconsideration and rebirth of the technology that represents the zenith of our fire sorceries. They will maintain that if significant investments are not made now, then the world will drop into darkness and poverty. Since, we must limit our burning of carbon, they will argue that there is no other choice but to invest now in the non polluting technology that will be our only real solution..
They will tell us to burn rocks.
Their answer to the crisis will be nuclear energy. They will present believable evidence to support their belief that only nuclear energy will be able to provide the energy needed to propel our society.
We cannot allow ourselves to be misled. " clip
The Crisis will give us an opportunity to examine our communities and how they are built. It will give us the opportunity to examine our system of transportation and our need to express our freedom through mindless mobility. It will give us the opportunity to step back and look at our consumer society, its ethics and the natural repercussions of the philosophy of materialism that presently permeates our current world view.
It will give us the opportunity to view the Gross National Product as a measure of inefficiency and waste instead of a measure of our success. "
The Rock Burners are back, and they are in bed
with the Titans of Commerce and Government.
Where are the Olympians?
HOME
.
What it is About
Earthfamily Principles
.
Earthfamilyalpha Content III
Earthfamilyalpha Content II
Earthfamilyalpha Content
.
Links
.
LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS
The most fascist, most expensive, most environmentally destructive, most generational legacy leaving, clearly unsustainable energy technology ever devised by man, with a horrific accident potential from terrorists, bottom liners, or military attack is set to make a comeback on the back of the most dangerous, most pressing problem mankind has ever faced.
Climate meet 'will recommend nuclear'
Bangkok Post
The United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which gathers in Bangkok this week is expected to throw its weight behind nuclear energy as a means of mitigating global warming, media reports said Sunday. "In addition to renewable energy sources, nuclear power will be recommended by scientists as a lesser evil in terms of global warming," Wanum Permpibul of the Climate Action Group said.
On Monday through Friday, 80 of the world's leading experts on climate change will meet in Bangkok to debate the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to 150 state representatives on policy recommendations to mitigate the impact of global warming, blamed primarily on consumption of carbon-based fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal. The final report, after what is expected to be a heated debate among participants, will be made public on Friday. more
At the same time, Greenpeace comes out with their new report.
Nuclear power a 'dangerous distraction'
Thursday May 3, 2007
The Guardian
The average nuclear power station is four years behind schedule and runs three times over-budget, a new report out today says.
The Economics of Nuclear Power, commissioned by Greenpeace concludes that atomic power has been historically linked with high subsidies, complex technology and safety concerns, leaving it a "dangerous distraction" to finding better ways of tackling global warming.
Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at Greenwich University and an author of the report, said: "The nuclear industry has always made unfulfilled promises; history reveals a damning testament to its failure. Pursuing a new programme of nuclear reactors would deny us the opportunity to make the necessary investment in renewable technologies and energy efficiency to meet future energy needs in a viable and sustainable way."
A review of nuclear construction in the US shows that 75 reactors were predicted to cost $45bn (£22.5bn) but the actual cost was closer to $145bn. More recently, in India, completion costs for the last ten reactors have been 300% over budget.
The report also quotes details from the World Energy Council showing that construction times for the industry were rising from 66 months in the mid-1970s to 116 months - nearly ten years - for completions between 1995 and 2000.
clip
Claiming that nuclear is necessary to prevent the lights going out by 2015 is not only alarmist, but untrue and smacks of desperation from a government determined to justify pro-nuclear agenda," said Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Nathan Argent last night.
Immediately, the Nuclear Energy Industry shot back.
NIA hits back at greenpeace claims
THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (NIA) took the lead yesterday in countering greenpeace claims that nuclear power is expensive and dependent on subsidy. The greenpeace report entitled "The economics of nuclear power" and a press release claiming nuclear power stations couldn't be built to time and budget were sent to national and regional media outlets.
The NIA communications team handled several media calls for clarification and got across key messages in support of the industry. Following the NIA response, the report received limited coverage in the evening media and national press today. Todays coverage centred around government sources suggesting a fast-tracking for new nuclear build.
The NIA believes that the market will decide on the economics of new build and pointed out to the media that evidence suggests a worldwide nuclear renaissance with utilities prepared to invest. This evidence counters greenpeace's selective claims."
Now, I don't see any evidence in the NIA statement. I do see evidence in the Greenpeace study. What I see is a version of the "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" argument, which might be true when it comes to wine, but maybe not in their appliances.
Stating that Utilities are prepared to invest in no way counters the argument that they are too expensive and a very very bad idea. Yet, according to the Industry's own hubristic writings, "following the NIA response, the report received limited coverage in the evening media and national press today and instead "coverage centred around government sources suggesting a fast-tracking."
This is the power of plutocracy talking, not the true spirit of humankind.
As I predicted many years ago in Lightland:
"The realization of the truth of a great global environmental crises caused by the release of carbon into our biosphere will precipitate two responses: There will be the response of the Titans. These Titans of Commerce and Government will call for action to reduce CO2 through national commitments, but it will in fact only be a call to freeze the status quo.
Moreover, they will call for the reconsideration and rebirth of the technology that represents the zenith of our fire sorceries. They will maintain that if significant investments are not made now, then the world will drop into darkness and poverty. Since, we must limit our burning of carbon, they will argue that there is no other choice but to invest now in the non polluting technology that will be our only real solution..
They will tell us to burn rocks.
Their answer to the crisis will be nuclear energy. They will present believable evidence to support their belief that only nuclear energy will be able to provide the energy needed to propel our society.
We cannot allow ourselves to be misled. " clip
The Crisis will give us an opportunity to examine our communities and how they are built. It will give us the opportunity to examine our system of transportation and our need to express our freedom through mindless mobility. It will give us the opportunity to step back and look at our consumer society, its ethics and the natural repercussions of the philosophy of materialism that presently permeates our current world view.
It will give us the opportunity to view the Gross National Product as a measure of inefficiency and waste instead of a measure of our success. "
The Rock Burners are back, and they are in bed
with the Titans of Commerce and Government.
Where are the Olympians?
HOME
.
What it is About
Earthfamily Principles
.
Earthfamilyalpha Content III
Earthfamilyalpha Content II
Earthfamilyalpha Content
.
Links
.
LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS
Labels: climate change
posted by oZ @ 9:54 AM
2 Comments:
Why do you say burn rocks?
You know this is not scientificly correct. SP
Yes, I do know.
Read my books.
Post a Comment
<< Home