Thursday 28th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

twinkle, twinkle, little rattus .....

twinkle, twinkle, little rattus .....

‘Behind all this is a perception that nuclear power is needed to help fight climate change. But there's little chance that nuclear plants could be built quickly enough to make much difference. The existing 104 nuclear plants in the U.S., which supply roughly 20% of the nation's electricity, are old and nearing the end of their useful lives. Just to replace them would require building a new reactor every four or five months for the next 40 years. To significantly increase the nation's nuclear capacity would require far more.

The dream that nuclear power would turn atomic fission into a force for good rather than destruction unravelled with the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. No U.S. utility has ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978 (that order was later cancelled), and until recently it seemed none ever would. But rising natural gas prices and worries about global warming have put the nuclear industry back on track. Many respected academics and environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be part of any solution to climate change because nuclear power plants don't release greenhouse gases.

They make a weak case. The enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process - far too slow to make a difference on global warming. That's just as well, because nuclear power is extremely risky. What's more, there are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks.

Meanwhile, a 2006 study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research found that for nuclear power to play a meaningful role in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the world would need to build a new plant every one to two weeks until mid-century. Even if that were feasible, it would overwhelm the handful of companies that make specialized parts for nuclear plants, sending costs through the roof.

The accelerating threat of global warming requires innovation and may demand risk-taking, but there are better options than nuclear power. A combination of energy-efficiency measures, renewable power like wind and solar, and decentralized power generators are already producing more energy worldwide than nuclear power plants. Their use is expanding more quickly, and the decentralized approach they represent is more attractive on several levels. One fast-growing technology allows commercial buildings or complexes, such as schools, hospitals, hotels or offices, to generate their own electricity and hot water with micro-turbines fuelled by natural gas or even bio-fuel, much more efficiently than utilities can do it and with far lower emissions.

The potential for wind power alone is nearly limitless and, according to a May report by research firm Standard & Poor's, it's cheaper to produce than nuclear power. Further, the amount of electricity that could be generated simply by making existing non-nuclear power plants more efficient is staggering. On average, coal plants operate at 30% efficiency worldwide, but newer plants operate at 46%. If the world average could be raised to 42%, it would save the same amount of carbon as building 800 nuclear plants.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government spends more on nuclear power than it does on renewables and efficiency. Taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear industry amounted to $9 billion 2006, according to Doug Koplow, a researcher based in Cambridge, Mass., whose Earth Track consultancy monitors energy spending. Renewable power sources, including hydropower but not ethanol, got $6 billion, and $2 billion went toward conservation.’

No To Nukes

Bucks before sanity

Non only our Rattus and his minion Clowner want to make a few bucks by selling Uranium to India — a country that has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty — contrary to common sense AND the government's own rule, now Pakistan is requesting that if Australia sells Uranium to India it should also sell Uranium to Pakistan... — that unstable country our Rattus gave official reception to its Dictator in Canberra.

Pakistan has also just tested a big missile capable of nuclear bomb carrying...

"Pakistan's nuclear program is totally peaceful. If we are going to go further into nuclear it is going to be for energy, because we are suffering from power shortages."

 That's why Pakistan has a peaceful nuclear bombs arsenal... The hypocrisy of the Clowners, Rattuses and their wish to sell anything at any cost as long as it looks good on accounting paper. By selling Uranium to these countries, Australia would help them liberate other uranium sources for bomb making purposes. We all need that like a hole in the head. It's a case of bucks before sanity...

Insanity, insanity, all is insanity...

From the ABC

India secures US nuclear deal

The United States says it has concluded a civilian nuclear cooperation deal with India.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says India and the US have reached a historic milestone by adopting the agreement.

India's national security adviser said the civilian nuclear agreement will secure India's energy future.

Under the agreement, India will get access to US nuclear fuel and technology, including nuclear reactors.

The US administration has also assured India's government of guaranteed supplies of nuclear fuel for its civilian program, a major sticking point and one that has been opposed by some sections of the US Congress.

This week Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia might sell uranium to India, despite the country not signing up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Federal Cabinet is to consider the issue in the next few weeks.

-------------------------

Gus: There's nothing to consider. That country, India, has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty... End of story. That's the "rule". Even selling uranium for "peaceful purposes" to anyone is silly... At the drop of hat, a clever country can change the peaceful purpose of its uranium and make bombs within a few days, without anyone knowing zilch... It's not that simple? Sure, it's a complex technological operation but not impossible. Centrifuging is not the only way to separate Uranium isotopes.

still a pox

Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven'
By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News

The idea that the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has created a wildlife haven is not scientifically justified, a study says.

Recent studies said rare species had thrived despite raised radiation levels as a result of no human activity.

But scientists who assessed the 1986 disaster's impact on birds said the ecological effects were "considerably greater than previously assumed".

The findings appear in the Royal Society's journal, Biology Letters.

In April 1986, reactor number four at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded.

After the accident, traces of radioactive deposits were found in nearly every country in the northern hemisphere.

madness...

PM defends uranium sale to India
Mr Howard does not believe Australia should refuse to sell uranium to India when it sells to China.

Prime Minister John Howard has explained why he intends to allow the sale of Australian uranium to India, even though it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Mr Howard will be speaking to his Indian counterpart today about the possible supply of uranium.

He has told Parliament that he does not believe Australia should refuse to sell uranium to India when it sells to China.

But Mr Howard says there would be conditions including that India agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"India does have a very good non-proliferation track record [and] it has indicated that it does not intend to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.

----------------
Gus: this BS at the summit of a BS mountain... "India does have a very good non-proliferation track record" what a crock... India has made and tested nuclear bombs for goodness sake without ANY supervision by the IAEA...

On top of that, Australia selling "peaceful use only" uranium provides India an oportunity to divert MORE OF its own uranium to produce more bombs still without any supervision by the IAEA...

I can declare today that Mr Howard is mad.

madness inc....

Tonight on the ABC news, our Juanita, bless her soul and clear diction, told us that the "Prime Minister had reach an in principle agreement with India" but she forgot to add the full extent of what it ment... "the Prime Minister has decided: bugger it, there's a Sh&%$load of money to be made here and stuff the IAEA — and the future can take care of itself...since the Yanks have decided "bugger the IAEA as well, so it's their fault and our good fortune"... So then she's forgiven... she only reads the slosh in the spirit of what the rightwing ABC board tells her to read... actually what is acceptable to read: 50 per cent BS from John Howard and 20 per cent hogwash from John Howard, the rest is neo-real news... since there's always someone blaming Al-Queda for the traumas experienced by the Iraqis... What about the US-Australo-Pommy invasion that led to unleashing the oily worms inside Pandora's boxer shorts? Ah sux, we're being conned by the lovely Juanita... and she's been conned by the ABC "policies"...

Who cares ...

Throw Johnnee and his madness out, no matter what.... 

delayed twinkle

From the SMH

Uranium deal with India hits hurdles

Craig Skehan and Anne Davies in Washington
August 17, 2007

PLANS to sell Australian uranium to India for power generation are in doubt, with controversy on three continents and an apparent unwillingness by India to agree not to conduct future nuclear weapons tests.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, last night announced a series of strict conditions on any uranium sales after a telephone conversation with his Indian counterpart, Manmohan Singh.

Mr Howard said a nuclear agreement between India and the United States would have to be ratified by Congress, and New Delhi would have to agree to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.

"We want to be satisfied that the uranium will only be used for peaceful purposes," he said.

The possibility of uranium sales to Russia was also floated last night, but Mr Howard's office told the Herald it was unaware of any agreement. However, sources said there had been discussions about transferring Australian nuclear-related technology to Russia.

Diplomatic sensitivities over the Indian deal were underscored when the Pakistani high commission in Canberra issued a statement yesterday criticising the Government for seeking the uranium deal with India.