Diesendorf claims that, “talk about the benefits and cost effectiveness of future generation nuclear reactors is still just talk” should be considered when this paper so willingly prints his unfounded praise of renewable power as near-gospel.
Over 30 countries worldwide rely on over 440 operating reactors, while 65 reactors are being built in 15 countries in North and South America, Europe and Asia.
Nuclear energy has provided these countries with affordable energy without the carbon emissions currently challenging Australia’s embarrassingly high per-capita emission record.
Germany tried hard – arguably the best effort worldwide – to rid their economy of carbon emitting energy generation technologies with renewables (while at the same time initiating a phase-out of their nuclear energy stations). With their demonstrated technical ability – they failed. The nuclear phase-out legislation was recently reversed.
Ditto for Denmark and their allegiance to wind. An objective investigation of the facts will show that – on an annual basis – the Danes still rely heavily on fossil fuel compared to their nuclear neighbors in Europe.
Shame on this paper for permitting such unchecked liberty on just one side of the story.
SOURCES:
http://www.iaea.org/
https://www.entsoe.eu/
"...while talk about the benefits and cost effectiveness of future generation nuclear reactors is still just talk"
- Nuclear Debate on the Agenda for 2011 Australia Epoch Times (view on Google Sidewiki)
Posts
Meh. "unchecked liberty on just one side of the story"? Sounds like you want unchecked liberty on the pro-nuclear side - but I don't. I want everything checked and double-checked - which is what you are actually supplying, NA.
ReplyDeleteBut regarding equality for both sides, how did the paper avoid talking to Barry Brook? Or have they short-changed enough of his discussion time that he won't talk to them any more?
Meanwhile, taking the emotive high ground: I'm supporting nuclear for the health and well-being of children world-wide, to alleviate poverty and to avoid catastrophic global resource conflict.
Upstage THAT, antis.
Yeah, good point Joffan. Maybe unchecked liberties on both sides would at least be balanced??? But I’m with you. Circulating science fiction, hyperbole and speculation is far from credible reporting – whether balanced or not.
ReplyDeleteI agree the paper should have sought input from the pro nuclear side. Barry’s view from a climate modeller’s perspective is very relevant.
But in general, I would be very encouraged if the media shifted away from academics [where titles are long, but applied experience thin] to seek input from those with practical, technology deployment experience. The ATSE, for one, is comprised of Engineers with demonstrated experience in technology project delivery. And being Engineers, they are keenly aware of the finance, economic as well as the technical issues involved in the options. Academic studies and reports are fine if nothing else is available. But a credibly holistic, experience-based assessment would better address groundless assertions such as those so often disseminated by Herr Doktor, Professor Diesendorf.