Friday, 28 May 2010

Political Party - Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy Australia

Reportage has posted a very balanced report on a non-aligned, pro-environment, pro-nuclear and pro-renewables Australian political party. Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - Australia is linked to the international environmental organisation - Environmentalists for Nuclear (or EFN-International).

Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - Australia

If you have your doubts about Australia's current tack with respect to emissions, you may wish to have a read of the Reportage page and then the EFNE-Australia web page.

Any real chance to significantly deploy (or accelerate the deployment of) no / low carbon emission technologies in Australia will be driven by a continuing shift of public attitudes to the point where they impact the actions of policy makers. Based in the information linked above, EFNE-Australia seems committed to taking tangible, pragmatic action to achieve that end.

If not us, who? If not now, when?


  1. Fascinating! I joined the Secular Party last week...

    1. Indeed, nuclear energy and solar energy are the two main energy sources that do not deplete; thus, the term renewable. However, the safer route is to use solar energy because it does not cause radiation. On a lighter note, both energy sources causes no further deterioration of the environment.

    2. Thanks for your comment Phil. I am surprised you did not mention wind, geothermal or even hydro for that matter. I'm pretty sure I've consistently advocated their use as well as solar, where it makes sense to do so, in the battle to shut down coal and gas powered energy stations.

      'Where it makes sense to do so' comes down to many factors. Public acceptance, a significant hurdle for nuclear and others, is just one. Cost, risk and legacy waste issues are certainly others. In addition, some areas may have inadequate or inconsistent wind, be too dry or too flat for hydro, or may have geologic formations that prohibit the use of geothermal.

      The bottom line, to me at least, is to simply observe the status of coal and gas power stations in Australia that do not capture their emissions. If they are not being shut down, or worse - and as is the case at the moment - continue to be built; Australia is not doing enough to deploy no/low carbon emitting generation technologies regardless of the type.

      I refuse to be captivated by the fanfare when a new solar station or windfarm is built somewhere; not while coal and gas stations continue to be built.

      But I fully acknowledge that as long as the Australian public perceives the risks associated with nuclear energy to be greater than those posted by climate change, nuclear will not be deployed here. It's important to find people with open minds capable of accepting new information, who can separate fact from rhetoric and who do not seek information to support foregone conclusions.

    3. I think Phil has missed mentioning the other renewable energy resources but that is a non-issue. I think he just want to say what is beneficial in using solar power compared to nuclear energy although wind, hydro and geothermal are also safer than nuclear.