Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Against Monbiot - against nuclear love | Presseurop (English)

The summit in the art of self-deception has now been scaled by the British journalist George Monbiot, who wrote a rather predictable text for the Guardian in London under the title: "Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power". His reasoning is simple: "A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation." A longing for Apocalypse

How cynical. Monbiot wrote this while fire-fighters were risking their health and possibly their lives to protect Tokyo. He wrote this while the nuclear plant was radiating, the levels climbing around it, and still no prospect of an end to the leaks. He wrote this while the people of Fukushima looked on from emergency shelters as their livelihoods were destroyed, possibly for generations, and while tap water in Tokyo was forbidden to babies. Meanwhile, the plutonium threat in reactor number three is still not under control.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Mar 25th, 2011 at 05:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(I am quoting this; but I realise that the German author is probably unfamiliar with Monbiot and his extensive work, and suspect that Monbiot's motivation is probably more a spiteful reaction to some cruder replies he surely got for his earlier piece about coal being the worse danger.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Mar 25th, 2011 at 05:08:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo:
coal being the worse danger

Obviously not an idea one should express at the moment without diving for shelter. ;)

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Mar 25th, 2011 at 05:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nuclear can, though, become a coal-level danger if a massive expansion in nuclear power results in a massive expansion of lower concentration uranium ore mining. (Australia is mining both.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Mar 25th, 2011 at 05:25:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Having watched Navajo children playing on unmarked uranium tailings piles, i know this is so.

(yes, grabbed them by the hand and led them away.)

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Fri Mar 25th, 2011 at 05:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly that previous experience of the Dine with Peabody Coal Company Peabody Energy Corporation¹ is why the uranium mines are closed and will, one hopes, never be re-opened.

As of yet, there's been no public announcement of plans to re-open New Mexico thorium mines.  I expect a popular uprising if they try.

Even some conservative wing-nut types hate the mining companies.

¹  name changes but the sociopathy goes on

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Mar 26th, 2011 at 02:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. But I think one can be against any expansion (rather be for reduction) of nuclear power, in favour of energy demand destruction and renewables, and rate coal as the worst possible electricity generation source. The problem is that's a very theoretical point of view. I see no sign our governments intend to give up on nukes (and I include Germany).

Seen this evening on FR TV, the Environment Minister Kosciusko-Morizet in "sincere dialogue" with a Green-type person, stressing the talking point that we should decide nothing in the heat of a crisis (whether she supported Sarko's bomb Gaddafi "crusade" decision in the heat of a crisis wasn't asked). This is the polite version of the immediate reaction of the heavies (Claude Allègre for example) who ran out ten days ago to yell it was "indecent" to want to discuss nuclear energy while the poor Japanese people were suffering. The problem there being that when there isn't a crisis the media don't cover the non-event and those in power go ahead with nuclear plans in hush-hush while no one but the crazies are trying to talk about it.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Mar 25th, 2011 at 05:53:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I very much question this idea. Even if we would get all our uranium needs from low grade uranium mines (like Rössing, 8 % of world uranium output in 2005), there would be remarkably few mines compared to the number of coal mines operating today. Furthermore, many low grade deposits would be exploited through in situ leaching, which has a very low localized environmental impact, much like Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage used for "mining" deep tar sands (not the moon-scape ones).

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sun Mar 27th, 2011 at 08:33:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series