Australia has officially gone nuts

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has this charming and entirely not morbid game.

Australia is quite renowned for its wonderful climate. I think the ABC people have spent too much time appreciating it (it's ozone depletion I tells ya!). What moron thought it was a tactful thing to do to create a game for children which tells them they should drop dead (or as the graphic implies, explode)?

Running through the Australian averages, that hedonistic lot, living to the ripe old age of 19 (that is the average life expectancy down under, isn't it? We rarely see anyone older in all that Aussie programming we get up here.) should actually be dying at around 9 years old because it's then when they've used up their share of resources. I'm not quite clear what the magical resource ration is or how they came to that number.

So this game, aimed at "educating" kids, probably around the age of 9 or 10, is telling them they have to end their lives for the good of the planet. Assholes!

If they wanted to put something about calculating carbon footprint, why couldn't they be polite and make it something like this? Phrasing it in terms of when you need to commit ritual suicide is just sick!

Now on to the their (ab)use of "science".

Questions 1 & 2 are about getting around. What is your common mode of transport and how guzzly is it? Simple questions. Simplistic even. Too simplistic. The BP calculator allows you to specify multiple modes of transport and how often you use them, giving a more accurate picture of your transportation habits. Hell, ABC don't even allow you to specify a usage. And don't give me bull about "it's for kids" because the next question about flying asks for distances. And besides, if you're collecting information to tell users when they should die, you had better damn well take the time to get right.

On question 7, it's the usual where's your electricity come from question. Click on the dog and he'll tell you about Australia's electricity. Did you know that residential electricity accounts for 84% of that country's greenhouse gas emissions? Well, maybe if Australia would goddamn use some of the goddamn uranium sitting in the goddamn ground, that goddamn number wouldn't be so goddamn high. Hint, hint. Oh yeah and the dog says that renewables has nearly zero greenhouse impact, which is more pork than the goddamn Aussie pig.

Question 8 is about garbage. More porkies being told here. First is that we need to reduce landfill to avoid methane emissions. Modern landfills harvest methane as an energy source. A renewable energy source since there's always more organic waste. And no bull about a landfill crisis. Anyone trying to say that a country the size of Europe with all of 20 people living there has a landfill crisis is clearly detached from reality. The other thing is that recycling means less energy consumption than making things a new. Sporadic truth. Some things are less energy intensive to landfill and replace with new materials. Some things are less energy intensive to recycle. It varies with the substances involved and the external factors too. This blanket "all recycling is good" is just dogma. Some is good, some is bad.

So ABC says the average Australian carbon footprint is around 25 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. BP says the average is 14. So which one, or possibly both is pulling the number out of their arse? Well all this rests on assumptions, which you can pick at your discretion. I'd go with BP. Yes, they're an oil company, but they employ engineers who know things, whereas ABC employs journalists who don't. Easy choice really.

Now I raise my right hand and recite this oath:
I, on my honour, do solemnly swear to never moan or rant about Green sanctimony in the United Kingdom again. And whenever I get the urge, such as whenever Caroline Lucas appears saying completely stupid things on Question Time as she did last week (like public transport in the country. What an idiot! Yeah it's really possible to devise a practical and environmentally beneficial bus service in Aberdeenshire), I will revisit that link and be reminded that it could be worse. I could be living in Australia.

(Okay I didn't really take the oath, because moaning and ranting is what blogs are for.)

Everything is wrong with this

Over at the always excellent Depleted Cranium last week, the topic was GM foods. At comment 16, we catch the first appearance of Debs in this thread, a girl apparently training to be a case study in a critical thinking class.

The problem with GM crops is that we start to think that man is capable of doing
better than nature.

But we can! Ever seen a strawberry that grows in the wild? It's rubbish. The strawsberry's we buy are the product of centuries of selective breeding with a helpful dose of agricultural technology.

We know nature made these plants a certain way for a reason and because they’re
natural our bodies are able to digest them because we coevolved.

Nature has no reason for doing anything. Nature is just... er... something not man made. Whatever it is, it has no intelligence, no reason. Save the intelligent design rubbish for the next Creationist convention.

Now we start saying that the way to do it is to take a gene from this plant and
put it here and this plant and put it here and move this one here. It’s
Frankenstein!

It's been ages since I've read Frankenstein, and I never did read it very thoroughly, but wasn't the story about the ignorant, hysterical masses reacting negatively to Frankenstein's originally benign creation and then driving the being to murder? And Dr. Frankenstein himself was quite superficial too. The moral being that hysteria is your own undoing (well that might not have been Mary Shelley's intended moral).

We don’t know what we’re doing because the system is beyond what we
understand and it exists a way for a reason.

While there is much more for us to learn, we do understand the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. To imply we don't understand genetics is simply a self-confessed ignoramus assuming that no-one could possible be more educated than herself.

We will only show how little we know when it comes back to haunt us. This
happened many time before for example nuclear we thought we understood and then
found out that it was blowing up in our face and ruining everything.

Although Debs fails to demonstrate sufficient to convince me that she doesn't think nuclear reactors are blowing up on a weekly basis across the world, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she means Chernobyl. It wasn't a lack of understanding that led to that accident, it was a lack of responsibility.

We can’t afford to ruin all our crops and pollute them with our chemicals that
were never meant for our bodies or the world!

A little apocalyptic foreboding always helps when feeding your prejudices. Who is it that never intended these chemicals for our bodies? This "nature" intelligence? Pure superstition!

All I know about it is the ppl who really care about the earth and the future
and being sustainable are all against it for good reasons. I’m
not an expert on it and I bet anyone who wants it either isn’t or maybe they are
and get paid for it, but those of us who care about it can tell you every
environment group that looked at it saw the problems right away!

Classic poisoning the well fallacy. Define anyone with a contrary opinion as either being a corporate $hill or just plain stupid. Never consider that you may be wrong.

Everyone who cares and knows feels the same way and they’re the ones I
would like to listen to.
Why should I believe you? You’re for it and that’s
why I’m not about to trust you!

Circular argument. "I only trust people who say X and I believe X because people I trust say it."

I suppose it's nice to live in a cozy bubble where you think it is rational to only listen to people who tell you things that reinforce your own prejudices.

Debs seriously needs a lesson on rational thought possibly with a wack on the head if it'll help knock some sense into her.

Ali feeds the beast

Take a look at the latest budget. Here is what Alastair Tracy said about plastic bags. (pdf see page 18)

Legislation would come into force in 2009 and based on other countries'
experience, it could lead to a 90 percent reduction, with around 12 billion
fewer plastic bags in circulation.

The money raised should go to environmental charities.

Yes, the marionette gave the royal Thunderbirds are Go to shovelling a load of tax money into the pockets of the Usual Suspects, who, as they tend to do, will funnel it to their terrorism direct action division, where they will use it to further their brand of "non-violent" violence, including attacking the new nuclear power stations the government itself wants to build.

It's like giving money to Gerry Adams to organise the St. Patrick's Day celebrations.

Many environmental charities these days, particularly the more well known ones are nothing of the sort. They're political campaigning organisations masquerading as charitable organisations, who use donations made in good faith to fund illegal campaigning tactics.

And more to the point, a charity is supposed to be dependent on, you know, charity, not subsidy. A charity receiving state funding is no longer a charity, but is a QUANGO. Not only do we have enough in this country, but we certainly don't need ones which financially support criminal behaviour.

Still, it is a very effective policy by El Gordo and the marionette. By giving the revenues from the plastic bag tax to environmental charities, it means their profits are directly related to plastic bag use. I can think of nothing more likely to stop me from using plastic bags than the thought that it will be sending wads of cash straight into the pockets of Greenpeace.

Now where are resuable shopping bags my asset gave me?

Politics of vanity

A great post at Depleted Cranium concerning environmentalist misconceptions.

I particularly liked this point.

Go after pollution sources with the highest cost/benefit ratio, not those which
are most noticeable

This sums up everything that is wrong with the environmentalists' campaigns. They're just so damn superficial! It's all about be seen to care more than actually doing stuff that is genuinely worthwhile.

Aviation generates 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions, half that of shipping, and yet it is their favourite whipping boy. Why? Why is there a climate camp at Heathrow but not one in Southampton? The reason is because aviation is a more high profile target. It's closer to lot more people than shipping. Airports are located across land masses, whereas ports are confined to the coast. Planes are the primary mode of long distance travel, whereas relatively few people take boats these days. Aviation is something that will confront most people directly in the face whereas, despite the real effect it has on all our lives, for most of us, it isn't in full view.

For something as prominent as aviation, environmentalists can suddenly pop their heads in like a zealous salesman, tell us all that is evil about it, and then invite our adulation for their dedication to the fight against this highly visible thing. If they tried the same thing with the shipping, most of the land lubbers of the West Midlands and Greater London would say, "Nothing to do with me."

Attacking aviation is a simple strategy for simple minds. Perfect if all you're concerned about is self-agrandisement.

Today of all days is a reminder as Brussels has just banned patio heaters (can politicians say "law of unintended consequences"?). Though patio heaters are not a particularly effective contributor to carbon dioxide emissions (they'd be even less so if they were nuclear powered), (il)Liberal Democrats delight in banning them because they can be seen to be "doing something".
Environmentalism has been turned from politics of saving the whales (being fair to Greenpeace as much as I loathe it, they having been honouring their original commitments are fair bit lately) into politics for the terminally vain.

BTW, on the anniversary of Guy Fawkes' gunpowder plot, MPs remind us that he was right all along.

Just when you thought it was safe to like Auntie

Here's how the BBC does analysis of the government's nuclear decision. By dedicating an article to romanticising the ignorant antics of the aging dinosaurs of yesterdecade. All the other articles are pretty hard headed factual accounts of the situation (though you can almost hear the Beeboid journos' teeth grinding as they force themselves to give the pro side its share of lines as well).

The only one to stray into the realm of a more personal account is this article, which focuses purely on the opponents and their views. When are we going to get this kind of star treatment? Maybe we don't qualify because we're not in the habit of committing acts of vandalism, aggravated trespass, intimidation, disturbance of the peace and all those other wonderful things for which the quintagenarians are so honoured.

Edit: As quick as it appeared, it's gone. Replaced by this saucy number. Now this might be the article, which puts me in my place, you could say. But, I still have a gripe. While the beginning does indeed opening with what is essential a view from the perspective of benighted nuclear worker, and would indeed serve as a good counterbalance to the tribute to the opponents, they still can't resist pooring cold water on the proceeding by inviting cynicism. The final line is,

The fact is, it won't be his generation that knows if his decision was the
right one.

As a stand alone article it is fine in terms of trying to capture the inside story while offering some balance; a perspective from the nuke worker, while also raising the doubts. However, the other article is an exercise in Greenpeace propoganda. The BBC (and media in general) line is that pro-shifting articles must balance with a hint of doubt, but anti-shifting articles can go off on one all they like. In the end, it's a media victory for the opponents... as always.

NB This bit amused.

But when our short tour begins, and we cross a thick red line painted on the
ground, new attire becomes compulsory: a bright blue shopkeeper's coat, white
construction helmet, heavy plastic glasses and shoes with steel caps.

Ooh how dangerous and scary nuclear power stations must be. Not really. Sounds like just the kind of thing we wear round the yards of oil field suppliers.

Edit edit: The second article is now on the front page while the first article is still missing. Maybe the Beeb is not too bad after all.

Wow!

NEI has spied the Guardian.

Bob Geldof demands more nuclear

Am I being too harsh on him to have never expected that in a million years? He always struck me as one of those cliched Hollywood/rock types.

Now the question is, will the BBC give full coverage to a gala pro-nuclear concert?

Things to do on a quiet Saturday morning

Four fuddites declare their undying devotion to Sizewell

This may be a subjective thing, but I would normally expect a party larger than 4 to have staged their antics before headlining it as a "protest". Still, this is a rather typical Beeb thing to do when they agree with the protestors (notice how they also give plenty of space for the Usual Suspects to deliver their opinions without a word from the other side).

This bit amused though as it shows the complete lack of logical thought by the Usual Suspects:

"We were lying across the road for 15 minutes fastened together before the
security guards came," said campaigner Mell Harrison, 36, of Bungay, Suffolk.
"We were 200 metres from the reactor, if that. If we can do it so can
terrorists. Imagine that. We didn't get inside the fence. But protesters have
done that before.

If terrorists basically comes to Sizewell to stand across the road, then I don't think we have anything to worry about. When will they learn that they're going to have to do better than that?

Good luck to British Energy. Some brand spanking new Generation III+ reactors will do us well. Scotland will also be needing the imports sooner or later anyway unless the Exalted One comes to his senses.

It's a conspiracy I tells ya!

Derek Wall, principal speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales, appeared on 18 Doughty Street's Cross Talk programme on the 12th July, where he faces simultaneous questioning from a left wing angle by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and from a right wing angle by Iain Dale.

Okay, so we don't expect much lucidity from the head honcho of the Green Party. We barely expect it from the Lib Dems and they're mainstream. But this guy really seemed off it. Yasmin asked him at one point to list the straight forward reasons behind their anti-nuclear position. So we get terrorism, waste, etc, but apparently the Green Party of England and Wales also opposes nuclear power because it is a threat to civil liberties. Wall seems to believe that a "nuclear state" will have to cut back on civil liberties for some reason (probably because he knows his lot will wage a campaign of what is euphemistically called "direct action" ie aggrevated trespass, intimidation, vandalism, and sometimes full blown terrorism).

At its heart, this seems to come from the mindset that nuclear power and nuclear weapons are as intertwined as electric and magnetic fields; that one cannot exist without the other. Derek Wall seems unable to disconnect the two. This is exemplified, not only by his use of the term "nuclear state" to describe a country with nuclear power stations, when it is usually for countries with nuclear weapons, but also by his response to Iain's question on why some European countries like Denmark had slowed their renewables project. He suggested it's just because they have "right wing governments that obviously prefer nuclear power and nuclear weapons". Of course, in the case of Denmark, the statement is ridiculous anyway because that country has neither.

It's almost a throwback to the acid soaked 60s mentality of raging against the perceived "military-industrial complex". Nuclear power cannot just be seen a technology for generating electricity. It can only be seen as part of "The Machine" controlled by moustache twirling villains hell bent on destroying the planet and oppressing the people for some reason.

Bring back Caroline Lucas. At least she appeared somewhat rational in her opinions, even if she was woefully misinformed.

The one benefit though is it makes you somewhat appreciative of the lot we have in government. At least they're not the Greens.

Everyone's favourite whipping boy takes one more lashing

The Usual Suspects plan more terror ops.

The corollary to freedom of speech is the freedom of the rest of us to ignore anti-social narcissists. Yet the Usual Suspects do not appear to understand that. They vandalise power stations, occupy runways, destroy farmland and yet we're supposed to tolerate it under the umbrella of free speech. Inteferring with individual's freedom of movement is a crime and if any flight is delayed as a result of this protest, the lot should be thrown in jail to think about what they've done. They probably won't learn anything, but at the very least, that's fewer of them out there trying to disrupt people's lives.

What we're up against

A short, rather laughable tirade over at BAUT.

The toxic wastes from atomic power systems will poison planet Earth for
thousands of years to come. Our soil and water are being poisoned by the
widespread burying of nuclear waste on land and sea! Atomic energy is always in
conflict with all Life, because the very nature of 'atom-splitting' is
destruction not construction. For this reason, it can never be used for peace or
peaceful activities. How can peace be achieved by that which is by nature
unpeaceful? Splitting atoms disrupts the flow of force through them.

Never mind the tired regurgitation of blatantly misleading hyperbole about waste and pollution at the beginning. What's really interesting is the pseudo-scientific tone of the rest of it. Nuclear fission is apparently bad because splitting atoms is "in conflict with all Life" because it is "destruction not construction".

Now, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Natural radioactive decay, the kind of decay, which fuelled the primordial vents from where life first sprang, is the destruction of atoms. Metabolism is the destruction of all sorts of molecules.

This really sums up the quasi-religious core at the heart of many environmentalists. Allusions to vague concepts such as "the flow of force" through atoms are as far removed from really scientific basis as you can get. And yet this particular guy is basing his nuclear opposition on that.

In a scientific debate, we can run circles around your average environmentalists. But if they fuel their position with this New Age, junk science rubbish, how are we supposed to tackle them. If nuclear must be opposed because splitting atoms disrupts the flow of force through them, given that the statement is nonsense, how can we argue against it.

You show an argument is nonsense, when that is what it is meant to be from the start.

It's all becoming clear

It's becoming clear why Greenpeace are so hopeless at science and engineering.

It's because they spend their time engaging in extreme sports rather than learning stuff.

There's nothing wrong with extreme sports of course. It's just if you are going to devote your time (and they do seem to be vary dedicated to their climbing activities) to that at the expense of learning the difference between a neutron and a neutrino, then at least have the humility to admit that you're thick.

And this time, not only are they thick, but they're also hoodies without even have the artistic talent to make a nice banner. They resorted to vandalism instead. Vicky Pollard environmentalists!

The battle for fission will be fought...

... in Richmond Park?

Cammy has been remarkably silent on the issue of nuclear power overall. On the other hand, just about every other Conservative not in his intimate circle has been positive about it. Ken Clarke has had a couple of appearances on Question Time recently in which he's pushed for more nuclear power. Then we had Michael Portillo's brilliant remark about the sinful nature of denouncing it. It did seem that following Cammy's wet rebranding exercise (which seems to have done a lot of good for the party if the opinion polls are any indication) the Tories would be getting harder on some key issues and there was hope that they, at least, wouldn't oppose it.

But things have turned ugly. Zac Goldsmith has been selected as the Conservative candidate for Richmond Park. At the next general election, he'll be standing to become their MP. Now that he's true blue, Goldsmith is to become the face of Green Conservatism. Horror!

To be fair, the stuff he says in the Telegraph is actually pretty reasonable. It's all about Pigouvian taxation and how conservation can prove cost effective (unfortunately, some evangelicals then presume that because there are many examples of when being energy efficient is economical, that this is deterministic rule for all cases of perceived energy efficiency).

Given the chumminess between Cammy and Goldsmith as well as Goldsmith's clearly preferred field, if he's elected, he will become very important to Conservative environment policy. Peter Ainsworth is the Shadow Environment Minister at the moment. Goldsmith can't take that job because he is not an MP, but I expect Ainsworth's position to be shortlived if he does become one.

And given the polls at the moment, there is a clear and present danger that Goldsmith won't be the Shadow Environment Minister, but the real one.

If Zac Goldsmith is to be the Secretary of State for the Environment, then we need all the Ken Clarke's we can get prevent the country from falling into darkness... literally!

Who dug him up?

As we continue to reel from the news about Greenpeace's High Court victory over the Energy Review, more phantoms rise on the British horizon.

The Dark Lord Meacher is going for Number 10.

This guy once said we need nuclear power like we need a hole in the head. He also said that men are like lice on the Earth, so this particular arch misanthrop would probably go for it.

He also plutonium was the most dangerous substance known to man (making him a liar).

Fortunately, El Gordo is too powerful for this moonbat to get anywhere (there is doubt over whether or not he could get enough votes to get even nominated). El Gordo has also said he supports Blair's line on more nuclear power.

Opposing nuclear power is a sin

The Church has now decided that global warming can serve the same purpose for them as it does for the Green lobby: serving as an opportunity for its elites to be smugly sanctimonious and preach upon us unwashed evil-doers (while often being the worst "sinners"). A Bishop has declared that flying is a sin.

Well alright. If global warming is the apocalypse caused by our straying from the path of righteousness then surely anything contributing to the wrath of the deity must be a sin.

Michael Portillo agreed last night on This Week. By the same logic opposing nuclear power is also a sin.

Nothing new to see here

A commenter referred me to an anti-nuclear page here. When Helen Caldicott is quoted in the second line, you know they're in trouble.

There was a
disaster at Windscale in 1957 (that would have been much worse if the wind
had been blowing inland instead of out to sea),

A 50 year old accident at a military facility doesn't exactly have much relevance to today.

There was a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 released large amounts of radioactivity over a
very wide area,

Old news.

There has been extensive
radioactive contamination from the Dounreay nuclear reactor,

Hardly the first facility to release some dangerous material and it certainly won't be the last. But given the rather limited effect this has actually had, despite the fear mongering, this is hardly a reason for blanket opposition to nuclear power as a whole, particularly given the advances that have led to Generation III+.

In late July 2006 there was an accident at Sweden's Forsmark nuclear power
station which was described as a near-meltdown by Lars-Olov Hoglund, a Swedish
nuclear expert (see Spiegel
Online, 2006-08-07, and report in the International
Herald Tribune, 2006-08-04).

A more recent example of FUD.

Nuclear reactors, nuclear reprocessing plants and the trains that carry nuclear
materials around the country are inviting targets for terrorists (see how a
Daily Mirror reporter planted a 'bomb' on a train carrying nuclear waste,
July 2006). In a similar way, nuclear materials being transported around the
world can easily be attacked or hijacked by terrorists.

Tabloid journalism at its worst.

When all the overt and hidden subsidies are taken into account, nuclear power is
much more expensive than any other source of power, including renewable sources
(see some
figures on costs quoted in "Is
it all over for nuclear power?". There is a much fuller account in Helen
Caldicott's book.).

That source uses the junk study from the non economics foundations as its reference, which basically consisted of saying, "Ooh, let's add another couple of pennies for this thing and how about another penny here. Wow, look how expensive it's become!"

Significant amounts of CO2 are released by the nuclear industry:

If junk science was the same as junk food, the authors of this website would be diabetic.

Nuclear power may consume more energy than it produces.

Caldicott said that, did she? She's even more insane than I realised. I suppose France has discovered the secret to perpetual motion then.

No solution has yet been found to the problem of disposing of dangerous nuclear
waste, much of which will remain dangerous for more than 10,000 years. No human
institution has ever survived that long.

Closer than the other website, but still the cigar is way off.

Contrary to what many people imagine and often suggest as an advantage of
nuclear power, it is not available 24/7 throughout the year. Just like wind
power, and all other sources of electricity, nuclear power is intermittent.
Nuclear power stations stop producing electricity during routine maintenance and
unscheduled breakdowns, and the 'load factor' (the amount of electricity that is
actually produced compared with the theoretical maximum) is normally well short
of 100%.

Capacity factors are now about 90%. Much better than solar or wind. If 90% isn't good enough, then 30% definitely isn't.

In its 'normal' operation, the nuclear industry releases radioactivity into the
environment that causes
damage to health.

What dark fear mongering is this?

The wide distribution in the world of plutonium and enriched uranium increases
the chances that terrorists will be able to get hold of enough to make either a
'dirty' conventional bomb or even an atom bomb.

Why bother? There are so many easier ways to cause mass destruction.

The technology for nuclear power has much in common with the technology needed
for the production of nuclear weapons.

Not quite. Swimming pools have much more in common with the weapons the Nazis used to kill their prisoners. I suppose swimming should be banned too?

Security of supply: some uranium comes from politically-unstable countries like
Kazakhstan and those supplies cannot be guaranteed.

Very, very deceptive! Most comes from Australia and Canada. Just think of what the Bloc Quebecois would do to us!

In recent heat waves, nuclear power plants have been shut down owing to
shortages of cooling water and unacceptable damage that would be caused by the
discharge of hot water into the environment (see Our
nuclear summer). This kind of problem is likely to become worse as global
temperatures rise.

Coal power stations have the same problem. The wind turbines weren't turning much either.

Risk of flooding.

Here's an idea. How about not building them in a floodplain?

Nuclear power is an inflexible source of electricity that is only suitable for
'base load'. It cannot respond quickly to peaks in demand for electricity.

That's why we have hydroelectric power or gas or any manner of other power sources that can be cycled rapidly in conjunction with a nuclear baseload. Wind and solar are not predictable and therefore not controllable so they cannot respond at all to peaks in demand, quickly or slowly.

Nuclear power only provides electricity. It does not address the problem of
reducing CO2 emissions from space heating and road transport (except under the
unlikely scenario that nuclear electricity would be used for a significant
amount of space heating and charging of electric vehicles).

Neither do solar or wind.

It has been calculated that, if enough nuclear fission reactors were built to
meet most of the world's demand for electricity, exploitable sources of uranium
would be exhausted in about fifteen to twenty years (see Energy Beyond Oil by
Paul Mobbs, Matador, 2005, ISBN 1-905237-00-6). If the more risky fast breeder
reactors could be made to work reliably (not an easy job), this might yield
fifty or sixty years of electricity. In a similar way, thorium could in
principle be converted into nuclear fuel but this has not yet been shown to be
practical and supplies of thorium are in any case limited.

I'm impressed they knew about fast reactors and thorium. Still, there figures are way off. And if the supply is so limited, what are they worrying about? It will guarantee than the next generation of nuclear power stations will only be used as a stop gap measure for renewable expansion since there couldn't be another generation after that.

As exploitable sources of uranium become exhausted, prices will rise. And as
higher-grade ores are exhausted, more energy will be consumed and more CO2 will
be released in processing the lower-grade ores that remain.

That junk science addiction repeats itself.

Opportunity cost: As Friends of the Earth and others have been pointing out,
money spent in propping up the nuclear industry is money that would be much more
profitably spent on expanding renewable sources of energy.

Now the reality. Much more money will be spent on expanding fossil fuel use to fill the energy gap left as renewables can't expand sufficiently rapidly.

Are we doomed enough yet for a panic nuclear build?

As you might imagine, the BBC are positively dripping and drooling over the lastest Halloween fright fest.

Here's an interesting thought from Timmy. Based on the figures from the Stern report, fuel tax is already too high.

Anyway, since we're doomed once again, why is there not already a panic building of new nuclear reactors? Here's a vision:

• Under government legislation/taxation/summin' or nuffin', coal is rendered extinct within 15 years as new nuclear reactors, a mix of the new LWRs plus CANDUs for a nationwide DUPIC cycle, come on stream.
• Money is shovelled by the council tax load into Eskom to develop the PBMR as well as to Chinese HTRs. Industrial energy requirements are then met with pebble bed modules providing heat and work through the safe helium coolant. Within 30 years, no manufacturing business is using fossil fuels for energy.
• Baseload gas power is replaced within 25 years.
• Homes are given tax breaks/grants to convert to all-electric so they can be heated by the electricity produced from the new nuclear fleet. A Manhatten project effort and it's done by 2040.
• All marine vessels go nuclear within the next two decades. Dover to Calais by Westinghouse.
• New cooling systems channel waste heat to produce synthetic alkanes for use in motor vehicles and aircraft. Technically trickier. It might take 50 years or more, but significant progress could be made towards reducing the fossil content of our hydrocarbon energy sources.

We could be nearly carbon neutral by 2050.

There is no explicable justification for the loudest alarmists, who repeatedly shout from the roof tops how our death is assured if we don't do something about global warming yesterday, to oppose any and all nuclear expansion. They keep on worrying about not having gotten through to people. Maybe if they didn't keep on trying to have their cake and eat it too (though for the affluent metropolitan elites, I suppose such luxuries are affordable), they would have more credibility.

For the love of neutrons NO!

The rumour spread by Iain Dale is that Al Gore is joining the British government.

Well there goes our energy security.

I hope exploration in the North Sea is going well because if Gore is here, our energy consumption will go through the roof. And of course, none of it can come from nuclear reactors (unless they are unseen across the Channel) so demand for hydrocarbons will spike more than when David Cameron is cycling to Westminster (ably followed by his armoured motorcade).

Poverty is not charming

The Englishman picks up on a trailor for a new polemic.

But it's a polemic with a difference. It's all about Eco-imperialism. Yes the bit when the narrator talked about "a new environmetally friendly mine" did sound a bit $hilly (such as for the Canadian company Gabriel Resources providing some of the funding for the movie). But that's not the important thing. The important thing is Greenpeace. One Greenpeacer said,

"I think the quaintness of Fort Thingy, the small town feeling, will
change."

How incredibly arrogant! He's denying these people vital investment because of such sentimental, selfish slush? Who is he to decide what the feel of this town should be?

When questioned on the fact that the people he were talking about were poor, he responded

How do we define what is rich and what is poor? Who is rich and who is
poor?

Hmm, let's see. You're rich. They're poor. That enough of a definition for you?

Cock!

Lisa Stiles-Shells versus The Caldicott

The NEI $hill gets put head to head with Helen Caldicott.

Lisa did a valiant job, but Caldicott is something else. Here are some noteworthy items of shock:

• Mammograms are bad. Take your chances with breast cancer.
• Boys, your testicles are doomed! Muahahaha!
• Don't wear radium wristwatches. But do fly around the country to sell your book.
• Smoke alarms are bad. Take your chances with the fire.
• Patrick Moore is a paid nuclear $hill. That's a new one for me. I know he's supposed to be a paid loggin $hill. I guess he gets around.
• Nuclear waste cannot be stored... unless you live in Gabon, where it has been stored for two billion years.
• Nuclear waste lasts for half a million years. Lisa tried to deal with this at one point, but Caldicott was saying it so much. The point is that even unreprocessd spent fuel will decay to below the activity of the original uranium ore within 10,000 years.
• SLS blah, blah, blah.
• The nuclear industry doesn't pay for its externalities. Of course, this is totally false when it comes to waste. See above for Price-Anderson.
• Unwavering confidence in the linear no-threshold hypothesis.
• Your physician may be unaware that dentists take regular x-rays. At least that's the impression I got since I was very surprised when she revealed she only found out about this deadly practice. I guess I should sue my dentist.
• Lots of stuff about fruit flies. Very little about mammals.
• Don't grow veg in your garden if you live near a nuclear power station. Fine if you live near a coal fired power station though. Also don't drink French wine, because France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear and exports a considerable amount to neighbouring countries. (The phrase "Total moonbat" comes to mind!)
• You can't get your house insured against a nuclear accident. In that case, everyone should consider buying property in Britain (if there is any), because you can here.
• Be afraid! Be very afraid! Afraid, I tell you!

There was a lot of fear mongering over the effects of radiation, but little to demonstrate that the nuclear industry is a threat by that means. She tried to make a case about TMI, but it fell flat since no-one was harmed as a result. Then there was lots of irrelevant references to DoE weapons facilities as well as confusing GNEP with a weapons proliferation pact.

NEI Notes is full of posts about her as the publicity drive for her latest book continues.

WHAT!?

The North American Young Generation in Nuclear has been following the Witch Queen of Angmar, Helen Caldicott, around on her book tour.

NEI notes brings up some important notes.

They report on much illucid material, including her trademark "it's all the fault of the military-industrial maleocracy" line. But then things just turned stupid.

[Caldicott said] ‘many [spent fuel] pools are on the roof of a reactor. All you
need to do is take a missile to it to meltdown the plant.’ She then drew a
containment dome with a little rectangle at the top - I was about to crack up
laughing when I saw that one.

It was be hilarious if it weren't so sinister! On the one hand, it is good to know she's so pig ignorant. Tackling her becomes like shooting fish in a barrel. On the other hand, it means we have a total nutter on the loose.

Just to make things clear, spent fuel pools are not placed up high in the containment structure. This particular deception, as well as the others documented at NEI, should be the final nail in the coffin of Caldicott's credibility.