Hatred of Nuclear Tells You Climate Cult Isn’t Really About Carbon

It's about forcing asceticism on the sinful unwashed masses dirtying the planet with their existence

If you embrace nuclear then all justification for repression against humanity instantly evaporates even if you buy into the eco freak C02 conspiracy theory

‘They take too long to build!’ That is the rallying cry of anti-nuclear activists everywhere when they run out of arguments against nuclear power stations.

So here’s something to bear in mind. It took France just 12 years to decarbonise from the 1970s onwards, when it built 56 nuclear reactors. France’s main objective back then was to secure energy independence by reducing its reliance on imported fossil fuels. The French still enjoy the fruits of this decision today, with over 70 per cent of their electricity coming from clean energy sources.

Today, with gas prices skyrocketing, climate change closing in on us and air pollution proving deadly, we in the UK arguably have more reasons than ever to follow France’s lead.

What’s more, nuclear technology is also better now than it was over four decades ago. Reactors are now much more efficient and, in theory, quicker to build. And, once a nuclear power plant is up and running, it can remain operational for over 60 years.

Typically, standardisation – building the same model again and again using the same team of engineers – reduces build time and cost. But this is something the UK has yet to get behind. So although there are European pressurised reactors (EPRs) being built at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, the proposed reactor for Wylfa, in Wales, is an AP1000 reactor, which means construction won’t be as efficient as it could be. Still, more nuclear is better than no nuclear, and so hopefully the Wylfa proposal will go ahead.

Cost is a problem for nuclear power. The developers behind Wylfa have consistently struggled to secure funding, with investors concerned about the lack of government support. Given that we hear politicians and activists shout that no cost is too high to combat the climate emergency, here is a perfect opportunity to turn those words into action.

Nuclear power plants have a huge upside. They provide a reliable source of energy and act as a baseload (back-up) for renewables when it isn’t windy or sunny. They have a small land footprint, are good for nature, and do not contribute to climate change or dirty the air we breathe. They also require fewer materials to build than other types of energy, provide high-quality green jobs and have the best waste-management methods of any source of energy production.

But, most importantly, there is no other proven way that a country can reach Net Zero without nuclear energy. The data show us this very clearly.

Environmentalists are increasingly coming round to nuclear energy. Younger people are clued-up on climate change and are less against technological solutions than many older environmentalists. They also like their technology and understand that we need clean electricity to power phones and laptops. The public’s openness to nuclear is reassuring, especially considering that anti-nukers, from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to Extinction Rebellion, tend to dominate mainstream discussion.

Nuclear power is increasingly seen as an essential component in any effort to meet our rising energy demands. This is underpinned by the emergence of a generation that understands the role technology will play in addressing climate change. When I started out talking to journalists and editors in the UK about nuclear a year ago, I was met with anti-nuclear sentiment from both the left and right. But through ongoing discussions about the data, their attitudes are changing.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave detailed scenarios for decarbonisation in its 2018 report. The energy section clearly includes nuclear in all four pathways to decarbonisation. When anti-nuclear environmentalists say that we can rely solely on renewables they are going against the scientific consensus.

In my work as a pro-nuclear climate activist, I have spoken to citizens across the world about nuclear, and it is clear that the tide is turning in its favour. Australia has had a ban on nuclear power for decades, but the discussion on its potential role has now opened up. Many Australian citizens and commentators are now speaking in favour of nuclear energy. Denmark has also had a ban on nuclear since the 1980s, but politicians there are now debating its merits.

We have left it late in the day to construct new nuclear power plants, but it is never too late to develop clean energy sources and work on lowering our greenhouse-gas emissions. With COP26 approaching, world leaders are starting to worry about how to reduce their nations’ carbon emissions. If I was the leader of a developed nation with high emissions, I would be doubly worried. Germany, which chose to phase out nuclear power plants instead of getting rid of coal, is a perfect example of how not to approach Net Zero.

Anti-nukers will no doubt continue to insist that nuclear power plants will take too long to build. But this is a reason to have built them decades ago, not a reason not to start building them today. The truth is that had developed countries built reactors in the 1970s, like France did, the world probably wouldn’t be heating up today. That’s one for the anti-nuclear activists to think about.

Source: Spiked

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
16 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

ken
ken
5 days ago

Hmmmm…. Fukushima, still polluting the planet after ten years. They’re still wondering where the cores went.

They’re still building them near fault lines, on seashores, and other places where catastrophe can easily happen. ]

And then there’s the waste that was not mentioned. Tons of it stored on site.

Lets compare a gas/coal power plant to a nuke. When a gas/coal plant blows up there is a big hole in the ground. The plant is damaged but repairable if so desired.

A nuke blows up and 500 square miles (or more) is useless for many years. No telling how many die of the cancers and other problems. And don’t tell me they won’t blow up. They are first on the list for war and terrorists. It’s already been mentioned to blow Iran’s nuke power plant. Israel has already tried to damage it by stuxnet worm.

Nuke plants are dangerous due to Mans never ending desire to kill each other.

And the carbon issue (like covid ) is a globalist scam and anyone with two working brain cells know it.

Leisure Larry
Leisure Larry
5 days ago
Reply to  ken

Retired nuke engineer here.

Fukushima was caused by hierarchical Asian culture. Watch air crash investigation shows: Junior crew were afraid to confront captain and watched passively as he flew them to their doom.
More than once.

Also, Fukushima emergency diesels should have been placed on high ground in a known tsunami region.

Chernobyl was Israeli sabotage.

Tzvi
Tzvi
5 days ago
Reply to  Leisure Larry

If you have links /info on Chernobyl sabotage that would be helpful…

Kieran
5 days ago
Reply to  Leisure Larry

thanks for letting us know what caused Fukushima. Now why can’t you fix it. why do you have to empty contaminated water into the Pacific.

Leisure Larry
Leisure Larry
5 days ago
Reply to  Kieran

Depends on actual volume and level of contamination.

But, yeah — they could just boil it down to sludge, encase it and store on land. Don’t really know the situation there.

Tzvi
Tzvi
5 days ago
Reply to  ken

I personally know people who live too close to the Nuclear reactors in Southern Alabama suffer cancer at a tremendous rate…

yuri
yuri
5 days ago

anti-nuke morons prefer medieval ugliness—advanced Russian tech recycles most of nuclear waste–now being used produced in Belarus Hungary, turkey, India, Africa, Indonesia, Bangladesh, etc

Tzvi
Tzvi
5 days ago
Reply to  yuri

Still cant capture Tritium…in the USA the nuke plants are leaking by design:

https://yourradiationthisweek.org/

As for the former USSR, one million excess deaths due to Chernobyl:

http://strahlentelex.de/Yablokov_Chernobyl_book.pdf

Drapetomaniac
Drapetomaniac
5 days ago

Let’s look at this in another light.

Suppose you were a local population that survived entirely off a nearby lake. Then suppose some outsiders showed and started polluting the lake and killing off the life in it. The locals would strongly resist.

Now consider the mindset of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. They lived entirely off nature since It was their only means of survival. Then about 15,000 years ago, settlements and plant and animal husbandry developed. Those ancestors mastered the use of nature and survived because of that mastery. They weren’t beholden to nature, they used nature and sometimes were abused by nature. Their mindset was very different from the hunter-gatherers’ mindset – often being in opposition.

Now to our era. The population of descendants that possess a mindset most like that of the hunter-gatherers happens to be the modern day liberal while the population of descendants that possess a mindset most like that of the settlement folk are the cconservatives. Their approaches to. survival are very much in opposition, one to protect nature for survival and the other to use nature for survival.

Leisure Larry
Leisure Larry
5 days ago
Reply to  Drapetomaniac

Stay in the rathskellar, dood.

Drapetomaniac
Drapetomaniac
4 days ago
Reply to  Leisure Larry

Not a very good reply even from someone who thinks emotionally.

Leisure Larry
Leisure Larry
4 days ago
Reply to  Drapetomaniac

As if you have any concept of how the world works. Take your campus bloviation elsewhere.

Kieran
5 days ago

ever since fracking began in US and Canada the humongous methane released has caused weather changes like El Nino effect causing droughts and floods and is responsible for the near uncontrollable fires that have devastated Australia, California, Canada, Russia, Greece and so on. Methane has 300 times global warming potential (GWP) of carbon but thanks to vested interests the blame is heaped on carbon and carbon is taxed which is a tax on life itself. Modern agriculture practiced in the West using nitrogen fertilizer and feel lots produce a lot of nitrous oxide which also has several 100 times global warming potential of carbon. somehow Paris Cop 21 made carbon the chief villain of climate change but ignored methane and nitrous oxide which chiefly drive abnormal weather patterns

Ilya G Poimandres
Ilya G Poimandres
5 days ago

The mods should have a look at the Allam’s cycle and NETPower’s 0 atmospheric emission natural gas tech too – that stuff is worth showing to people. As The Orange One would say – gonna be yuuuuge!

Mr Reynard
Mr Reynard
5 days ago

Climate hoax is propagated by GanGreen……
& what do you have to do to extirpate gangrene ??

starviego
starviego
4 days ago

Nuclear power is the dirtiest of all energy sources. They still haven’t figured out how to safely store all that depleted uranium for the next hundred million years or so.

Anti-Empire