Skip to main content

Australia's Big Coal Ad Against Nuclear Power

Rod Adams received this ad from a fellow blogger the other day and posted about it.
It is a very straightforward effort by the coal industry to scare people about nuclear power - not really so much about the typical aspects of nuclear power that some try to use to instill fear, but the threat that nuclear power poses to coal mining jobs.

This kind of ad can only work in a place like Queensland that has a high concentration of miners, but it supports my theory that a lot of what you read about energy needs to be viewed in the context of knowing that it is the world's largest and often most lucrative business. Competition over market share is often the hidden motive behind the emotionally laden messages from all kinds of different people.
Depleted Cranium picked up on Rod's post and shared these thoughts:
The thing I especially like about this is that it singles out nuclear as a threat to coal. Wind? Solar? Oh those are no threat. Build as many wind turbines as you want. Build solar plants. That has no affect on the job security of coal miners.

Also, it apparently is becoming harder and harder to lie about the facts regarding nuclear power’s economics or safety. So what’s left? Just try to cry for sympathy and be a little more honest, stating that the real reason is that the opposition has a vested interest in a competing and inferior power generation method, I guess.
I wonder what would happen if the coal industry in the US ran an ad like that. I bet they would get ridiculed online.

Comments

perdajz said…
Antinukes often indavertently make arguments that actually support nuclear power. This fantastic example should make all of us pro-nukes grin from ear to ear.

The coal industry admits it: in the long run we can't compete with the superior technology, so we're appealing to your goodwill to save our jobs. They also inadvertently say that piddle power (wind and solar) is inadequate. If piddle power actually had a chance of supplanting coal, you can bet these coal miners would let you know.

Yes, absolutely. Nuclear power will kill the coal mining industry. It's way overdue.
Arvid said…
Will the nuclear industry kill coal?

Yes We Can!


/Starvid
richardw said…
And the coal industry is powerful in Australia. Nuclear is just not on the Agenda since change of Govt. and was always unpopular.

Meanwhile the coal industry's stranglehold is being cut back slowly.

The cost of Wind power in Auistralia is now below coal power. Coal power plants are just not going to be built - so if you think it's a battle between Nuclear and Coal in Aus. you are sadly mistaken.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…